Talk:José Silva (parapsychologist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Permissions

Dear Editor,

Avlis Publishing is licended to present Jose Silva's UltraMind ESP System and to use the copyrights that Mr. Silva holds. To do this, we have several web sites, including www.AvlisPub.com and www.UltraMind.ws.

We feel that Mr. Silva should be recognized in the Wikipedia for his tremendous contributions to the field, and that is why we asked Dolores Mitchell to help us with this. If there is any question about using the material, please contact me.(after lunch).

Thank you.

Ed Bernd Jr.

Mr Bernd contacted the Wikipedia Help Desk asking him to remove his details. Capitalistroadster 04:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Editor,

Avlis Publishing gave me prior permission to publish the article on Jose Silva. See above.

Thank you,

Dracaena (aka Dolores Mitchell)

This release does not say that they have released it under GFDL, which is required for release to Wikipedia. Are they also aware that the article can be brutally edited? RickK 05:17, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Edits

Would it be appropriate I if I linked to Jose Silva's obituary in the Laredo Morning Times? --Victor 12:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Victor, IMHO, an obituary link would be very appropriate. Appropriately marked as an external link, of course.  :->

To all Wikipedians: This entire article in its present state is just boosterism to put it kindly. The main question is really whether or not we should delete all the text and declare it a stub, then request neutral-point-of-view contributions? Wholesale deletion of text is almost an antonym of "encyclopedia", so I'm refraining, just barely. There are almost certainly useful facts that can be salvaged from it. The problem is finding someone qualified to separate the official myth of Silva from the actual facts of Silva. Unfortunately, I am not currently up to the task of writing an NPOV wikipedia entry describing a very brief biography of Silva and explaining to general readers the relevancy to wider society he had. He certainly was relevant, and remains so, although somewhat controversial. (Click NPOV to refer to the official Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View.)

Do other wikipedians who are more versed in the standards and protocol for wikipedia than I am think it is better to delete the article entirely or better to heavily edit out everything that appears to be non-NPOV, and go on from there? I just spent a couple of hours reading policy and didn't find an answer. But part of my disability is cognitive problems, including sometimes not "seeing" the very words I'm reading. I bet official policy clearly addresses this and I didn't see it.

Remember that appearance of NPOV may not guarantee actual accuracy. As a generic example, it's almost human nature to lie about one's age, so even such apparently neutral facts should be checked in any biographical article, where possible. -L (still haven't created user account, sigh) 10:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Not knowing anything about Jose Silva this article is far from the NOPV standard that Wikipedia requests. It frankly read more like an endorsement of him and the methods he developed. You are correct that some of the facts can be used, but in a more neutral way. It would also be vital for the article to include a critique section of his theories and methods. I'm in no doubt that plenty of such would exist on a controversial subject as this must be.

I think some of the biographical info can be kept - but much of it must be neutralised. His theories and methods should also stay, but in a neutral fashion with critique - positive and negative - included. So yes, I believe a serious clean-up is in order. 80.213.22.217 10:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I have read the entry as it exists on May 8, 2006, and it appears to me that it reads pretty much just as Jose wrote (or approved) it in his book "The Silva Mind Control Method."

I *vehemently* disapprove of having persons unacquainted with Jose and his teachings edit or reject claims of the results of his teachings based upon their own limited understandings. Simply because a person does not believe that psychic or the other abilities Jose taught can be developed should not give that person a right to impose their view upon others who have more experience or knowledge.

I am very distressed by the status quo at Wikipedia that has people who do not believe in metaphysical phenomenon (particularly, it seems, people who are members of the Randi-worship cult) writing or editing the articles on these phenomenon. As I have noted elsewhere, that would be like having Satanists or extreme Islamists editing the articles on Jesus and Christianity. It is extraordinarily improper and, I believe, should be firmly rejected by this community.

Does the dictionary, in its definitions, offer arguments against those concepts that the editors do not believe in? Does the encyclopedia? Is everything that does not fall within the limited understanding of the editors suddenly not "NPOV"?

The writer above is decrying the very nature of Wikipedia. Anyone on either side of a controversial issue would certainly agree with the above. If the "truth" is consensual, then only the widest held beliefs have any validity, and there is little room for discussion. When you are in the minority, and you have specific knowlege that the majority lacks, it's hard not to get your back up when presented with someone wanting to edit material that presents your (controversial) viewpoint. Perhaps in this case the text could be tagged as a quote from the book mentioned?

I took the classes in the Silva Method (which was then known as "Silva Mind Control") in the early 70's and had quite remarkable results. Whether you believe in it or not, until you have done something, you can't really say that it doesn't work. But this site is encycolpedic in nature, so neutrality should be at least attempted. Unfortunately, true neutrality is virtually impossible. Those who believe these kinds of techniques are a fraud and the originators are charlatans will modify the articles keeping this in mind. Those who fervently believe in the veracity and value of the subject matter at hand tend to let that effect their contributions as well. This is human nature. I suspect the best way to handle these topics is to try and involve both camps. If a revision is contemplated, propose it here and let it be vetted by both sides, rather than simply wholesale editing, back and forth, until the dust settles. --Jerel 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with NPOV but I disagree that every section needs to be discussed before editing happens. There doesn't seem to be enough action at the moment to worry about an editing war, so I'm planning to just give it a go. (Which doesn't mean I'm not willing to discuss, of course.) I'm intending to remove the narrative features (the casual quotes, rhetorical questions etc.) and pare down to facts. I also think that the uncited endorsements need to be removed immediately. For the moment, I'll just comment them out but leave them in the code so that if anyone can come up with a proper citation for them they won't be completely lost. Cpastern 23:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I finished the NPOV edits and removed the tag. In terms of further improvement, I would suggest that more description of the various training methods be added near the bottom, perhaps more details about the various publications and/or organizations, a better section on any studies proving or criticizing the method, and maybe something about his later life, if there's anything notable there. Cpastern 02:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I have started the 'cleanup.' I took his classes in the mid 1960s, but have had no contact in years. I will make an effort over the next couple of weeks to revist the article and bring it into a NPOV. Others are, as always, welcome to join in. Doc 13:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/Talk%7EJos%C3%A9_Silva_%28parapsychologist%29_023b.html"