Talk:Spiritualism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Spiritualism was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: January 22, 2008


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.


Contents

[edit] Good article nomination

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article and it is close to meeting the GA criteria. However, five improvements are needed:

  • the lead section needs to include another paragraph which helps to better summarise the article (please see WP:LEAD).
  • another paragraph or two in the "After the 1920s" section would help to provide more information on contemporary Spiritualism.
  • where possible, a citation should be added to paragraphs without a reference.
  • more information is needed in the reference list and, where possible, more page numbers should be added to items in the reference list; perhaps use the Mary Wollstonecraft (FA) article as a guide.
  • where possible, images should be rearranged so that text is not squeezed between them, as the result is not good when the article is printed out.

I'm putting this article on hold as the article is close to GA status, however the issues noted above should be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I added some material on the Interwar period and the move towards the New Age movement. I do not think this is sufficient yet to match your mark and I think we need some more; in particular measuring the decline in the Spiritualist and Spiritualist church movements at the same time as the popularization, and commercialization, of spiritualistic activities as a whole, e.g. channelling, mediumship, outside of the religious context. Post-WWII to late 1960s-early 70s, say.
I added a few paragraphs more on the feminist aspects of the movement and attempted to make good on more references and citations. Equally, a spent some considerable time doing grunt work on sorting out the topic links through the Wiki, attempting to separate those that related to Spiritualism (religious movement) and general spiritualism leaving an active stub there.
Are we there yet? Perhaps ... it is up to you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Some progress has been made with this article, but there is also considerable instability, and it is still not worthy of GA status at this time. Please consider re-submitting the article after suggested improvements are made. -- Johnfos (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article move without agreement

The move was in my view unilateral. First, the use of "religious movement" is a good example of a technically correct phrase that is probably inappropriate in this usage. You would not call the Catholic church a religious movement in a modern context. As a matter of fact, I would think you were being sarcastic if you did. Spiritualism is a religion and no longer a cultural trend. Calling the religion of spiritualism a religious movement is technically correct but inappropriate for contemporary usage.

Had Espoo bothered to open the subject for discussion, rather than quote dictionaries over and over and then move the article without discussion, I would have been happy to have the opportunity to argue that the article should be moved to "Religious Spiritualism" and a new article begun as "Philosophical Spiritualism." In consideration of Anthon's point about links, a "Spiritualism" disambiguation page with links to the two aspects. Tom Butler (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not unilateral because, as I said, I certainly agreed and I think if you look at the academic literature it would support the renaming.
It was actually Athon that tightly defined, or argued, that the topic on Spiritualism was about the historical religious movement rather than a general use of the word.
Espoo did discuss. In my opinion, I agree with you both you and Espoo that the term spiritualism (small 's') is used far more widely that just to related to the C19th religious movement. One of the big difference between Catholicism and that religious movement was that Catholicism was 'a' Christian church with a tightly defined credo and structure (Vatican) most or all of the academic sources support that the "weakness" of Spiritualism in this aspect, i.e. that it was a very broad and unorganized "church". In fact, it was not a church at all, it was a movement of many churches and individuals, and a movement from which churches have arisen.
Please remember that, ultimately, it is not "opinion" or faith than defines the wikipedia but easily referable academic references and citations and any counter-argument really ought be supported by those. Whereas many of the sources do refer to "Modern Spiritualism", I do not know any that refer to "Religious Spiritualism" and certainly none of the main ones. "Philosophical spiritualism", (in contrast to "philosophical materialism", e.g. of Karl Marx) is an entirely difference use of the word. I am sorry to say but I think those would probably fail as "original research" (WP:OR) and unhelpful to Wikipedia seekers.
I suggest that if you can provide references, please do so on the general spiritualism. Personally, I do see "spiritualism" as an all inclusive general term for a wide ranges of faiths and practises as old as time, as we agreed. However, I am at pains to find the earliest use of the term as yet (perhaps 1796). Blame me for padding out the stub with other dictionary definitions as a start, but I will stand by my opinion that the terms spiritualism and spiritism are used more broadly than just referring to their relative religious movements. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I have seen the word "Spiritualism" used without qualification, its denotation has been identical with the content of the Wikipedia "Spiritualism" article that has been abruptly moved to "Spiritualism (religious movement)." That is how the topic is treated in my 1986 Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 25, pp. 514-16.

I propose that this article be restored to its original title, "Spiritualism." Nihil novi (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

One swallow maketh no summer" ... to quote Bacon. Let's skip the hyperbole, this has been up for discussion for quite some while. I think the problem most of us have is that we agree that the manifestation of spiritualism are universal and timeless, most certainly did NOT start in 1840s, and continues since. Even if we change that to Modern Spiritualism or "the term Spiritualism first appeared in the 1840s", as I noted it has been recorded back as far as 1796. This is the way a dictionary or encyclopedia would decide matters; earliest related existence.
Although Athon removed the word "Modern", I actually think that was more accurate and congruent with the literature. I think the topic of spiritualism needs to be developed by way of a disambiguation page but that the nigh dictionary definitions point the way forward to the different uses. I will be completely honest, I had not read of the philosophical use of the word before and it is quite precise (and not as we would all understand it). --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Three quick points:
  1. If there is no consensus for a move, then there is a specific (protocol) that should be followed. There was no consensus (Lucy had her discussions with Espoo on his talk page, not here), and Espoo did not follow the protocol.
  2. The move did some real damage. It needs to be repaired. I think the easiest thing would be to undo the move, and then try to make everyone happy with changes that we can agree on. I think Espoo can most easily undo the move, since he knows exactly what he did.
  3. Finally, let me clarify Lucy's assertion that the word spiritualism dates back to 1796. The word spiritualism has several meanings. The OED does give a date of 1796 to one of those meanings, but not the meaning relevant to this article. Below is a paste from the OED entry for spiritualism:
1. The exercise of the mental or intellectual faculties, or their predominance over body. rare. 1831 CARLYLE Sart. Res. II. viii, Savage Animalism is nothing, inventive Spiritualism is all.
2. a. Tendency towards, or advocacy of, a spiritual view or estimate of things, esp. as a leading principle in philosophy or religion.1796 [see IDEAL n. 1]. 1836 LYTTON Athens (1837) II. 408 The serene and lofty spiritualism of Anaxagoras. 1857 ROBERTSON Serm. Ser. III. i. (1857) 6 We find the Unitarian of the old school denouncing the spiritualism of the new and rising school. 1869 SEELEY Ess. & Lect. v. 133 Religion re-assumed its ancient Judaic form of austere and ardent spiritualism. 1884 Contemp. Rev. Feb. 264 The very source of [Dante's] inspiration is the austere spiritualism of the Catholic creed.
b. A spiritual view or aspiration. 1850 CARLYLE Latter-d. Pamph. vii. (1872) 224 Like a set of grisly undertakers come to bury the dead spiritualisms of mankind.
c. Spiritual nature or quality.1855 MILMAN Lat. Chr. XIV. ii. (1864) IX. 96 Dante [could] represent such things with the most objective truth, yet without disturbing their fine spiritualism.
3. The belief that the spirits of the dead can hold communication with the living, or make their presence known to them in some way, esp. through a ‘medium’; the system of doctrines or practices founded on this belief. Cf. SPIRITISM. Also specifically called modern spiritualism by way of distinction from sense 2. 1853 J. DIX Transatlantic Tracings xiv. 244 Every two or three years the Americans have a paroxysm of humbug..at the present time it is Spiritual-ism. 1855 E. W. CAPRON (title), Modern Spiritualism, its Facts and Fanaticisms, its Consistencies and Contradictions. 1860 All Year Round No. 66. 370 Witchcraft, demonology, possession, and the like, revived in the modest phrase of Spiritualism. 1878 T. SINCLAIR Mount 37 Spiritualism, or, as its advocates name it now on both sides of the Atlantic, Spiritism. 1886 MYERS Phant. Living I. Introd. p. lix, On this basis the creed of ‘Modern Spiritualism’ has been upbuilt.
4. Belief in the existence and influence of spiritual beings. 1850 J. R. LOGAN in Jrnl. Indian Archipelago IV. 552, I would proceed at once to facts illustrative of the different forms of spiritualism which prevail in Eastern Asia and Asianesia. 1867 E. B. TYLOR in Proc. R. Inst. V. 90 A slight acquaintance with the spiritualism of the savage has sometimes led to its being considered as the result of a degeneration from the opinions of more cultured races. 1871 TYLOR Prim. Cult. I. 385 The sense of Spiritualism in its wider acceptation, the general doctrine of spiritual beings, is here given to Animism.
--Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong Athon, look above and you will see I did enter into the conversation. That is the second time I have picked you up for not entirely honest assertions to push your POV. Fine, if yotu have a POV, exercise but don't lower yourself to a dirty tricks campaign on me. I left just one line on Espoo's page out of courtesy.
You also ignore my comment about "Modern Spiritualism" or " Modern American Spiritualism", which most is substantiated by the literature.
At the end of the day, a dictionary is a dictionary and not an expert in the subject. To my reading, it is only you that insists on limiting the use of the term spiritualism to the religious movement and it is that insistence that has brought about the current situation. My assertion is that the literature certainly supports much wider use, including those you gratefully have provided and I will work on. I am very greateful for the J. R. LOGAN references
For less energy that you have spent on the above, you could have just fixed things. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swedenborg and Spiritualism

I have temporarily removed Swedenborg from the template to make Athon happy but I think it is wrong to.

There is something subtle and discreet here going on, the difference between spiritualism and spiritualists and Modern Spiritualism, as it is referred to academics, and therefore Modern Spiritualists (referring to the religious movement of the late C19th early C20th only).

I think Anthon is making a point that Swedenborg was not a Modern Spiritualist, which is correct. However, his inclusion within the template for "Spiritualistic topics" does not state that he was. It merely connects him, as he is well recognised in being connected, to the Spiritualistic tradition and discussion. A simple Google confirms this.

To remove an entire template on the basis of the argument you appear to be using does not seem to entirely reasonable. But let us not pretend that it is not part of a bigger problem you have. So, let's discussion it Anthon, what is the problem?

I think we need to be very conscious of the use of language here and relate it to the references in which there is a universally accepted connection between Swedenborg and spiritualism, one the New Church agrees with. I quote Conan Doyle; great religious reformer and clairvoyant medium, as little understood by his own followers as ever the Christ has been.

Its a bit like saying we should not have Jesus in an article on Christianity because he was a Jew not a Christian. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Infobox

Your template is redundant. A month ago a template was created by User:Midnightblueowl and placed in the article. It was placed unobtrusively, at the bottom of the article, as a template should be placed. The Swedenborg comment was for another edit. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose we had better itemise this then. So what is your problem with the template, here; Template:Spiritualism_small, Anthon? I see you proposed its deletion, here; [1] and then went and lobbied for support with others.
Cant you want until it goes through that process? I think many users not quite so specialised as you might fine it very usual as it brings together the broad spectrum of spiritualistic (note NOT spiritualist), topics. Thank you
As I have repeated on talk pages, what is your real issue here? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Geez! When people disagree with you doesn't mean they are edit warring! Maybe you should listen to what they are saying. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry Anthon, I have read through this talk page and you got off to a bad start with me by trying to throw muck at me ... which happened to be quite erroneous and I have been following those condescending quips. Quips others have had a lashing from, e.g. 13 year boys etc.
If you want to try a fresh start, I am up for it. Please go ahead and try and be reasonable this time as should befit a PhD. I am sorry but the Wikipedia is too full of people putting other people down and not enough filling in the citations and doing the grunt work. Show me which references or citations are wrong and show me yours. Otherwise it is all POV and counts for little. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post WWII to 1960s/70s

As far as I can see, in line with the GA nomination, the bit we are missing out is Post WWII to 1960s/70s. I touched on the Indian Summer post-WWI but I have no data on the late 40s/50s and the segue into the Hippie/New Age ... or what the church/movement was doing then.

From my own experience, I saw in decline and saw it re-invigorated by the Mind-Body-Spirit movement and commercialised ... but I have not any academia to back that up.

Anyone going to help rather than snipe? You can see how where fits in the article --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


I am still looking for help with the history of the movement in American during the 50s and 60s. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology and templates

  • Why call 19th-20th-century Spiritualism, in its article-title, a "religious movement"? If this was a "religious movement," then weren't other spiritualisms also "religious movements"?
  • If other spiritualisms (see current article, "Spiritualism") are qualified with adjectives such as "Christian," "French," "Native American," "Japanese," etc., then what need is there to call 19th-20th-century Spiritualism, "Spiritualism (religious movement)"? "Spiritualism," without qualification, is generally understood to mean that 19th-20th-century Spiritualism.
  • What need is there for two competing templates?
Nihil novi (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Good points. As further evidence that "Spiritualism," without qualification, is generally understood to mean 19th-20th-century Spiritualism, one can look at the history of WP itself: English WP had reached 2,405,193 articles before anyone showed up who thought otherwise. WP policy is quite clear on this: use common names whenever possible (here's the policy: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)). Before, when one went to Google and wrote "define: spiritualism" in the search box, one received a list of responses about the religious movement (including the first sentence from this article). It was the common use of the word. One important reason to retain the title is so that WP can continue to provide the definition through Google and other search engines.
We began above a discussion about the meaning of spiritualism. Look again at the OED definitions. Spiritualism can mean spiritual as in spiritual vs. material. In this sense philosophers use it, and this is the oldest meaning. It can also mean spiritual as in having something to do with spirits. Here there are two different ways in which it can be used. The first has to do with the religious movement, and "spirits" are only those of discarnate humans. The second has a broader meaning, and will be seen in older anthropological works, referring to belief systems in which any kind of spirit exists--in short, animism.
So who is going to grab the title "Spiritualism"? There are three potential claimants: 1) philosophers who want to write about Feuerbach, etc.; 2) religious-studies folks who want to write about the religion treated in this article; 3) again religious-studies specialists who want to write about animism. I think the second group has by far the greater right to the title, since it is by far the most common use of the word.
As for the template, it doesn't belong in this article, for the reasons stated here. Even if the template survives the deletion process, there is no reason to include it here.
--Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Why "a movement"? It is all to do with the significance and notability of its placement, form and effect. Sadly, both we and those academics that preceded us are ignorant to other cultures and languages and hence have been ignore them. Hence "Modern American Spiritualism" has become known as the spiritualist religious movement ... especially to Americans. I, personally, am attempting to broaden that outlook both culturally, geographically and from a gender based point of view. If you notice, my edits have all been based on the given academic references which counter your assertion, Nihili ... of which you appear not to refer to.
The new topic certainly allows for the extension of the meaning of the word (ethical, philosophical, epistemological etc) to be developed. It was certainly my intent. All we are doing is waiting for an educated someone to come forward, with expertise, and develop those other definitions. Unfortunately, my powers of manifestation from the ether are limited to the grunt work I am putting in.
You appear to me to be contradicting yourself here, Anthon, because just a day or two ago, you were chiding me to another because apparently I did not know the difference between spiritualism and animism. Now you appear to be correlating them yourself from the anthropological point of view? And I question your knowledge because only a few days ago, you removed the word Modern from 'Modern Spiritualism' as the topic is known.
I offered sub-titles as counter points to the assertion that spiritualism, and the reference to such manifestations AS "spiritualism" in academia, is NOT limited to what I think we should correctly call "Modern American Spiritualism" and which both pre and post date it. Would you agree to moving the topic to that title?
Please base your arguments on academic references or counter those academic references that I have provided to support the broader us of the word spiritualism; otherwise they are just POV. The world has moved on. So has the use of the word spiritualism in academia and general usage.
I think the simple answer to the question, "why?" is basically about balance. There is variance, one has to intuit what the seeker is seeking for when they come looking for their answers ... the current proposals are the best balance to date, although I suggests we could develop each article into new sub-topics in time.
Applying Occam's Razor to your statistical analysis, my crystal ball says that perhaps there are just not many individuals with specialist knowledge, time and inclination, and who know how to use a computer, that want to develop in depth spiritualistic topics? Seem reasonable enough. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed changes

One problem with editing rapidly is that it takes time for other editors to understand and accept changes. As I look at the barrage of work done here over the past two weeks, I see some real problems: images removed, text removed, and copyrighted material pasted in. I can't agree with all of these changes, and wish they had been done at a more leisurely pace, so that we could have discussed them. I would like to undo some of these, but don't want to act unilaterally. Does anyone else agree that, at a minimum, we restore the deleted images and remove the copyrighted material? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Better yet, restore the status quo ante, including the article's original title, "Spiritualism," then make any changes incrementally, so as to integrate them in an organic fashion rather than by radical surgeries of implantation or excision. Nihil novi (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. It would certainly be less work than trying to pick out every shred of copyright violation, one by one. It also has the advantage that we can see what the article--over three years of give and take--had evolved to be, and help us stay on course as we make further changes.
Let me also add that the article as it is today is much too long. The best option for most content disputes would probably be to consider creating sub-articles. Look, for example, at the article on Kurdish people--every heading points to another "main" article. So if something doesn't appear to fit well here, it can find a home in a linked article. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As a contribution to the process, I have reverted the article to the status as of January 20, 2008, 03:26. Nihil novi (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks much better! Please, everyone, no more manic efforts to rewrite the article. Let's move slowly and give everyone a chance to think about changes. Consensus will produce a better article than one person's rushed effort to introduce one person's viewpoint.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, that is too major a deletion to take place all at once. Those are perfectly adequate refernces and citations. Please be cautious about your use of language towards others and their contributions and m ore than anything, base your own opinions on adequate references and citations.
And let's be honest about the shorthand, what you mean is remove my contribution without any discussion. We already have a main page with main tags leaading subsidiary pages at what is now Spiritualism (beliefs). I see this topic becoming more specific rather than general as it is focused primarily on th American experience. That appeared to me to be your original point of view.
It would be better to have it as Modern Spiritualism as it is more specifically referred to in academia. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name change?

The name of this article is confusing. Spiritualism was a movement; and, for some adherents, it was a religion. But there was no single Spiritualist "religious movement", and the wide diversity of religious beliefs made such a religious movement impossible. It is quite impossible to say, just to give two examples that come to mind, that writers as different in their views as Allan Kardec and Carl Wickland were within the same religious movement. I suggest changing the name of this article to "Spiritualist movement". Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points. Better yet, restore the original title, "Spiritualism." That, without verbal qualification, is the name given worldwide (not merely in the United States) to the movement that began in the U.S. in 1847, then spread to Europe, South America and elsewhere. Nihil novi (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I agree that "Spiritualism" would be the best name for a main article, with whatever separate articles are needed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You might wish to participate in the Requested-move survey. Nihil novi (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, although it may not be in your opinion, and it is correct to state it was a diverse movement, Modern Spiritualism or Modern Ammerican SPiritualism as it is referred to, is broadly documented in academia as a religious movement. This is born out in the references and is certainly true of its early period.
The earliest historians and proponents also pay respect to early forms of spiritualism and the meaning of term has continued to change and modify in both academic and general use right up until this day. Also born out in the references.
My question to Anthon especially. You cannot claim it does not have a broader use. If you wish to be specific, why not write a disciplined topic on, e.g. the Modern Spiritualism Movement (1840 to 1920) leaving Spiritualism to encompass the whole use of the word and the movement since? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leads/Intros & Consensus

Leads need to be compatible with WP:LEAD which calls for an Overview (See news style and summary style), not a list of tenets or excessive information like it is here. This information, if necessary to the article, should be included in the body of the article. Also, since this is apparently a controversial article where a lot of editors have been participating towards WP:GA status, massive changes should be discussed first and reach consensus before installation. I have reverted to last version before the massive changes were made[2]. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Neal, I am sorry but I cant accept for one moment that you have provided an honest summary for the revert. Why don't you just state;
"Reverted all of Lucyintheskywithdada again to see if she will fall into the same trap of WP:3RR and we can get her blocked"?
I just wanted to flag up the request of the GA adjudicator who requested that we brought the article to completion with documentation of uptodate events and so on. I add to this its role in the abolitionist movement and gender balance, or feminism, of which I am acutely aware.
I see no reason to remove references to "Modern Spiritualism" when that is what the references clear state and that is how the movement in known widely, especially in academic circles and replaced the principles as, if anything, these are the defining factors of the movement. We could always start a new topic to cover just these but at present it would seem best to keep them in. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF. My edits have always been for the betterment of the articles. The lead was not compatible with WP:LEAD and the other edits didn't have WP:CONSENSUS. It is my right as an editor to make non-disruptive reverts. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Neal, I also notice that in joining with Nihili and Anthon to block delete or revert all of my work, you also screwed up some of the references which I spent time sorting out and specifying. Not necessary.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Ditto templates ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucyintheskywithdada (talk • contribs) 15:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If I screwed up a reference by accident, I apologize. Maybe it is better to do as Anthon.Eff suggested and make a few changes at a time, so that all the editors can participate through discussion without having to make large reverts. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I will respond to both comments here. Thank you for your apology.
Unfortunately given the identical history of both parties at making mass deletion/reversions and the onslaught I have faced, it would be very difficult, not to say naive at this point to "assume good faith". Actions speaking louder than words. Again, unfortunately with Anthon the reversions are what I would call "innocent" but to progress a POV and per change to provoke censorship of me. We need to address directly that POV.
In essence, I see it as "does America own spiritualism?"
Was the modern American movement the alpha and omega of the spirit world? Does the rest of the world connote that word with it?
Obviously, from the references, the answer is no. No more than America owns the word Football, despite however many American adherents one can line up. It is obvious, that as with soccer [and idealism (philosophy) apparently], you have had to change things to suit yourselves in your home market. The rest of the world does not agree.
The ball is in the net ... I entirely agree with making topics more specific and accurate. I suggest that if you want to limit it to the American movement, then you call it just that. I would still support the feminist's point of view and role in the abolitionist movement though. We are also ignoring the advice and request of the GA admin. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The article must have sources for every fact for verifiability. Please source the material before adding it. I went through and tried to cleanup the article for structure and grammar and found that a great deal of the new material does not cite it's sources. There's only so many {{fact}} that can be used. The burden is for the editor who wishes to add material to properly source it, and every fact must be sourced. An example of facts that must be sourced is the previously added "The Declaration of Principles" section. It contained beliefs that Spiritualists supposedly adhere to, and dates that they were supposedly adopted, but no sources for any of it. Unsourced drafts can be written in editor's sandboxes. When they're installed in the mainspace they must be sourced.

It's also good to add a little at a time, so other editors can review the sources provided to make sure it's not Original Research and Synthesis. Original Research and Synthesis is a real concern here. By adding a little at a time, other editors can tag items they object to, without having to do a massive revert or litering the article with numerous tags. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you have again removed many reliable sources and hashed about with references that whose formatting I sorted out, e.g. the combined Braude and Carrol to push your POV.
My concern with the aggressive revision, and the vagueness of your criticism, remains the apparent lack of knowledge of the subject and access to academic sources, e.g. your "supposed" comments on "the Declaration of Principles".
No, let's not have any pretense in this matter. Basically there is a personal issue to this and you are exhibiting a sense of ownership WP:OWN over the topic that has spilled in from the spat over the template. I added significant and considerable references. I accept your grammatical correction but I find your stand point that original literature is not acceptable on the WIkipedia impossible to accept.
Can we just address the issue I raised using the example of the football page, would you call that original research or synthesis? Original research is not a short cut for "stuff I do not know".
Personally, I also prefer a topic where all the images are laid out regularly and are the same size .. how do other feel? It looks very messy to me as is. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
My POV is that original research should not be added to articles, that all facts must be reliably sourced, and that wording should be neutral. If you find dealing with that point of view frustrating, please refer to the pillars Wikipedia is founded on. No one WP:OWNs this article, certainly not me, but I'm not going to leave "draft" material in there when that should be fixed up before it's added. Once it goes in, it's subject to editing by other editors. "Supposedly" means exactly that. Without a source that shows where these "Declaration of Principles" come from, how am I or any reader/editor supposed to know if that's a set of principles they all share, if it comes from just one church, or what? You didn't add "significant and considerable references". What you did is doubled the size of the article with some sourced material and some unsourced material, all at once. It's wrong to make editors sort all of that for you. The better way is to draft the additions in a sandbox, source all of it, and then add it. It's also (again) helpful to other editors if you add a little at a time. Two editors have asked you to do that, and you still just added it all in one big chunk. --Nealparr (talk to me) 16:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. But try the links at the bottom of the page. To me, it is equivalent to turing up on a topic regarding the Bible and asking for a citation to the Ten Commandments.
I am sorry but it would be naive within the context of both your own actions and Anthon's mass disruption over the infobox etc, it is impossible to view such total reversion as anything less than a bad faith edit.
  • The references are all good ones and well presented.
  • You do not respond as to why you would revert to confusingly malformed citations etc. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There is still a great deal you added that is unsourced. You have whole paragraphs unsourced.
  • I reverted it previously because it is unfair to other editors to add massive amounts of information, much of it unsourced, and expect them to weed through it and fix it for you. When I reverted last time it's because I was trying to fix grammar errors and structure and finally got fed up with all of the unsourced material that I had to go through. I would have found a source for you on the Declaration had that been the only thing that needed fixing. But for some reason you feel the need to add massive amounts to the article even though editors have asked you repeatedly, a little at a time. Like now, I don't even know where to begin fixing it.
As you can see at the Ten Commandments article, it is all sourced, because there are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
My edits have been on the basis of the very many references and citations which are obvious if you do a comparison between the two versions. As much as I could see, I included your grammatical corrections except where I completely disagreed with them, e.g. the use of hyphens instead of commas.
Please check with those references. Ditto, I corrected bad references. I also improved one of the images, I will do more IF we are moving towards good faith editing and not revision warring.
Ditto, I noted the dates and places of the revisions at the NSAC conferences. Its really just a question of knowing the subject a little, following article links ... and asking first before trashing. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to personally let it simmer and see what other editors have to say about it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I've stated my objections to the content, and have other more pressing things to do. So I just wanted to leave a note in case someone had a question for me that I may not get to right away. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated reversions

If the "usual suspects" are going to pursue a policy of deleting all of my contribution, could they at least leave the fixed references and citations and copyedits etc. Otherwise it just smells of bad faith and dodgy edit summaries.

No one appears to be actually addressing the bulk of the content and the supporting references at all. I did pick up and follow the advice of the GA admin.

Thanks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's not a consensus to fix the refs, I'd be surprised. Can you make an edit just fixing those? (before adding additional material). Then if you get reverted again, the ref fixes would be separate. That's what I was saying earlier about incremental changes. I'd do it myself, but I don't know where in your edit the ref changes are since it's so much. --Nealparr (talk to me) 12:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


To be honest, until it is very clear that there is not just a total 'bad faith revisions' going on here, there is not a lot more I can say.
  • The formatting and sorting out of citations that I did was good.
  • The additional sections were reliably referenced.
  • I moved to respond to the needs advised by the GA admin
OK, let's be honest ... there are a few sour faces left over from the split and move of the topic but, to be frank, if only half as much energy was put into researching and developing other topics on spiritualism than revenge reversions then we would have an excellently well covered series of spiritualistic topics.
However, whoever wants to define "spiritualistic".
I completely support the continued definition of the terminology used and if Anthon, or whoever, wishes to write a focused topic on just 1840-1920, then I will help them. My vote is we move this page to Modern Spiritualism or Modern American Spiritualism for the sakes of clarity. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Lucy, you can't claim "bad faith reversions" when you're totally ignoring other editor's request to 1) Add new material in increments so that they can reasonably sort through it, and 2) Source all new material. As I said several times, there are whole paragraphs unsourced in the new material you're trying to add. You should expect reversions when the material is unsourced.
Moving the page to "Modern Spiritualism" is incompatible with WP:NAME which calls for naming the article "...what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" following the principle that "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." The clarity you want is achieved through a disambiguation page. --Nealparr (talk to me) 10:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Nihil novi, please notice, as you are all ignoring, that the version you are reverting from included improved images, formatting, copy edits and references.
Neal, how many non-American English speakers do you know or have you polled? I am sorry but for me all this wiki-legalese is just to cover for a brute force attempt to retake a generic term for its American usage. There is more to life that google. For me, when you write "whole paragraphs are unsourced" what it really means is "stuff I have not read so does not exist". The references are all there.
I am sorry but its simply not true on the basis of the academic literature and I have explained why a disambiguation page cannot be used. The term is used far more widely than other editors are attempting to limit it to, see below.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You keep talking about fixed refs being lost in the reversion but then you add almost double the article. Fix the damn refs if your concerned about it, but stop inserting a whole bunch of other unsourced garbage. "WWII and the Post-War years" has exactly two sources covering one sentence in a section of five full paragraphs, and that's only one section in the many you're trying to put in. Fix it first. If you're concerned about the refs, fix them in one edit before adding the additional unsourced stuff. When I write whole paragraphs are unsourced I mean exactly that whole paragraphs are unsourced. You don't know anything about what I've read, but the whole point of sourcing, citations, references, ect. is because you don't know what your readers have read. They can't read your mind. You source it so they can verify your content. Your continued insertion of unsourced material is just being disruptive. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Read the books or papers given and you will know where it is sourced from. None of it is unsourced. Your buckshot attack is too broad and there is no policy on the wiki about NOT adding content. My edit history is my record. I use references and citations and I do copyedits and formatting. I have seen so much of this kind of stuff that I would be stupid not to. Hence the confidence.
What is going here is both deeper and simpler than that and it would be naive not to recognise it. Nihil and Anthon are upset as losing the generic term and taking it out on me by purging my work. I did not even move the topic ... I am just a convenient whipping post.
If you think that section needs more references, please add them. Personally, I am waiting until the bad faith element has died down before I am willing to invest more time and energy doing more shovel work. In this case, I will count the wiki-links as valid references, folks have to put in a little effort of their own.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Inline citations are mandated
The related policy is WP:Verifiability (primary) which states "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Further, WP:CITE#HOW describes how sourcing should be done. It offers two ways: 1) General references (which is what you're claiming you're doing) and 2) Inline citations (which is preferred and required for GA and FA). Inline citations means no paragraph unsourced, or no content without a [1] type source. Here's is the text on inline citations:
...and inline citations, which are mandated by the featured article and good article criteria. Inline citations are references within the text that provide source information for specific statements. They are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations.
So do you see what the problem is? You're not providing inline citations, required for any meaningful status of the article (GA, FA), and are instead saying to other editors "Figure out what reference goes with what chunk of text eventhough I'm the one who added it". It's rude and disruptive because inline citations are needed here and you're putting all the burden on other editors. The burden is on whoever adds the content (you). So while you keep adding it saying "bad faith reversion", you're actually wrong. Editors have every right to revert your additions, and should if they want GA status. --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the problem is that there is no policy to assure that readers actually read given references (and no guarantee they can understand them) and so ignorance (by which I deliberately ignoring others or given information) can rule by force if it so wishes. Consequently, ignoring can be a very useful tool in pushing one's own POV.
I am sorry to all. Anyone would be a fool to believe that the issue here was purely about references or said policies.
I have been very clear what I mean by bad faith. The previous version had many formating and reference corrections, image improves and so on that are being erased deliberately. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Bad faith is slipping double the content of the article in while saying you're just trying to fix the references and images. If you just fixed the references and images, you probably wouldn't get reverted. It's doubling the article and saying it's all sourced, but providing few inline citations, that gets you reverted. You also refuse to work with people who have asked very simple things of you -- a little at a time so they can review it, and source it. That's all. You completely ignore them but complain here about bad faith, when it's you that refuses to collaborate. Makes no sense whatsoever. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that you need to be careful of what you accuse me of. I checked the history and, actually, I am not responsible for all of the additional content, some of it goes back a long way and I am happy to reference it.

There is no fault with the citations on the feminist view, the abolitionist, the Principles and everything that I actually added. Nor the improving of the images, the lay out and fixing referencing so on. They are accurate, wholly relevant and referenced.

It is the persistent erasure of those that is in bad faith. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I need to be careful of accusations? The editor who adds material is responsible for it. If you revert someone who deleted bad material it then becomes your responsibility, your contribution. If you make the choice to re-introduce material that someone else thought was unsourced bad material, it's your responsibility to source it. The other thing you're totally ignoring is that you're refusing to collaborate. You're completely ignoring requests to add a little at a time so they can review and discuss it. That's disruptive editing. Wikipedia only works by working well with others and you're telling everyone to piss off. --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph

As an aside, in the first paragraph it says;

"These spirits are believed to lie on a higher plane of existence than humans, and as such could provide living people with guidance in worldly and spiritual matters.".

I am not entirely comfortable with this. From my understanding it is not just (or perhaps note even) a "higher" plane but that spirits trapped on this plane and "lower" ones are also involved.

The references is undefined ... I am willing to put some work into narrowing this down 'IF there is consensus --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means. But a little at a time, so the rest of us can become comfortable with it as well. Please keep in mind that this article focuses on the period 1840s-1920s. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Only to your mind Anthon ... even the GA (good article) admin suggest bringing it up to date and the movement does live on.
As I continue to suggest, if you wish to limit it, then I think we should split it into a more refined topic, e.g. Modern American Spiritualism (1840s to 1920s). I think that would then remove most cause for conflict --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have a quick look at your significant edits Anthon and you seem to be changing matters without consensus, relevance to the citations or even spiritualist practises themselves, e.g. "can therefore provide living people with information about the afterlife" removing the reference to worldy guidance.
Now, frankly, anyone that has been to one spiritualist meeting knows that they do not limit themselves to merely "the afterlife". I am not going to pepper the article with citation requests, but what grounds do you have for your edits?
I will spend some time going over the changes closely.
As a side note to your summary edit, I did not remove the additional images but just went along with someone else removal of them. There would seem no reason to revert to lower quality or odd sized images.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moves going beyond discussion

I just want to flag up that the moves here went beyond the discussion.

It seems very unconstitutional that a "consensus" be agreed on the basis of seemingly two agreements where there were outstanding questions and two strong disagreements.

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The move was based on the survey [3]. There were seven "supports" and two "opposes", one of them from a new user who's only made a few edits total. The move request asked that the "Spiritualism (religious movement)" article be moved back to where it was before "Spiritualism", and that "Spiritualism (beliefs)" be a separate article from that. With only two dissents, one of them from a new user, that's what the community said they wanted. So that's what happened. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion was continuing on the other talk page. There was no consensus as yet. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The last edit to the survey was Feb. 4th. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion had continued to, and was going on, at the other talk page as you are well aware.
I particularly flagged this up as you have involved with Dreadstar before on this and they have spoken in your favour. Given the history, it would be good to know that matters were entirely independent and free from prior involvement. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the discussion ended on Feb. 4th. I proposed a similar document tree as a compromise to your complaints and the only support it got was if "Spiritualism (religious movement)" was moved back to "Spiritualism". The "conversation" as you call it was just you arguing against all the other editors who were in favor reversing the earlier move. Don't try to pin this move on me. It was by the consensus of six other editors. They wanted the article back the way it was before it was hijacked. --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You were about to clarify where Spiritualism was going to point when your friend moved the pages. It was not "hijacked", it was moved according to previous discussion away from the primary American usage to an international one. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
My friend? There you go making assumptions again. You don't know who my friends are. No one agreed with my proposal. That's life. I don't care because it was just a proposal to pacify a single editor, you. And the two articles aren't "the primary American usage" and "an international one". It's the "WP:N specific usage" and the "generic usage". And where's this "previous discussion" on the talk page? Espoo made an edit to the talk page on Jan. 5th and then moved the page on Jan. 15th, with no discussions in between. Now, a month later, seven editors have expressed their wish to have it moved back. Where's this massive support you're talking about for the original move? The only discussion for the move is Espoo mentioning it once and you agreeing with him [4]. That's somehow supposed to be huge support for the original move? Sure, you continued to argue for it, but again you're making that seem like others agreed with you, and they didn't. What this boils down to is a case of WP:IHATEIT Espoo was also arguing that a disambiguation page is needed[5] to solve the issue, and that's been done, so where's the issue? --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Its just politeness to refer to an individual as a friend and i was just referring to Dreadstar, who you pulled before, and now did the moves before the discussion was by any means completed. I was waiting for your response before the matter was unilaterally decided.

In fact, the moves even went against what was proposed and agreed. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what you say. How so? --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Because, as a "fellow psi-beeyatch", he was willing to go as far as temporarily deleting your page [6] and then restoring it [7] so as to remove your history of having been blocked for mass disruption over multiple pages. Presumingly helping line you up for the adminship you seek?
Is that ethical or according to policy? Given that he then wades in to exert supporting influence on these topics. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia keeps a Block Log for every user. Here's mine [8], and here's yours [9] for "serious disruption across multiple articles". Dreadstar didn't delete my user page history to remove any history of blocks. User pages never even contain those notices. The notice is placed on editor's talk pages. This is just another example of you making assumptions, and being completely wrong on your facts (consistently). Dreadstar deleted my user page history because I emailed him asked him to. My user page used to contain a link to my personal website, which contains personally identifiable information. I became concerned about that after dealing with you and your obsession with my personal business. I decided that it's better to be safe than sorry and protect myself and my family, and considering your continued stalker-like activity (digging through the history), I'm glad I did. It's my right to protect myself, and Dreadstar acted in accordance with his duties as an administrator and in line with Wikipedia's privacy policies. Seven users voted for the page move so stop obsessing about me. I'm growing very weary of it. When seven users requested a move and you keep bothering me, singularly, it is harrassment. Pure and simple. Bother someone else for awhile, or (the wiki-way) focus on the article itself for awhile. I don't care which, but stop bothering me. When I said "how so?" I meant, what do you mean that the moves were beyond what was discussed? All the moves made were what seven editors said they wanted. I didn't mean continue harrassing me, I meant comment on the friggin' content. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So, did you email Dreadstar to make the page moves? The page moves went beyond the discussion. You established the connection between the psi-beeyatches. How will we ever know now what has been going on on and off the Wikipedia?
Quite the opposite to harrassment, it has to do with implementation of policy and ownership of pages. You mentioned on the other spiritualism talk page that, "admins email you" asking if you wanted me blocked. I just want to know if I am playing on an even playing field here.
Are topic moves beyond any discussion and mutliple reversion to be made on the basis of accountable references and citations or do we feed the cabalist POV? Are all contributors equal or can some count on their good relationships with admins? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Psi-beeyatches? Are you serious? You're talking about a barnstar he gave me for good editing and saying it somehow has something to do with anything? Seven editors requested the move. There's your conspiracy. Seven people disagreed with you. Get over it.
I also already told you, if you don't like the page moves, post a new section requesting comments from users and see what they think. Build a new consensus. You act like the page moves were all my idea or something, when I'm not the one who posted it:[10]. In other words, it has very little to do with me. Your beef is with the collective group who disagreed with you, not a single editor. Acting like there's a conspiracy against you is not AGF. Singling me out and wikistalking me is completely harrassment. --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Post-War, New Age, Women's right, Principles and Abolitionist sections etc

So, what is the rationale behind the deletion of

  • Declaration of Principles
  • WWII and the Post-War years
  • Spiritualism into the New Age
  • Spiritualism today
  • Spiritualism and women's rights
  • The anti-slavery movement

sections? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask the person who deleted it, but I would guess that it's your addition of it without inline citations, when the editors are trying to achieve GA status, and your refusal to add a little at time so that editors can review it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we add the questions of
  • the improved images
  • the good copyedits here too then?
There is no such policy as not adding content or only adding little bits at a time. It not just goes against WP:BOLD but the entire spirit of the Wiki. The referring is above the standard for the great majority of pages.
I am sorry Neal, that is not an entirely honest answer. I would feel a lot more confident of your impartiality if I saw evidence of you have read any of the academic literature on this subject. 3 editors appear to be pursuing the same mass reversion with an unhealthy obsessiveness. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, ask the person who deleted it. I didn't delete it. But concerning what you said, WP:CONSENSUS is the policy about working with well others. "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages". You don't cooperate with others and you are far from polite. In fact, you're consistently belligerent, and WP:BOLD says "It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further." But again, I didn't delete it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 10:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I place more importance on the knowledge of academic references. Isn't there policy about individuals who use a barrage of acronyms to push their own agendas; gaming or wiki-lawyering or something? Did I experience polite reasoning during your mass disruption edit war? Neal, I have held out my hand to you and you wont even discuss your sources or personal position on all this.
OK, if no one else has any objections, based on later or contradictory references and citations, than I will accept that agreement to the reinstatement ... allow a reasonable period for discussion. Is three days long enough for everyone? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You said there's no policies. I linked to the policies for you so you can become familiar with them. There's no policy on "wikilawyering" as you call it, but there is a policy against accusing people of "gaming". It's WP:AGF. It was your massive spamming of the template on barely related topics, and your edit warring to keep them there that led to the disruption. Takes two to tango. After that I continued to be civil and you have been nothing but civil. The policy on that is WP:CIVIL in case you're not familiar with it. I've also moved on from that, as good editors should, but you're obsessing about it.
I've been very upfront about my position: betterment of Wikipedia. I discuss every source I present. I even discuss your sources and link to the full text at Google Books so you can read it yourself. Then you call that using "Google cliff notes", so no, I'm completely done talking to you on that. But my sources, when I present them, I discuss ad naseum.
About the actual reverts, you may want to drop a comment on the talk page of the person who reverted you to call their attention to this section. They may not be aware that you're planning to reinsert it. The article has changed considerably since then as well. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Specifics again, please Neal. I was asking you about your passionate involvement and point of view regarding spiritualism. And no, I referred to Google being used to assert the predominate usage of words - which is unacademic and prone to cultural bias - not actual books on Google books. I will make sure to include your improvements as I have always done. I think we can be sure Anthon and Nihil are reading this.
The problem with relying on Google books is that it assert page limits on readers and does not always have the entire text.

--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop bolding text, it's bad talk page practice. You drew my attention to a mess of articles related to "spiritualism" (in all it's uses). I edit Wikipedia as a hobby, and there is what I consider to be a mess here. I have no opinion on Spiritualism (big S), nor spiritualism (little s). I'm not a spiritualist. I'm also not a paranormalist or materialist like you said on MastCell's page. These are all your assumptions and are irrelevant because I am editing from Wikipedia's point of view on this topic (you call that wikilawyering). I'm not an expert on the topic and never claimed to be, but I can read and I know how to research. When I point to a Google book and say that it doesn't say what you're saying it says, I make it a point to say exactly what I'm talking about. You say "it's sourced". I say, "no it isn't, you said it it's about 'spiritualism' and it only contains that on one page in a different context", and then quote the context. Google books, even when they are only excerpts, provide full text searching. That's verifiable. Do you need a source on that? And I'm not reliant on Google books. I have access to libraries. It's just the most convenient way to show you what I have a problem with: the actual text I'm referring to. Google is a good source that demonstrates what people are searching for. It's their PageRank system. So is Britannica and all the other sources I've been referring to. Wikipedia has guidelines pertaining to naming articles that call for naming it specifically what people are searching for. Sometimes that's at odds with academic usage, for example WP:NAME calls for "common usage", not "academic usage" (it even says "general audience over specialists"). I don't know why you keep talking about "academic sources" anyway. The Declaration of Principles you keep wanting to insert isn't sourced to an academic body. Doyle wasn't an academic and you're sourcing to him a lot. You only use "academic" when it's convenient to criticize what I'm saying. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Neal, Lucy. Don't move anything without a freshly acquired expression of support from the others. Tom Butler (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK ... I would call that a reasonable time. No one appears to have any contradictory references to base any personal opinion on, so thanks. I am sorry not to agree, topic come before personalities. On the basis of my experiences, I do not have much of an impression of Neal's knowledge of the literature and his behaviour does not imply any moral authority or status to wield policy about.
From my position, we have not really addressed the issue of what this article is actually going to be, e.g. if it is going to be limited to the historical American movement or not. This is rather the position we ended up in before that left individuals claiming "it had not been discussed" after having they stopped discussing it. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Pandeism? Ooops ... to misquote Mrs Macbeth ... "is that a link to Tom Butler's website I see before me? ... Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!". No offence intended but that is the sweetest bit of nepotism I have seen on the Wikipedia ever. ;-)
Speaking as reader of the literature on the subject, and one with a reasonable exposure to it in the flesh, is that not a bit of a stretch from the "We believe in God" or "We believe in Infinite Intelligence" of the NSAC? I hope that someone else who reads appreciates then the essence of the bias here ... surely we are talking about not 'what the topic means' but 'what the individuals showing interest want the topic to mean'!?! --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
On an article about religion, the adherents should be able to recognize the description of their faith as accurate. Since Tom is the only person here who has openly declared himself a Spiritualist, and since he is actually quite well known among Spiritualists, I give great credence to his testimony about the accuracy of statements in the article, and I am therefore willing to support his changes. Tom and I are not related, so the word "nepotism" does not accurately describe why I am willing to support his changes. Entender? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, I think I understand your point of view about the link. I can put a GFDL [11] release on the page, but I am not sure otherwise how to deal with the question. Those are the fundamentals, but I am sure there are other ways of wording them. It is not a good idea for me to edit the main page and I don't want to speak for Spiritualism because, even though I am ordained, certified teacher, healer and medium--it is good to become one to understand what it is--I tend toward technical metaphysics--more so than most Spiritualists and I tend to speak in terms most do not even though we are making essentially the same points. So, you would do me/us a favor by finding more appropriate terminology. I will add that as a science, philosophy and a religion, Spiritualism is an evolving system of belief, so you do no justice to the subject by defining it in terms over of more than 100 years in the past.

What specific point(s) are you concerned with? Tom Butler (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal but I don't think that website meets the standards for a reliable source and I am concerned at a lowering of standards where genuine academic papers are removed and personal websites inserted. I stated that it was nepotistic as, from my position, it would appear that by doing so ... and extending the change further to adding Pandeism with references ... Anthon was kind of flattering you in order to succour your support.
Specifically, pandeism is not supported in the original source and Anthon also brought back in "higher plane" which, of course, is not entire accurate if we also include those individuals spirits who come forward for rescue work etc. As you quoted yourself, just because they are dead, does not mean they are enlightened.
Likewise, we have still not addressed the nature and limitations of this topic, e.g. whether it is going to be merely Modern American Spiritualism (1840-1920) or if it is going to reflect the current worldview. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Current world view of what? As you pointed out on the Spiritualism (beliefs) article, the practices occuring in other parts of the world loosely combined as "spiritualism" does not necessarily mean the religious movement. The article already talks about Spiritualism outside America where it is still Spiritualism-the-religious-movement. The other article describes spiritualism-not-the-religious-movement-around-the-world. Is there some world view of the "Modern American Spiritualism" (as you call it) not already covered in this article? Using your oft-used football analogy, what worldview needs to be covered when the topic is American football? The scope in this article (as it clearly mentions) is Spiritualism the religious movement. If it's not about the religious movement, then it's off-topic.
Side note (because it is not necessary to the article): Pandeism is what is described when the NSAC says "Spiritualists believe that God or Infinite Intelligence is ALL That Is, expressing through all creation by love, light and law. Humanity, the most complex of life on earth, reaches this Divine Source through prayer, meditation, listening to the inner awareness, and service. Why service? Because every living thing is a part of God, so as we serve life we also serve the Higher Energies."[12] Pandeism literally means "All God", or as NSAC puts it "God... is ALL That Is".
I updated the section with the NSAC source. There is no reason to link to AA-EVP website on this topic. The NSAC is an organized group, the largest and oldest group related to the topic, and can speak for themselves about what they believe. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
"Anthon was kind of flattering you in order to succour your support". This is way out of line, Lucy. I gave my reasons why I supported Tom, and you trash WP:AGF by ignoring those reasons and producing this piece of sophomoric speculation. This is the same offense you commit when you speculate about Neal's connection to Dreadstar. Speculations like this accomplish nothing beyond confirming that you are lacking in both clairvoyance and courtesy. If you can't control yourself, you need to stay away from WP. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no doubt now Anthon, it was proven, although I am not exactly sure what a psi-beyatch is, nor the collective noun for them. A 'psi-beyatch watch' perhaps?
I never realised that the Wikipedia relied so much more on personal relationships and lobbying rather than academic sources.
But, as one of the deletionists, would you not prefer to keep patronisation, sorry conversion, 'on topic' in an adult fashion, and address the valid questions and issues that I have raised above? To date you would not seem to have offered any justification for doing so. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Psi-beyatch doesn't mean anything. It's a joke in a barnstar awarded after writing a featured article on parapsychology, which studies "psi". It's not some warped secret society or cabal or anything else conspiracy-related you want to make up. It's a joke... "psi bitch" for all the time I spent writing the article and collaborating with others.
I've worked with many editors on Wikipedia, and yes, Wikipedia is very much about working well with others. It's built on consensus and that requires the collective agreement of more than just one editor. You can add whatever you want to Wikipedia, but for it to be "sticky" and remain in the article over time it needs community support, which means editors need to suck it up and try working well with others -- even when they disagree with them. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] incorrect article name and incorrect lead

This and this and this link and many more encyclopedia and dictionary links here and here show how this article would be set up and named if it were based on current general English use of the word and based on WP naming policies and based on reputable sources. (They also show why Spiritism should be renamed Kardecist spiritism.)

Those links also show why it is incorrect to usurp the name for only one of the two most common uses of the word and why it is incorrect to have the only article called "Spiritualism" (i.e. also "spiritualism") on what is only a restricted sense (religious movement) of one of these two most common meanings. The people disparaging dictionaries as sources in the above discussion apparently are ignorant of how modern dictionaries are made (they describe how words are used, not how some "authority" thinks they should be) and/or ignorant of or don't feel themselves obliged to observe WP's naming conventions (most common use, principle of least surprise, not confusing readers, etc.). Such attempts to disqualify dictionaries as authorities on actual English usage are especially ludicrous as these attempts tried to gloss over the fact that these attempts are also contradicted by encyclopedias. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Be_precise_when_necessary: Convention: Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. Since some objected to the addition "religious movement", we should consider other options such as "religion". Edit: Since "spiritualism" has other meanings besides those treated in this article, it is a clear violation of the above-mentioned WP policy to name this article "Spiritualism" instead of Spiritualism (religion) or with some other qualifying addition acceptable to all editors.

The disambiguation page with a link that incorrectly equates spiritualism in the philosophical sense with idealism is a joke that was apparently only set up to make it technically possible to move this article incorrectly back from Spiritualism (religious movement).

This article's lead makes readers think this religion/religious movement/belief no longer exists. The article's name and missing mention of the more general but related sense of the word without capitalisation and missing mention of the other, probably more common meaning is very confusing for most readers, most of whom have no knowledge about these topics. E.g., readers consulting WP to understand the following, both of which use the term in a very common / its probably most common sense would be confused: "Some people are inspired by the film's spiritualism whereas others are turned off." and "The serene and lofty spiritualism of the author." --Espoo (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the second entry here: http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-560495/spiritualism when you called it a joke to associate the philosophical use with Idealism. In Western philosophy, that's its usage. Plato, Descartes, etc. did not advocate mediumship, seances, communicating with spirits, etc. Their philosophy put "spirit" as the ground of being, in other words they argued that matter stems from spirit. That's all. It's a wholly separate use. No one's disputing that the term has multiple meanings. That's why there's a disambiguation page, something you were asking for. But if you notice, Encarta, Britannica, Columbia, and World Encyclopedia all refer to the mid-19th century movement as the most notable use of the term. If you have suggested wording changes to the lead to flush out this article, by all means please suggest them. But if you notice, all the articles linked to in the encyclopedias are named "Spiritualism" and all of them refer to the religious movement. Everything else you're talking about are covered by the articles Spiritualism (beliefs) and the Spiritualism (disambiguation) page. "Modern Spiritualism" and "Spiritualism (religious movement)" still redirect to this article for users that enter those terms, so there's no issue of them getting lost. --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstood what i said in several ways. 1) The disambiguation page is a joke (excuse for giving this article an incorrect/misleading name), not the incorrect equation of spiritualism in the philosophical sense with idealism -- that's an error/sloppiness, not a joke. 2) Plato, Descartes, etc. did not advocate mediumship... -- exactly, that's my main point and why this article's name is incorrect/misleading. 3) Britannica has 2 different articles on a) spiritualism in philosophy and b) idealism and clearly distinguishes between these, describing two quite different things. The Britannica idealism article mentions (in Approaches to understanding Idealism > Basic doctrines and principles > The centrality of mind in knowledge and being) that "spiritualism" is also often used in Europe as a synonym for idealism, but it's not OK for WP to gloss over the other use by simply linking to idealism. 4) The problem is not users who type in more specific terms and end up here. The problem is that users who want to understand what spiritualism is in contexts that have nothing to do with "communication with the dead" get a completely wrong and confusing idea when they type in that word. As i already wrote (with some additions here), the article's name and missing mention of the more general but related sense of the word without capitalisation ("communication with the dead" beliefs but not as or in a separate religious movement) and missing mention of the other, and at least in philosophy, cultural, and traditional Christian contexts more common meaning is very confusing for most readers, most of whom have no knowledge about these topics. E.g., readers consulting WP to understand the following, both of which use the term in a very common / its probably most common[13] sense would be confused: "Some people are inspired by the film's anti-materialistic spiritualism whereas others are turned off." and "The serene and lofty spiritualism of the author." --Espoo (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The article clearly states that "This article is about the religion. For other uses of spiritualism, see Spiritualism (disambiguation)." That's how disambiguation works. The topic directs to the most notable use and then a notice is provided at the top of the page explaining the use and linking to other uses. That covers 2, 3, and 4 in your list. A reader looking for a philosophical use, upon seeing that this article is about the religion, will click to the disambiguation page. If 1 in your list is true, "The disambiguation page is a joke", then the correct course of action would be to fix the disambig page. If the idealism article needs to mention that in Europe it's often called spiritualism, then the correct course of action would be to fix the idealism article to include that. But the other problems are fixed by just having a disambiguation page, and that's standard Wikipedia practice. Concerning your quotes, the first (anti-materialistic spiritualism) is actually covered by idealism, which contrasts materialism, and the second (lofty spiritualism of the author) should really be "lofty spirituality of the author" as it's a property of the author. But either one, upon seeing that this article is about the religion, would click the disambig link. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The topic does not direct to the most notable use; that's the whole point. The word is not mostly and definitely not usually used to mean "communicating with the dead". (See my link to Merriam Webster for proof of that.) Even those who do use it in that sense usually mean the associated beliefs, not the religious movement. Even if either or both uses were as common as or even more common than the use in philosophy, cultural, and traditional Christian contexts, the WP policy quoted above clearly explains why this article should have a qualifier and not the term alone. The current article should be called Spiritualism (religion) or something similar, and Spiritualism should be the disambiguation page. As to your (re)interpretations of the quotes, see the OED excerpts above. And you still have not understood that spiritualism in the philosophical sense is something different from idealism even if it is sometimes used as a synonym. We need a new article on Spiritualism (philosophy) because it is not the same as idealism. See below for the beginning of the 2 Britannica articles (note difference in capitalisation):
spiritualism: in philosophy, a characteristic of any system of thought that affirms the existence of immaterial reality imperceptible to the senses. So defined, spiritualism embraces a vast array of highly diversified philosophical views. Most patently, it applies to any philosophy accepting the notion of an infinite, personal God, the immortality of the soul, or the immateriality of the intellect and will. Less obviously, it includes belief in such ideas as finite cosmic forces or a universal mind, provided that they transcend the limits of gross Materialistic interpretation. Spiritualism as such says nothing about matter, the nature of a supreme being or a universal force, or the precise nature of spiritual reality itself.
Idealism: in philosophy, any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience. It may hold that the world or reality exists essentially as spirit or consciousness, that abstractions and laws are more fundamental in reality than sensory things, or, at least, that whatever exists is known in dimensions that are chiefly mental--through and as ideas. --Espoo (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Merriam Webster says:
1: the view that spirit is a prime element of reality -- 2 a: a belief that spirits of the dead communicate with the living usually through a medium 2 b capitalized : a movement comprising religious organizations emphasizing spiritualism
That's a dictionary that lists definitions. It lists 1) The Western philosophical use 2 a) The belief in communication with spirits, and 2 b) The religion centered around those beliefs in spirit communication.
Wikipedia has articles on those. They're linked up on the disambiguation page. 1) Idealism (I'll come back to that here in a second) 2 a) Spiritualism (beliefs) and 2 b) Spiritualism. All three usages defined by MW are covered. The question is whether 1) is covered well enough and whether 2 b) is the most notable use.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's an encyclopedia. So we look to encyclopedias for the most notable usage of the term in encyclopedias, not the order they're presented in dictionaries. Encarta, Britannica, Columbia, and World Encyclopedia Everyone of them mention the generic beliefs associated with spiritualism and then delve into the specific religious movement as the notable usage. Note they're all titled "Spiritualism" except for the Columbia Encyclopedia titled "Spiritism or spiritualism". Also note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Be precise when necessary says "use the more popular term" (see the other encyclopedias) and then disambig. So how do you disambig when there is a primary use -- something most users will search for? "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top." (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic)
Wikipedia doesn't need four articles to cover the three uses. Already there is Spiritualism, Spiritualism (beliefs), and Spiritualism (Western philosophy) (which currently redirects to "Idealism"). The first covers the specific religious movement use, the second covers the generic beliefs shared by all the movements internationally, and the last covers the Western philosophy use (Plato et al.)
The other question was whether Idealism covers the Western philosophical use or not. According to two sources it does. The first is the Britannica reference that specifically mentions that it's synonymous. The second is the Merriam Webster 1) definition that says "the view that spirit is a prime element of reality". That is exactly Idealism (read the article). The reason Spiritualism (Western philosophy) redirects there is because the exact same information would be in both articles. If Idealism is incomplete in that it doesn't mention that it's also called "spiritualism", then that's something that needs to be addressed there, but Wikipedia doesn't need a fourth article on "spiritualism" to cover what is already covered in Idealism. The two quotes you used are just different wordings expounding on the same idea. Britannica says they are synonymous. In either case, whether redirecting to Idealism is sufficient, or whether Spiritualism (Western philosophy) needs to be developed as a separate article from Idealism (lack of such an article justifies the redirect), it's still the Western philosophy use, not to be confused with the philosophical belief in communicating with spirits, so there's no need for a fourth Spiritualism (philosophy) article.
Four articles for something that can really be explained in two paragraphs at most is entirely excessive, even for Wikipedia. The whole confusion over "beliefs" and "religion" doesn't even need the entire article it currently has. It can be covered in one line: "Spiritualism is a set of beliefs and practices concerning a communication with the dead by "mediums," notably, but not exclusively, coalescing in a religious movement that began in the United States and flourished from the 1840s to the 1920s." It doesn't take two separate articles to say that. It doesn't even take a full paragraph. --Nealparr (talk to me) 03:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The two quotes you used are just different wordings expounding on the same idea. Britannica says they are synonymous. -- This is ridiculous and shows that you do not know what you are talking about. Britannica has two completely different articles on spiritualism in the philosophical sense and on Idealism. The fact that the word "spiritualism" is sometimes also used as a synonym for Idealism (and is then capitalised) in no way means that the concept spiritualism in the sense of the article quoted below is the same as Idealism. And Britannica has 2 entirely different articles on "spiritualism" and in no way says that one of them is a more notable or common use. In fact, in my CD's hit list, the philosophical sense is first.
Modern dictionaries do not list definitions; they describe what a word means in daily and use by the general population and by educated people (and often also list "non-standard" use). Modern dictionaries also list these meanings in the order of frequency of use. The meaning of "spiritualism" in the philosophical sense is first and is therefore what Spiritualism should direct to if not to a disambig page. Dictionaries are scientifically very precise indicators of what WP editors constantly try to do with mostly clumsy Googling for frequencies. --Espoo (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Responded below. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

spiritualism: in philosophy, a characteristic of any system of thought that affirms the existence of immaterial reality imperceptible to the senses. So defined, spiritualism embraces a vast array of highly diversified philosophical views. Most patently, it applies to any philosophy accepting the notion of an infinite, personal God, the immortality of the soul, or the immateriality of the intellect and will. Less obviously, it includes belief in such ideas as finite cosmic forces or a universal mind, provided that they transcend the limits of gross Materialistic interpretation. Spiritualism as such says nothing about matter, the nature of a supreme being or a universal force, or the precise nature of spiritual reality itself.

In ancient Greece Pindar (flourished 5th century BC) expounded in his odes the substance of a spiritualistic Orphic mysticism by attributing a divine origin to the soul, which resides temporarily as a guest in the home of the body and then returns to its source for reward or punishment after death. Plato's view of the soul also marks him as a spiritualist, and Aristotle was a spiritualist for distinguishing the active from the passive intellect and for conceiving of God as pure actuality (knowledge knowing itself). René Descartes, often acclaimed as the father of modern philosophy, viewed the soul as the unique source of activity, distinct from, but operating within, a body. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a versatile German Rationalist, postulated a spiritualistic world of psychic monads. The Idealists F.H. Bradley, Josiah Royce, and William Ernest Hocking saw individuals as mere aspects of a universal mind. For Giovanni Gentile, propounder of a philosophy of actualism in Italy, the pure activity of self-consciousness is the sole reality. The steadfast belief in a personal God maintained by Henri Bergson, a French intuitionist, was joined to his belief in a spiritual cosmic force (élan vital). Modern Personalism gives priority to persons and personality in explaining the universe. The French philosophers Louis Lavelle and René Le Senne, specifically known as spiritualists, launched the publication Philosophie de l'esprit ("Philosophy of the Spirit") in 1934 to ensure that spirit was given proper attention in modern philosophy. Though this journal professed no philosophical preference, it has given special attention to personality and to forms of intuitionism.

Dualism and monism, theism and atheism, pantheism, Idealism, and many other philosophical positions are thus said to be compatible with spiritualism as long as they allow for a reality independent from and superior to matter. Copyright © 1994-2000 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

First page of many: Idealism: in philosophy, any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience. It may hold that the world or reality exists essentially as spirit or consciousness, that abstractions and laws are more fundamental in reality than sensory things, or, at least, that whatever exists is known in dimensions that are chiefly mental--through and as ideas.

Thus the two basic forms of Idealism are metaphysical Idealism, which asserts the ideality of reality, and epistemological Idealism, which holds that in the knowledge process the mind can grasp only the psychic or that its objects are conditioned by their perceptibility. In its metaphysics, Idealism is thus directly opposed to Materialism, the view that the basic substance of the world is matter and that it is known primarily through and as material forms and processes; and in its epistemology, it is opposed to Realism, which holds that in human knowledge objects are grasped and seen as they really are--in their existence outside and independently of the mind.

As a philosophy often expressed in bold and expansive syntheses, Idealism is also opposed to various restrictive forms of thought: to Skepticism, with occasional exceptions as in the British Hegelian F.H. Bradley (1846-1924); to Positivism, which stresses observable facts and relations as opposed to ultimates and therefore spurns the speculative "pretensions" of every metaphysic; and often to atheism, since the Idealist commonly extrapolates the concept of mind to embrace an infinite Mind. The essential orientation of Idealism can be sensed through some of its typical tenets: "Truth is the whole, or the Absolute"; "to be is to be perceived"; "reality reveals its ultimate nature more faithfully in its highest qualities (mental) than in its lowest (material)"; "the Ego is both subject and object."Copyright © 1994-2000 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Espoo (talk • contribs)

You're entirely missing the point. If you read what I wrote, I said that Wikipedia does not have an article on Spiritualism (Western philosophy). No one wrote one. Lucy shoved a paragraph on it in an article about mediumship practices around the world (equating it incorrectly), but no article is written on spiritualism as used by Plato, Descartes, etc. Britannica says it's synonymous with idealism, so it currently redirects there because no other article exists. That's your first clue on which use is more notable. No previous editor ever bothered writing one. If there were such an article, I'd be asking the greater WP community if it should be merged into idealism, but no such article exists. Britannica has two articles, yes, but note that the "spiritualism" (philosophy related) one is 405 words [14] and the "idealism" one is 46,909 words long[15]. Obviously Britannica doesn't consider any distinctions to be worth more than 405 words. Instead, they say it's synonymous with idealism, an article of 46,909 words. Their article concerning the beliefs and practices concerning the religion[16] has 1087 words, by far their longest article on the topic. Also note that at Britannica, the encyclopedia, the religious use is listed first [17]], before the philosophical use. ie. more notable. You're still quoting dictionaries on what use is more notable, when I'm quoting encyclopedias. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm quoting sources directly related to the encyclopedic use. I continued my response here.--Nealparr (talk to me) 20:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Espoo, although the points you have made could prove helpful in improving the articles, and certainly need to be carefully considered, your angry attack on a good faith effort to correct a difficult editing problem is not so helpful. Perhaps we can discuss your points one by one and try to sort things out. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if in your opinion i let off too much steam about the fact that my contributions have been categorically and without exception ignored and deleted/reverted and ridiculed. I am sure that some editors never saw them and are not responsible for the actions of those that engaged in the above-mentioned actions. My main point is that Spiritualism should be a disambiguation page and that this article's name needs an addition. --Espoo (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Espoo, in "spiritualism: in philosophy, a characteristic" above, the two terms, "... a characteristic of ..." and "So defined,..." are both furthering an assumption that, "If you define something in these terms, then..." The paragraph appears to be the author's view and it could have as easily been a reference to Naturalism instead of Spiritualism. Much of the rest of the paragraph is essentially incorrect as a generalization. Tom Butler (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Neal, I think where you argument is weak, and I have said this more than once, it is that you seem to depend on Google as your quote-unquote "Cliff Notes" and, in all humility, appear to attempting to limit this article to what little you know, or knew, on the subject. This article, and the Wikipedia in general, are going beyond that level. Nor does the Wikipedia need to be limited to the limitations of paper encyclopedias.
As we have discussed before, within philosophy, Spiritualism, Materialism and Idealism are three actually separate subjects and a google paragraph does not sum up an epoch in European intellectual history. Espoo clearly was aware of the difference right from the beginning. You clearly had not heard of such use and first made a unilateral move of the Spiritualism (beliefs) article to a Spiritualism (philosophy) article.
What I understand Espoo is saying, and what I agree with is correct, is that a series of heavy handed, uncomfortable and uninformed moves have' been made in order to rearrange these topics. And in this case bullied through.
In my general experience, and on this very talk page, "discussing points one by one" is usually short hand for "talking out" and the problem we had before is that individuals would just "not discuss" instead, hence the first move. Behind all the willful hubris, Anthon's intent of 1840 to 1920 limit remains unaddressed.
I was just asking for clarification of where Spiritualism would be pointed when the topic was moved without notice. I would have agreed with the neutral disambiguation page which is what I understood Nealparr's suggestion to be. My feeling is, given Anthon's and Neal's previous connections with Dreadstar on these matters, is that not everything is above board here and Dreadstar made the moves prematurely.
Malcolm, I think also we can remove the "good faith" element given the background of mass disruption over the spiritualism/spiritualist infobox practise by Nealparr, Anthon and Nihil in identical unison after they failed to have it deleted. Something quite irrational is gone on here and do not know why.
Lastly, I underline Neal's often made assertion that the Modern Spiritualism was last made in 1900 and that referring to the current leading organisation's use of it is WP:OR. Simply not true. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Lucy, to put it bluntly, you're full of ----. Not once did I quote Google above and if you think I did you didn't read it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 10:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And I am also very specific and accurate in the references I use. I referred to your edit of 11:06, 31 January 2008 on the other talk page where you reference Google and Cliff notes. Our discussion of academic references, and your refusal to discuss your access to them, is evidenced throughout this discussion. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My refusal to discuss myself is based on your stalkerish preoccupation with my personal life. Read what I wrote above and talk about that. I responded to Espoo's comments with sources, never once being impolite or uncivil. That's how you're supposed to do it. You're walking a thin line Lucy making personal attacks. Everyone else is talking about the actual topic, and I'm enjoying talking with Espoo. Can't say the same about you.
Weeding through the rhetoric on how everyone's ignorant but you, and the conspiracy theories of everyone plotting against you, the only valid thing you commented on concerning what I wrote is "Wikipedia need [not] to be limited to the limitations of paper encyclopedias", so I'll go ahead and address that. I didn't say it did. I said that the encyclopedias point out the notable use. The fact that paper encyclopedias are limited further demonstrates that it's the notable usage. Because they are concerned about space limitations, they only cover the notables. If they spend a great deal of space covering the religious movement it means that's what they consider to be most notable.
You also mentioned that in philosophy spiritualism, materialism and idealism are distinct topics. Spiritualism/idealism is separate from materialism (I never said they weren't), but pointed out that Britannica says spiritualism and idealism are synonymous. I also said that even if a separate article were needed for a separate Western philosophical use of spiritualism that distinguishes it from idealism, such an article does not yet exist, so a redirect to idealism is justified until one is written, which would exist at Spiritualism (Western philosophy) anyway so a new article (a fourth article) wouldn't be needed. Finally, I said that these issues are disambiguation page issues anyway, and don't have anything to do with the actual move. A disambiguation page was needed regardless of what article was moved where.
Now, talk about that and get off the "everyone is stupid but you" trip. You're not "specific and accurate in the references [you] use". I've pointed out several times where you were inaccurate about what the source said. The difference is that I don't keep brow beating you with it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 11:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So that I don't miss your point Espoo, what do you expect us to learn from those quotes? Tom Butler (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Characteristic beliefs

Concerning the Characteristics page, I cannot speak for other Spiritualist organizations or individual churches, but NSAC definitely does not accept a "Judeo-Christian God" and what you call "low levels" are not considered a problem. Even more specifically, NSAC Spiritualists are not Christian and specifically do not believe in an anthropomorphic god. The two references for the first three paragraphs are Carroll and Braude.

Spiritualism in Antebellum America By Bret E. Carroll is in google at [18]

"an·te·bel·lum ~ Belonging to the period before a war, especially the American Civil War." American Heritage Dictionary.

Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women's Rights in Nineteenth-century America By Ann Braude is at [19]

These are historical words intended to describe Spiritualism in the 1800s. Braude was doing so to make a point about feminism. I just skimmed the two books, so I must ask someone who claims these paragraphs to tell me the applicable pages to read.

Going back to the question of how Spiritualists think of god, the Spiritualist Church of Canada [20] has for its first Principle: Principle 1. The Fatherhood of God: But say that "The Fatherhood of God is a term of reference and not a definition." If you read their explanation, that are speaking of the same as the NSAC Infinite Intelligence. They also have Principle 5. Personal Responsibility, which would be in conflict with the concept of a father god.

The Spiritualist National Union [21] is not as clear about god. It would be easy to read "father god" as a man on a thrown in their explanation of Principle 1. The Fatherhood of God. From my communication with SNU spiritualists, they clearly accept Principle 6. Personal Responsibility: About which they say, "To achieve spiritual progress we must live according to spiritual principles and we are indeed responsible." (while directly addressing the question of Jesus as a savior.)

I will talk more about the other beliefs in that section, but for now, I am challenging the two references as being inappropriate as used. Any thoughts before I take them out? Tom Butler (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I wrote those sections, and I'm the one who read the Braude and Carroll books (and Conan-Doyle) and used them to source the stuff I wrote. You're right, I didn't assign exact page numbers, and I should have done that. Standards seemed different then--when I started the article was pretty sloppy.
If anything in here seems wrong to you, it needs to be removed. My only caution is that contemporary Spiritualism--even contemporary organized Spiritualism--is pretty heterogeneous (as you well know), and it's very hard to find common ground. Think of the "Noahs Ark Society", and Christian spiritualists, and people like yourself who are trying to figure out the metaphysics--it might be hard to write a "beliefs" section that all these folks would agree with. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the essential concepts are more or less the same across the different expressions of Spiritualism. The trick would be to speak of them in a way that members of the individual groups will be able to see their church or group in the article without saying that all expressions follow the same exact concepts.
I will try to describe what I think is "core" spiritualism and perhaps we can agree on that here before trying to change the article. To keep thi spost a little shorter, a brief explanation of each concept is at [22] As I know it, the concepts are:
  1. There is a creator god that is in all there is.
  2. The expression of God is spirit.
  3. The operation of spirit is governed by Principles of Natural Law.
  4. People are a spiritual Self temporarily in a physical body.
  5. Who we really are survives the death of the physical body.
  6. We "go to" a "different atmospheres and awarenesses" when the physical body dies.
  7. People on the "other side of the veil" are able to be aware of people on this side, and through mediumship, are able to communicate.
  8. Physical people can act as a medium so that our friends in spirit can provide and direct healing energy to a second party on this side.
There are many lessor concepts, such as ectoplasm (bio energy) and how it behaves. You cannot have a complete article without addressing these lesser concepts, but perhaps later. There is also the problem that one of these articles should address modern forms of ADC, but again, maybe later.
My brand of Spiritualism is often too abstract for my fellow Spiritualists, so I hesitate to say how the article should be written. Clearly, there needs to be other references, as well. The objective seems to be to say what Spiritualism is from the perspective of a person deciding to be a Spiritualist--no matter in what system. That is what I intend by finding what I know to be Spiritualism in the article.
Discussion? Tom Butler (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The question still exists over whether this page is sticking to MAS 1840 to 1920 or to cover spiritualism broadly but ... why not just revert to, or expand, the section on the Declaration of Principles as they surely are the most universally defining and accepted elements giving form to the religious movement. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Lucy, which Declaration of Principles do you have in mine? I referred to three and they only agree in intent. I personally would not have become a Spiritualist if I had anything other than the NSAC version to deal with, so at least for me, there are important differences. I expect members of the other groups would say the same thing. Tom Butler (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I chose the NSAC's current version, with reference to history, as they have been accept internationally and independent churches etc. You could include not to the newer abbreviated version if you wish. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, I would like to hear from other people who consider themselves knowledgeable about Spiritualism as a practice, especially those not affiliated with a major group. As it stands now, it looks pretty good. I can see Spiritualism as I know it in the Characteristic Belief's section.

The Spiritualists I have known did not exclude discarnate animals. It is just something that is not often mentioned since the focus is usually on loved ones. Would a medium recognize sensing a barking dog as an actual message? Since we have reliable reports of animals in EVP, I have to wonder whether or not animals are simply overlooked or deliberately excluded by other Spiritualists. I will try to find data for this.

In the comparative section, I read Blavatsky's main works and some from other Theosophist from Theosophy's formative years, but that was also my early "formative years" while I was still in the service. As I remember, there are a lot of similar views, but they took it to places Spiritualism usually does not go. For instance, you never hear a discussion of body consciousness unless it is from a hard-core metaphysician. By comparison, Spiritualism is pretty much a basic expression of survival of the personality. I would agree with how it is written for them.

The hermitic teachings are a little different. When you stripe away all of the mystery school ceremony, you are left with Spiritualism. The Great Work is the transmutation of the spiritually immature (lead) into the spiritually mature (gold). This is accomplished as the student learns to understand the operation of reality by experiencing and recognizing natural process ... and then learning to live in accordance with those principles. The secret work, then, is in turning information into personal knowledge. In fact, that is a paraphrase of the nine Principles of the NSAC. The 22 keys or Major Arcana of the Tarot represent the path of the Great Works. See [23] for a pretty good explanation. Even though the cards were designed at the beginning of this century, they are based on the Cabala which is thought to have a lineage back to Hermies. Also see [24]. The Pattern on the Trestleboard is a precursor expression of the Spiritualist's Principles.

Of subject a little, but there are important similarities of the Emerald Tablet [25] and John 14 in the Bible. Unfortunately the Greek academics screwed up the history by attributing their original work to Hermes, so we cannot safely make that comparison as a comparison between the revelation of Hermes and that of Jesus. Tom Butler (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] C19th Icelandic Spiritualism and the Obscenity Act

Just as an aside, I wanted to introduce a section on the importance and difference of the C19th spiritualists in Iceland picking up on the connection between the connection between the Unitarian Churches of it and the USA, noting particularly the roles of Kvaran, Jónsson, and Haraldur Níelsson. Does anyone have any objections?

Ditto, with the reinstatement of the section on gender balance and feminism ... another issue none of the boys seem to want to discuss ... I would like to strengthen the section by adding reference to the women's suffrage activist and mediumistic channel Victoria Woodhull and involvement of spiritualism in the making of the Comstock Laws basing it largely on "OTHER POWERS: THE AGE OF SUFFRAGE, SPIRITUALISM AND THE SCANDALOUS VICTORIA WOODHULL" by Barbara Goldsmith.

Any objections? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, one of the things you have been doing--I hope because of your focus on -ism rather than institution--is adding many items that are really peripheral to the subject. The Spiritualist church is adamantly against the war but that disapproval doe snot belong in an article about the Spiritualism as a religion, other than perhaps a comment about how belief leads to social action. That example does not rise to the level of woman's suffrage, but the churches involvement in that movement has nothing to do with Spiritualism as a religion. Whatever you have for Iceland, I hope it is about religion and not a social movement if you are going to put it in the article about religion. Tom Butler (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move comparative philosophy out of article about religion

I am impressed at how well educated Lucy and Espoo are concerning philosophy. I do have a question though. Philosophical -isms are seldom institutionalized. Heck, I created half dozen of them back in my beatnik days. As far as I can see, Idealism has never been institutionalized as a church while Spiritualism has. This would seem to make your point an unequal comparison which does not belong in an article about an institutionalized -ism. I really think you need to take this discussion off to a Spiritualism (philosophy) page because it just looks like intellectual babble here. That is why I have been so confused about why you have been so proud of your academics. They must be philosophers, an area of academia which does not alone qualify them to talk about Spiritualism as a religion.

Right now, I think the Spiritualism (disambiguation) page needs to be spiritualism and the Spiritualism page needs to be Spiritualism (as a religion). Things are really hard to find in Wikipedia if you do not have the right search word. You want people searching for spiritualism to hit the directory first. Tom Butler (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I wouldn't give Lucy too much credit. For the past few weeks she's been equating the Western philosophical use of spiritualism with the mediumship practices and saying it's all related, saying that Leibniz is the father of Modern Spiritualism, and that Modern Spiritualism is the name for the religious use. Leibniz has been said to be the father of Modern Spiritualism (so has Descartes) and Modern Spiritualism has been used to describe the religion (as well as the Western philosophical use), but Lucy makes no distinction whatsoever in her rhetoric. Back in Jan. she wanted to redirect "Spiritualism" to "Mediumship".[26]. She didn't even know that spiritualism and idealism were related until I pointed it out with a link to Britannica. I don't claim to be an expert on these things like she does, and I'm not perfect by any means, but these things are verifiable. Like I said above, I don't like to brow beat people on their mistakes, but she continues to say she's an expert and that all of her talk is accurate to the sources. It's not, and that's verifiable. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


This is complete ... and I suspect deliberately misrepresentative ... rubbish that speak far much more about Neal's own misunderstandings or mental grasp of the discussion.
It is also a hotch potch misuse of capitalisation creating confusion between spiritualism, Modern Spiritualism and the philosophical use of the word that underline the need for a specification and a neutral disambiguation page.
Neal, you are also incorrect to say no one has written a page on the Philosophical term User:Lucyintheskywithdada/Spiritualism (philosophy). It was attempted but its comparative form was wrong and it got sent back.
Your statement was that Idealism WAS the same as Spiritualism. It is not. So, please, verify away Neal ... and let us look at the dates and your unilateral and undiscussed initial move of the (generic) spiritualism to Spiritualism (philosophy) belied that you had no knowledge at all and were just knee jerking.
As I stated clearly on the other talk page ... and you know ... I set out to write an extensive disambiguation page on related topics all referred to as spiritualism ... primarily within academia ... in the mould of the page written about Football. The confusion was not in my mind. (I also understand the difference between football and NFL, and the offside rule)
At that point, 15 January 2008 the Spiritualism article was a simple definition page. I was not suggest to redirect the current topic.
So, again, I think deliberate confusion is being created here in a splattergun effect. You criticise me when I do not put in inline quotations and then I do, you remove them as unnecessary!?! [27] --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, "its comparative form was wrong". That's the first time you've admitted doing anything at all wrong. You're also wrong about the move to Spiritualism (philosophy). As you recall, I said there needs to be a disambiguation because you rewrote Spiritualism with the content you have at Spiritualism (beliefs). But back then it was just "Spiritualism". You told me it was the "philosophical use". I took you at your word and moved it to Spiritualism (philosophy) with the comment "appears to be some ambiguity religious and philosophical use of the term, so disambig". It's in the log. At first glance it was about "philosophy" because you had all that Western philosophy stuff in there right along with mediumship, equating the two. When I read through it all I realized you had actually written an article about the beliefs and practices worldwide and named it "Spiritualism (beliefs)". But it was you who told me it was the "philosophical use". I took you at your word before I realized that you were putting in a lot of synthesis beyond the sources you provided. That's when I stopped taking your word for things. "I set out to write an extensive disambiguation page" similar to Football is also BS. When I said on the Spiritualism (beliefs) talk page that it should be rewritten as a disambiguation page, you said it "Holding the example of the football topic in mind for a moment ... the reason this is not, and cannot be a disambiguation page is that disambiguation page are used where the same word is used for entirely different means, e.g. voodoo; a video card, fighter jet ... oh, and some old fashioned hoodoo too." You were saying that all the content of the article was the same thing so we couldn't disambig. You had Plato, Descartes, etc. in the article equating it all as the same thing. (Side note: Stop using bold markup. It doesn't give your comments any additional weight. It's considered shouting or ranting.) Finally, you're wrong again about the quote I removed. I said you need to use inline citations because they're required for GA status. I said nothing about inline quotes. The long quote from the source was unnecessary and was out of place in the sources where no other quotes are used. Regarding your "Spiritualism (philosophy)" article in your user space, why don't you drop it in at the Spiritualism (Western philosophy) article so that you and Espoo can move on about the "idealism" redirect. As I said, I redirected Spiritualism (Western philosophy) to Idealism because Britannica says they're synonymous. I also said that it doesn't have to redirect there. It was only deleted in the AfD because it was called "Difference between spiritualism and materialism" and Wikipedia already has articles on that topic. --Nealparr (talk to me) 05:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
At least Espoo realizes there's a difference, but he's also saying the Western philosophical use is more notable than the other uses, and that spiritualism isn't related to idealism. Britannica clearly disagrees with him[28]. He agrees that he's no expert either[29] (contrary to Lucy who does claim to be), but again, the notable uses are verifiable through Britannica. I don't have a problem with what Espoo says about giving this article the title "Spiritualism religion" or "Spiritualism religious movement" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Be precise when necessary, but I completely disagree that the term "Spiritualism" should redirect to the disambiguation page, and that the disambiguation page is completely incorrect as he/she suggests. It's an accurate disambig page based on what Wikipedia currently has available, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic says "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top." Spiritualism the religious use is the primary meaning so at worst "Spiritualism" should redirect to "Spiritualism religion", not Spiritualism (disambiguation) with a link at the top for other uses, per the policy. The indication outlined in the policy is "a majority of links in existing articles". If you search for "spiritualism" at Wikipedia [30] most references are to the beliefs and religion surrounding mediumship, not the Western philosophical use. In fact, I went through every mention in the first 10 pages, 20 per page, 200 total, and there were roughly 5 that was not the religious use.
In any case, consensus should be reached among all the editors involved. Both Lucy and Espoo have complained about the move that was made per consensus. If a new consensus is needed to make additional moves, that's fine, but that's not related to the earlier move that was made by consensus. Get the comments poll going again and see what everybody thinks. The original move was made by only two editors. The revised move was made by seven editors. If a new move is to be made it should be by more than two editors. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Neal, I was being a little sarcastic about expertise, but it is clear that history and philosophy are important to them. I am fine with the pages as they are now so long as the Spiritualism page is about Spiritualism as a practice and all of that philosophy and history of thought is on the Idealism page. Tom Butler (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean "Spiritualism" as spiritualism or Modern American Spiritualism? Are we including earlier and other forms and the later spiritualist diaspora? Are you even including British and European manifestations of Modern Spiritualism?
I agree that the philosophical and other uses belong on separate pages but disagree if you are attempting to take the generic term for the American movement. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, I have to say that your version of "academic" made a terrible mess of the spiritualism articles, yet you do not seem to be willing to see that. To me, "academic" means an educated and discerning approach to a subject, but there are fields of academia. You are clearly meaning "academic treatment of history" and "academic treatment of philosophy." (I no not intend to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I am not correctly characterizing your perspective.)

In my field, "academia" has come to mean institutionalized skepticism and obstruction of research, so it would make me happy if you found a new term. In fact, history and philosophy has little to say about what spiritualism is. Look at the article. The best you all have been able to do is say what it was as of the late 1800s. There is hardly anything in the article about the practice of spiritualism or the "so what" of the philosophy. I know that is because your academics do not attempt to go there because it would require that they actually study the subject, rather than the library.

So I will say again, please take your academics and go to an article about the past and let us get on with making this article meaningful to people who want to know what spiritualism is--small and large "s." Tom Butler (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That is why I prefer the anthropological view rather than, say, the classical physicist point of view ... which to me identifies your concerns which I understand and agree with. it tends to be a lot more tolerant of others activities and much less judgemental. Off topic, and a personal disclosure, but from my own point of view the Skeptic Front is just about as psycho as the most indiscriminate "believer". Thankfully there are multi-disciplinarian networks of largely underfunded professionals attempting to apply academic or scientific rigor to these subjects. Some of whom I am acquainted. Balance is between the two poles. At the same time, I accept the valuable social role of the religious organizations that provide life boats in the dark for individuals when they need it.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hell

I gave the alternative example of a collective topic for a generic term ... Football which was entirely ignored ... and was look at more relative page for Hell. Clearly listed are all the various usages of Hell both in different religions and literature etc, e.g.

2.1 Bahá'í Faith 2.2 Buddhism 2.3 Chinese religions 2.4 Christianity 2.5 Deism 2.6 Greek mythology 2.7 Hinduism 2.8 Islam 2.9 Judaism etc

This is a good example of model I was targeting for the generic term of spiritualism, clarifying it from the modern american religious movement. I am concerned that the prime movers in the moves either do not have speciality in the areas or have their personal reasons for the current arrangement whether related to the subject or not now. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hell refers to vastly different models of a place of suffering and punishment, varying sharply from religion to religion. All of these different religions are mature, established religions (well-structured with an established doctrine). They're also notable views of Hell shared by large followings [31] There's a great deal of difference between that and the article you wrote on the concepts surrounding spiritualism: Spiritualism (beliefs) There, the differences aren't mature, well-formed, and doctrinistic, and blur into a relatively simple shared common belief that the living can communicate with the dead. Plus the notable adherents (biggest number of followers) to this shared belief in communicating with spirits worldwide is more notably called "Spirit-ism" by Britannica.[32] I don't want to rehash my argument about which is more notable, but my point is that there's a huge difference in how the topic of Hell should be approached and how the topic of spiritualism should be approached. Like I said before, the whole thing can be covered in here with one line: "Spiritualism is a set of beliefs and practices concerning a communication with the dead by "mediums," notably, but not exclusively, coalescing in a religious movement that began in the United States and flourished from the 1840s to the 1920s" If you'd like to add a "and continuing in less structured forms to the present day in many parts of the world", I wouldn't object. But it's a lot simpler than it's being made out to be. The use of "football" is battled over, seriously : ) so that's a lot different as well. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Information is acquired and understood at different degrees of complexity. For instance, data > concepts > practices > systems of belief. It is not a good idea to attempt to equate these, and certainly it is confounding to put members of each set in the same list. Hell is a concept. spiritualism (I like the distinction of the small "s" being written as "spirit-ism" that Neal used) is a practice and Spiritualism ( capital "S") is a system of belief. If would be appropriate to say that Spiritualists do not believe in hell as part of a discussion of concepts in the system of belief known as Spiritualism, but having done so there would be no reason to list all of the instances of the "hell" concept in other systems of belief. I see the "hell" example as being essentially the same as discussion other instances of spirit-ism. Inappropriate in a discussion about the Spiritualism system of belief.
As an aside Lucy, there is an interesting line in a song from the movie, South Pacific, that has stuck in my mind: “You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, you’ve got to be taught from year to year, it’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear, you’ve got to be carefully taught.” I have never liked the sentiment, but it has been my experience that it is true. We higher primates are born with little more than the animal instincts of our body. Logic, social norms, ideals and systems of belief are learned things. In my mind, it takes a higher faculty of understanding to recognize that faith and pragmatism are both part of a healthy worldview and that neither is complete without the other. That is the middle way. Sorry for being so off-topic. Tom Butler (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Both the models for Hell and Football, which was - contrary to your unsupported assertion - never discussed [33], are examples of topics for words used in more than one way or culture.
Football is also a "practise" (... and for many a religion.) --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No shouting is necessary, and no one said they had been discussed. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Read the guideline. Its general knowledge. Only capitals are considered shouting. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:TALK#Good practice, second bullet. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expand historical focus

Until now the article has focused on the heyday of Spiritualism (1840s-1920s) and pointed to other articles for fuller discussion of contemporary developments. It seems that both Tom and Lucy would like to see that changed, so that this article describes the period 1840s-present. I'm not completely opposed, but I think it's something that should be discussed before trying to move again on the GA reviewer suggestions. Any thoughts? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a new section below "After the 1920s" called "Spiritualism today". In that section, I'd like to see maybe some basic information about contemporary Spiritualism. For example, when researching after becoming involved in the article I learned that their symbol is the sunflower. Things like that would be informative. Stats about how many adherents there are, that sort of thing. Per WP:LEAD, once the section is done a brief summary of it should be added to the intro. Not related, but I'd also like to see something about "spirit photography" in the article. I think that's hugely notable and was part of what made Spiritualism so popular in the 1800s. About two years ago, the Metropolitan Museum of Art did an exhibit called The Perfect Medium which focused on spirit photos. That might be a good source to start with: [34] --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like a consensus for adding more on contemporary Spiritualism. I still believe that Spiritualism today is so heterogeneous that it's best to have main articles for the various contemporary communities. I also think that adding information about the phenomena investigated by Spiritualists (spirit photography, materializations, rappings, etc.) is a separate issue. The phenomena change over time: spirit photography (which strangely redirects to Kirlian photography) was already on the wane in the 1880s, when the Seybert Commission thought it not worth investigating (because fraud was too easy); Conan Doyle was enthusiastic about materializing mediums; today folks are excited about Electronic voice phenomena. So perhaps we could add a section on Spiritualist phenomena, to give a clearer sense of what Spiritualists actually investigated (and investigate). --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The spirit photos (dunno why it redirects to Kirlian) I think is highly notable and a good addition, especially from a historical perspective. They're not photos investigated by Spiritualists, they're photos created by Spiritualists, for the "wow" factor. Spiritualism swept the country during the mid-19th century not because it had novel religious ideas, but because it was "tangible". Rather than telling folks to take-it-on-faith, they offered "proof" of the afterlife in very sensational ways, either through public medium performances, or (extremely notable) later through published photos. Sure, these turned out to be fraud, but the people of the day didn't know how easily photos could be manipulated through double-exposure. The first permanent photograph was produced in 1826. Spiritualism kicked off in the 1840s, in the 1860s spirit photography was introduced and was used to promote Spiritualism; it became widely popular because all they knew was here's a picture of a man, and behind him is a picture of a wispy translucent man. It looks real, must be real. Groups like the SPR and the Seybert Commission were a bit more knowledgable about the photography process, but that's not the common man. The common man (hence the popularity of Spiritualism at the time) accepted it as proof of the afterlife. By 1897 there were eight million followers. It was a lot of right-place at the right-time in history that caused Spiritualism to be so popular. I think that's a good addition to the historical sections.
But it wasn't Spiritualists investigating these things, it was Spiritualists creating these things for promotional purposes. Later phenomena like EVP, etc. arrived after the decline of Spiritualism (1950s), after the general population had become somewhat cynical of sensational claims. Chasing phenomena and demonstrating "proof of it" had already lost favor, but in the early days that was the crux of the Spiritualism movement. Today, Spiritualism is more like a traditional religion as in "here's our beliefs" rather than "here's proof of what we're saying". So while the "phenomena" may change over time, there's really only a handful that are historically notable. Out of all of these, spirit photography is the most notable. It doesn't have to be a huge addition. I just think we should "note" this. The Metropolitan Museum of Art source is probably more than enough for what I'm talking about. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That would make a fascinating addition to the article. Nihil novi (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think so. At least a paragraph summarizing the Met. source. I'll defer to others on where to put it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 20:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I agree with you Neal, and I propose a new section on phenomena. So why don't we make two new sections: one on Spiritualism today, and another on phenomena? The spirit photography redirect should probably also be turned into a spirit photography article. I'm busy with some other stuff for the next few weeks, but if this is still hanging in April, I can probably get started on it. But I would much prefer if someone else takes care of it. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I can write the spirit photography article so that it's not just a redirect to Kirlian (aura photography), and I can write a paragraph to include here as well. But I'm also a little busy at the moment, and it's not a huge priority, so if someone writes the Spiritualism today section I'll get to the other stuff later on. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)