Talk:Séance

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Séance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Paranormal Mid‑importance This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Occult Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Alfred Russel Wallace#Religious views, and application of the theory to mankind|Alfred Russel Wallace]] The anchor (#Religious views, and application of the theory to mankind) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Is the photo at the beginning of the article from 'The Haunting In Connecticut, or is it just me? I think thats a photo of the chief mortician and some attendees, and not a real photo of a legitimate seance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.162.65 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems to be an unreferenced and unverified collection of random instances. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, is there any reason to keep it? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have boldly removed it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox sisters were never exposed as frauds. Two of the three sisters made a confession 40 years after their first spirit contact in March 31, 1848. The confessions were later retracted. The confessions about raps were meaningless because spirit raps had been demonstrated by many other mediums and at least one of the sisters had spent 40 years demonstrating the following phenomena: raps (often of great power), spirit lights, direct writings, materialized hands, full form materialization, levitation of physical objects up to 25 lbs and the production of luminous substances about 4 inches square described as cold. The debunkers never attempted to try to debunk most of the different phases of mediumship. See the Fox sisters wikipedia for sources. ResearchToGrow (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FRINGE and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's stance is that of mainstream science, which you try to minimize as "debunkers." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply and links to policy. I have read both. The term "debunkers" is from the seance wikipedia article itself and is found in two headings. I agree that life after death, spirit communication, religion and history are not "mainstream science". Fringe_science's principles rely on verifiability and neutrality which states: "Neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." NPOV states "neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of points of view".

The sources in the Fox sisters wikipedia article that I were referring to are "The History of Spiritualism" by Arthur Conan Doyle and Thirty Years of Psychical Research being a Treatise on Metaphysics by Professor Charles Richet. To me they are two of the best historical, reliable sources in this field.

In section "Notable séance mediums, attendees, and debunkers/Medium" there is no reference for the statement "Both the Foxes and the Davenports were eventually exposed as frauds." What I have read in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Granted that the Fox family is not recently deceased but shouldn't this be removed as it is unsourced?

Please consider revising in paragraph Attendees "Prime Minister of Canada for 22 years, who sought spiritual contact and political guidance from his deceased mother, his pet dogs, and the late US President Franklin D. Roosevelt;" as the idea that dogs can talk and provide political guidance is also unsourced and ridiculous.

I applaud the policies that Wikipedia has put in place, but they aren't being followed in this article. Does "Wikipedia's stance is that of mainstream science" really supercede its own policies of fairness, NPOV and no reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResearchToGrow (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE means that we do not need to present Spiritualism's claims with equal validity to mainstream science and history. Due weight for fringe topics is determined by whether and how much they are discussed in mainstream sources.

Doyle and Richet were Spiritualists and wrote advocating those beliefs, so their sources are not mainstream. If those are the best sources you have read, you are not approaching this from the perspective of mainstream science and history.

The material in the Mediums and Attendees sections merely summarize their parent article. I have copied the citations from there. Contentious material only applies to individuals who are living or were recently deceased (e.g. Leonard Cohen, but not Pope Innocent XI). The contentious material also needs to be poorly sourced -- reliably sourced information that followers have a problem with stays. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source [28] ^[1] does not show any evidence to its claims about the listed scientists.

If a better source is not found this sentence should be omitted as the claims could be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.156.118 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]