Talk:Society for Psychical Research/Archive 1

notes on revision

Can we have the list of presidents back please? This is useful information in an encyclopedia entry.

cj.23 Hi Verbal. I have been asked by Tom Ruffles of the SPR Communications Committee to revise the article and make it both accurate and encyclopaedic, and am in process of editing it. I will add references, I was just trying to clean it up first! Sorry, I shall do one large edit if you prefer rather than many small ones? 92.235.152.70 (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

cj.23 Just to clarify: I myself an not part of said committee and am not working in any way officially on behalf of the SPR - in fact if I was I would nto have done the article as I currently have, as a large part of it points to other "SPR" groups in no way connected with the ("British") SPR,who I am doing entries on slowly!92.235.152.70 (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

comment on eastern psychism

In the Orient (this includes India & its neighbours, other ASEAN member countries, Korea (both of them) and Japan psychical research has been going on for countless centuries. The only reason this has never been publicly disclosed is the taboo associated with the worh "Psychic".

The so called scientific community that harps on its open minded approach does not take kindly to such research and that is the only reason for this esoteric science being driven deeper into hiding.

The enormous power of the human mind in it's supra-conscious state is but known to a very few adepts who live in isolation. Supra-conscious state is a state in which the body, mind and the spirit are one with the supreme being. In Indian philosophy, this state is called NIRVANA by some, Nirvikalp Samadhi by some and Moksha by some.

There are different schools (panthas) each with its own methods & practices to achieve the ultimate blissful state of the mind where the Human mind and the Supreme Being are ONE. Each School of Psychical Practice (Yogic Kriyas) however has it's ultimate goal of liberating the soul from all ties (physical, emotional or otherwise) by unique methods/kriyas.

Readers can refer any book on Patanjal Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Kriya Yoga, Buddhism, Jainism, Sufism, etc., for more information.

Question: how is this a "secret" society? They have a web page, which includes a street address, phone number, and a link to a membership page. Should they be described as a secret society? What are they keeping secret? Jonathan Versen 09:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

fact tags and sources

There are now so many fact tags the article is almost unreadable. Much of the information comes from the SPR itself and given that it is an academic institution there is no reason to doubt its veracity. For example, an organisation's mission statement is as good a place as any to get info about the what the organisation does. It can also be corroborated in a number of other places. It's not exactly a secret society so there isn't really any dispute here. Re the journal, it is peer-reviewed (numrous sources including the SPR can be found for this) but again it is not a contentious issue but simply a mundane fact. The journal is also respected in the field of parapsychology. To quote Edinburgh University is to miss the point: Edinburgh University is an example of what is said about the journal and not the end of it. It is an example of what being respected in the field of parapsychology means.Davkal 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"respected in the field of parapsychology" is an opinion - statements like that should be direct attributions, not general statements like that. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Attributing and substantiating biased statements. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, I put those tags in because the intro was obviously -I think- written to discredit, as were other parts. I haven't looked, but I very much doubt that the SPR says it investigates the "supernatural," or "magical" for instance; this made me wonder if the other things were accurate. Indeed, it is not possible to scientifically investigate the supernatural, as the society no doubt would know. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So could one of you explain why "respected in the field of parapsychology" was replaced? I don't see why a vague, unsourced POV statement is better than a direct quote attributed to the source. Please explain. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced means having no source and there was a source (Edinburgh Uni) which you refer to yourself????? Also, the source described the journal as publishing "scholarly reports of a high standard" which is a clear indication of respect, meaning the source supports the claim by demonstrating it rather than simply saying it. The problem with quotes on such points in general is that they tend to mischaracterise the nature of things. That is, the point is that the (J)SPR is respected widely and one quote makes it look like it's Edinburgh and Edinburgh only. We don't, however, want to have a long list of testimonials in the article on so simple a point and so the simplest way is to do away with the testimonials and summarise what they obviously mean. Here's another, for example, from the "Skeptical Investigations" website, "The Society does this by promoting and supporting important research and by publishing scholarly reports. It [...] publishes a peer-reviewed scientific journal." Which again demonstrates a level of respect for the (J)SPR not attributed to almost any other such society. I would ask you (Milo) what you would accept here, but the last time I did that you changed your mind as soon as I provided it and claimed you had been talking about something else. Davkal 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Davkal, please assume good faith. WP says to avoid general peacock terms like "respected widely" and to attribute specific comments to specific sources. "What they obviously mean" is open to interpretation so "summarizing" them to a much broader statement is completely POV. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask to include "widely" in the article. Respected in the field of parapsychology gives something of the journal's status as probably the most respected in this field.Davkal 12:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Widely" or not, it's unsourced POV. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is the sourced claim unsourced. The source doesn't use exactly the words that appear in the article, but it's absolutely obvious from the quote that the JSPR is held in high regard by The PS unit at Edinburgh Uni. What would you accept, an EVP recording of Carl Sagan saying it? What?Davkal 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You answered your own question: "The source doesn't use exactly the words that appear in the article". Sorry, but you don't get to put words in the mouth of a source. And WP says you generally shouldn't use descriptions like "respected" at all as general statements, they must be attributed to the source. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course you get to paraphrase and summarise or else the whole of Wiki would be in quotation marks.Davkal 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the points about the journal not being vetted since no sources have been provided even though the editor who added those points says he has the sources but will not cite them (see EVP talk page). Davkal 10:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Spiritualism

A quick google gives some links between the SPR and spiritualism, the RS status of these links though are debatable: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], etc. Shot info 02:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about what I deleted? Well, they did originate with interest in spiritualism. I just deleted it because it had no citations, and I don't know if it was right. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with your deletion, but the deletion was "no sources", so I thought I would do the exercise to see if there were any sources. There are some, but some of them are doubious. Unfortunately, the society is dubious as well, as well as the subject matter, so I think we're stuffed either way :-( Shot info 03:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah, there are lots of sources- the PA website I think has all we would need. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Links

Shot info, the link you thought was valid redirected to this page. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice for Anon to discuss changes however. Shot info 04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

This bit in the article...

After the French branch of the Society was formed, the Society as a whole became known as the International Society for Psychical Research (ISPR) and the original British branch of the Society became known as the British Society for Psychical Research (BSPR).

...is utter nonsense. The SPR (UK) does not call itself the "British Society for Psychical Resarch" it just calls itseld the "Society for Psychical Research" and has never referred to itself otherwise and I've no idea where this ISPR idea came from, but it simply isn't used. All the societies are entirely idenedependent entities there is no over-arching umbrella of this nature tahte mbraces them all. 82.44.101.79 09:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, yet someone keeps putting this erroneous information back into the article. Unless someone can supply a reference for the “Society as a whole became known as the International Society for Psychical Research (ISPR)” bit I’m going to take it out.--Tascio (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Under nonsense one might add the assertion - unsourced becasue it is wrong - that the SPR was founded at Trinity College Cambridge. I am sad to say that I get the impression that editors unsympathetic to psychical research have kept this article weak on purpose. It should carry a health warning that it is unreliable and in no way reflects the history of the SPR over the 128 years of its existence.Tom Ruffles (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Presidents?

Encyclopaedic? It certainly doesn’t add much useful information to the article, so I’m going to suggest disposing of it unless anybody objects. --Tascio (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I do, it is useful to see who the presidents were so would you mind putting it back please?

I don't know the unsigned comment above was, but I agree, the list of Presidents was of interest. Can I ask if we might add it again? I understand Tscio's point, but in fact a list of Presidents, given many of them are featured in their own Wikipedia entries, appears a useful and encyclopaedic addition to the article? Cj.23 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It should remain removed, with only notable presidents mentioned in prose - not in a list format, per standard WP practice. Verbal chat 12:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The list of presidents is important because it shows that the SPR is a significant organisation. What is the rationale for removing it? Who chooses and gets to say which ones are 'notable'? Can whoever keeps removing it please refrain from doing so? Wait until Verbal sees the list of Nobel Laureates who were also SPR members. You can't argue they aren't notable. (truffles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Ruffles (talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be original research and sythesis. There is a notable members section. Please extend that if there are reliable sources. Verbal chat 14:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I would say that the SPR is a reliable source, which is where it originated. They weren't just made up you know. I think you could easily argue that they are all notable given that they became president so if we put them all in the notable members section do you promise to leave them alone? Seems a compromise if that will stay your delete finger. Also, can I ask what your authority is for acting as the arbiter for what goes in and what doesn't? Thanks. (truffles)

Sorry, that wouldn't be an independent source for this article. Not all presidents are notable, unless you have some pretty solid WP:RS saying that. Do people here perchance have a connection (WP:COI) with the PRS? Verbal chat 17:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, you are the boss, Verbal. You clearly have a thing about the SPR so it looks like we shall have to wait for you to move on before we are allowed to make this into a decent article. It is a shame when one person is allowed to sabotage the efforts of others to improve this entry. Actually, if we were to cite Renee Haynes's centenary history of the SPR for the first hundred years' worth of presidents and subsequent annual reports for the rest, would that help? But oh no! She was a member, so not independent! I know, you tell us what you will allow and that will save us time. btw still interested to know from where your authority to keep this page just the way YOU want it derives. (truffles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.230.47 (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:TUTORIAL, and why not sign up for an account. It has some advantages. Verbal chat 07:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree really, this edit isn't particularly distinguishable from sabotage. Just because the rules of WP allow vast tracts of information to be deleted with minimal effort or awareness of value on a technicality, it doesn't mean that doing so is doing the world a favour. Yes the list has flat spots, but this style of editing throws the baby out with the bathwater over and over again. Burning books and handing people blank paper just isn't what knowledge collection is all about. Asking people with a better feel for material to condense it for everyone's benefit helps far more than bombing it. K2709 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to extend the notable members section with WP:RS, as I have suggested before. Also see WP:NOTVAND and WP:CIVIL. Comparing removing a list from an article to book burning is just silly. Verbal chat 08:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand, I intend no personal slight. I simply often find material you delete to be both correct and interesting. I personally get a lot of value from reseaching well-meaning deletions from you and others, it's just that a good fraction of less frequent visitors are unaware that histories even exist so are effectively denied this benefit. For these, good information can be lost for years, sometimes just because valid references within started out insufficiently wikified. K2709 (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparing removal of non-notable information that is best kept on the SPR website is in no way akin to book burning. As I said, I have no problem with people expanding the relevant section, with reliable sources. Verbal chat 11:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that Myers's first name has been spelled 'Frederick'. That really encapsulates how bad this article is. (truffles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.230.47 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to correct the spelling. Verbal chat 07:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Verbal, very generous of you. But I think I shall leave this to you as you are the expert. (truffles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.230.47 (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done it for you. If you notice anything else like that please feel free to correct it yourself or draw it to others attention here. Verbal chat

Not for me, mate, I wouldn't want to be associated with this nads in any way. While you are the man at the controls, could you also do something about the statement that the SPR was founded at Trinity College Cambridge. As I am sure you know, this is incorrect.(truffles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Tom Ruffles

It's fairly standard Wikipedia practice to include a list of presidents of a scholarly organisation in the article on that organisation, or a fork if too long. I fail to see what the problem with this is. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

SPR and spiritualism

Hi,

I have been having a bit of a ding-doing with Nealparr, I think because he thinks I am pushing Spiritualism (religious movement), which I am not. I am not exactly sure why, but I think he takes personally offence against the connection of broadly spiritualistic phenomenon and the religious aspects of it. I am not bothered, they exist ...

I reverted the infobox on the basis of the historical connection between the SPR and the spiritualist movement, see below. I have it clear and distinct both in my mind and from many references the use of the word spiritualism outside and beyond the religious movement and do use it as so with references. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

<quote> A Brief History of The SPR [8]

The Purpose

The period which saw the formation of the Society for Psychical Research was a time of intense intellectual ferment and uncertainty, with natural sciences making great strides in explaining the world in terms which challenged the traditional, religious views. At the same time, since the 1850s, there was a virtual explosion of extravagant paranormal claims and interest in them, in all strata of society throughout the Western world, related to the spread of the new religion of Spiritualism. While stories of apparitions, clairvoyant visions, precognitive dreams and other miraculous events have accompanied mankind since time immemorial, the new mediums (of whom there were many) were very influential in gaining credence for their claims of being able to contact the dead, and the issues raised by both science and spiritualism were the subject of fierce debate.

The SPR, the first learned society of its kind, was founded in London in 1882 by a group of prominent scholars, for the purpose of investigating “that large body of debatable phenomena designated by such terms as mesmeric, psychical and "spiritualistic”, and to do so “in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned enquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems” (quoted after Gauld, 1968, p. 137).</quote>

List of Presidents

Can the text be wholly translated from the German please. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)