Talk:Séance

Talk:Séance/Permission

Problems with this article

I'm sorry, because I realise the procedures outlined on this page are the product of well-meaning investigation, but this is not the sort of thing that should be presented as accepted fact on CZ. I can see our critics having a field day with this. Despite the notice at the top, the whole thing is undermining scientific principles, and the neutrality on which CZ is based: e.g. that there is a supernatural realm, that humans survive the deaths of the brains and can become ghostly entities, etc. At best, this could go on a subpage such as an invited article. Otherwise, it should be completely rewritten or deleted. John Stephenson 20:23, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

I have to agree. It is written in the style of a personal essay. And as fact. Chris Day (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Well, seances do happen and I would think people would like to read about them. I do agree that this is not written from a neutral position, i.e. as if it is accepted fact, but it shouldn't take too much to clear that up if all are willing. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:53, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Here is the first section:

• Ghosts are harmless. There is nothing to fear. If an entity is perceived, simply view it as evidence of an afterlife, that the dead are alive.

Could go something like this:

• Those who practice the art of seance claim that ghosts are harmless, that there is nothing to fear. They believe that, if an entity is perceived, it is evidence of an afterlife, that the dead are alive.

What do you think? --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:02, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

I'd suggest:

• There are individuals that suggest an afterlife exists, and in order to communicate with those beyond the grave, a seance may be performed. The belief is that if an entity is perceived, sufficient evidence of an afterlife exists. It is also believed that 'ghosts' (the dead that exist in the spirit realm) are harmless and there is no reason to fear them.

comments? --Robert W King 21:10, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

That works for me, too. I'll leave it to you guys to decide how to work it out. Remember that User:Mark Mirabello is an editor in history. Mark, I am not sure whether this article is approaching seance from a historical perspective, but if it is then perhaps you could make some notes at the top of this page to let us know what direction you have in mind. Also, lets get a checklist up on this article so we know who the editors are that can make decisions concerning content. --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:26, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

In Robert's rewriting, the sentiment is all right, I suppose, but the prose needs improvement. I don't mean to pick on you, Robert, but come on--that's a perfect example of Wikipedese. "There are individuals that suggest..." and "It is also believed..." are stilted and vague. Strunk and White (highly recommended for tightening up prose--have you bought it yet?) would recommend a rewriting to remove the passive voice. But to write in the active voice, I suspect you need to know more about the subject, i.e., you need to know more about who makes such suggestions and holds such beliefs. Frankly, in an article aimed at the college level, we hardly need to state such banalities as that some people believe an afterlife exists. Of course, the fact that Mark's text simply assumed it exists is also unacceptable...  :-) --Larry Sanger 22:05, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

I agree we should have a description of how a séance occurs but the current prose are unacceptable. Do you see the bit about "Don't laugh"? I have a good sense of humour but this is not what an encyclopedia is about. Also, it should not be written in the first person. Chris Day (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Yes--definitely, Chris. Mark, I'm sure you'll be reading this at some point, but really, claims like "Ghosts are harmless" and "To contact a spirit, certain conditions are helpful" are far beyond neutral. This bias is so obvious, I think you may not have grasped what we're up to, or you don't care, or--maybe more likely--you were just quickly uploading some text and you thought you or someone else would whip it into shape. Well, please don't upload stuff that's that obviously biased.  :-) --Larry Sanger 22:05, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

There are other issues here too. The sourcing for this material appears to come from his own web site. This starts to enter a conflict of interest area if it is written in a biased manner. I don't know if it is biased since I know nothing of seances but I can't believe his web site is the only useful source on this subject. Seances have a long and rich tradition, there must be many sources available for this topic. I would be less concerned except on the Brotherhood of Odin article I see there are lot of references to geocities sites, possibly Marks site too, I don't know, but I take pause when reviewing articles that are citing geocities web sites so freely. Chris Day (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

I just paraphrased what was already there. To Mark, I think there are several themes worth expanding on here. The transition to the use of a crystal ball sounds quite interesting. Also have a section outlining the various themes with regard to the compass points and the bowl of olive oil. You had some of this in brackets but it was lost in my rewrite. One puzzeling bit, you wrote that the west is characterised by the setting sun and the rising moon. Rising moon?? This is a typo, right? Chris Day (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

I ran through it, too, re-org and neutrality, not complete of course. We need foremost to get some solid sources in here, I think. I'd venture there are some very old texts that might particularly add value here. Stephen Ewen 00:26, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Steve, I noticed that you broadened the scope of the introduction to a generalized anthropological concept rather than a specific practice. That's fine with me, but if we're going to approach the subject that way, we might as well ditch the current body of the article and start over. The "procedure" and "conditions" sections apply only very narrowly within Western traditions. I'm not even convinced that they apply more broadly than one person or one small group's preferences. --Joe Quick 01:39, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

We ought include that narrow scope. As for chopping parts of it--well, the best pieces of writing are often achieved with knife and not the pen. :-) Stephen Ewen

Let me suggest this go in the anthro workgroup for the best chances of a solid article not dominated by pop stuff. Stephen Ewen 01:59, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

NOTE: I removed the red link to "soul" that was piped by "spirits" and linked directly to "spirits". But I'd rather avoid the debate as to why for now. :-) Stephen Ewen 02:08, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

skeptics

I feel very strongly that there ought to be a prominent mention in this article about all the people (such as Houdini and Martin Gardiner and The Amazing Randi) who believe that all of this is nonsense -- and who have actively debunked everything they've ever looked into. Sure, there should be an article about seances, but there be a large section with the views of people who think it's baloney -- and have hard evidence to back up their opinions. Hayford Peirce 22:10, 20 December 2007 (CST)

Sources

EBSCO (all databases) turns up:

• Ludy T. Benjamin Jr.; David B. Baker. From Seance to Science: A History of the Profession of Psychology in America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2004. 266 pp. ISBN 0-15-504264-5

• Gauld, Alan (1968). The Founders of Psychical Research; New York Schocken, 1968 Pp xii + 387

• The Other World: Spiritualism and Psychical Research in England, 1850-1914 By Janet Oppenheim