Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:29, 31 October 2024

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete with no prejudice towards the subject matter. If anyone would like a userfied copy of the deleted material for continued work towards encyclopedic writing instead of orginal research, let me know on my talk page. Keeper | 76 17:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism (philosophy)

Spiritualism (philosophy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A POV article full of original research and lacking in any reliable references. WebHamster06:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I would like to note that WebHamster has prior been flagged up on Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts for his conduct.

• The topic was repeatedly tagged and flagged with an AfD nomination, and others, within only 9 minutes of its creation, this was as I was working on it and by individuals with no specialism in the subject. No commitment to discussion nor cooperation offered and despite my drawing my development of the topic to the individuals' attention.

Currently the Misplaced Pages appears to have no topics on the philosophical use of the word spiritualism at all. My reasoning for using this page as a starting point is that, a) it is an important contrast to the starting point of my other work, on spiritualistic topics; and, b) in an environment designed to inform and broaden the interests of a fairly general audience, it is often easier to teach by broad contrasts in the first place rather than specifics that might go over heads. Is it my WP:OR, no. Its class 101 level, in the longer term I see topic arising in each of the specific definitions of the word ... but one needs time and and encouraging atmosphere and the Misplaced Pages needs experts not thuggery of the sort I experienced.

I do not mind it being peer reviewed by individuals within the specialisms but I do feel to be beset by the bullying I received from entirely unqualified individuals is against the spirit of the Misplaced Pages. I have taken the time to flag it up on specialist portals and am continuing to work on it. The comments are qualified by the links to the main articles. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have continued to work on this topic and have moved it to Spiritualism (philosophy) with a redirect from . Some of the comments below might be out of date.

Its kind of amusing in a way because the topic appears to have brought up in individuals the very dispute that featured in the debate between the great Spiritualist and Materialist philosophers ... which remains unresolved. Its latest reincarnation being the dispute between the religiously spiritualistic and the pseudoscientific/paranormal lobby. I am not taking sides, I think there is room for both ... but that always was the position of spiritualist. I do not mean spiritualist as in spooks.

I am concerned that some individuals being engaged in this debate are NOT reading the literature and not discussing it on the talk page before pushing their POV. WebHamster, thankfully for more than a few of us, has now retired himself from the Wiki. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And the relevance of that WQA to this AfD is what? I'll give you a clue... it has none other than to demonstrate that you were pissed off at me for AfDing your article. --WebHamster14:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete A clear case of original research. I have no doubt that it was created in good faith, however, as the editor is very new. Lucyintheskywithdada, nothing personal is intended here, it's just that this kind of article isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages:Five pillars might be a useful read. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment User:Lucyintheskywithdada has informed me that they are an experianced editor who is using a new log-in after having lost the password to their old account. They have also asked me to expand upon why I think that this is original research. In short, I think that it's OR as the table comparing the two concepts isn't cited. These comparisons need precise citations. From looking at the titles of the references, only the work by Tamm appears to make a comparison rather than describing the two concepts. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article was created not even an hour ago, so I think it's a bit early to tell what it'll be. At least give the poor author a chance to work on it a little. Wow... Equazcion •✗/C • 07:08, 25 Jan 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is one of the key concepts in both the Philosophy of science and in the Evolution-Creation debate. It also relates to Science and religion. The article might not be "ready to publish", but the topic itself is worthy and should not be censored into oblivion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Give the article time. A search shows that the topic has lots of debate and articles like this, so it is likely notable. Hobit (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Citing NPOV now is ridiculous this soon. The articles existed for about a day. Everything interesting is controversial. Every person has a POV. Hence every interesting article needs time to develop, for the input of multiple editors with varying POVs. If we apply NPOV and AfD this quickly, we will have NOTHING new on WP. How come so many articles that clearly need work wind up here? Isn't there somewhere to send "needs work" articles!? (This is actually a serious question, is there somewhere? I'm still learning my way around!) The Zig (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment articles can be prepared on user pages or offline until they're ready. It's quite common for new articles to be AfDed because they're fundamentally flawed, which I would argue is possibly the case here. The deletion process lasts for a week, which gives editors plenty of time to improve the article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Fair point. Although, I'd still say it's impossible/impractical to achieve a true NPOV in the solitude of a user page. Everyone has POV. More eyes neutralize. So my last argument holds, and POV or biased is a rather unfair argument to throw at something so new. I also feel it's over-stepping our bounds a bit to declare someone's work fundamentally unsalvageable without making an honest effort to salvage it first! Wouldn't it be better to first attempt to neutralize the bits you see as POV, and call it fundamentally flawed after it's been given a fair shot? The Zig (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Biased synthesis of topics already well-covered in respective articles. --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Judging from the books in the bibliography, this is an established topic. It isn't the articles creator just slamming together two things on a whim; there are books on precisely this. This quite clearly proves this is not OR, and the synthesis of these topics was not the work of the creator of this article; these are topics that are already juxtaposed. The Zig (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, they are established topics and yes they are referenced. What isn't referenced and so far is a perfect example of synthesis is the actual comparison(s). Now given that this is what the article is about you can see why the allegations of OR and synthesis are being made. The article's writer has read one set of definitions then read another set of definitions then used her own research to synthesise the comparison table. Add to that that any comparisons being made between two subjective abstracts can only mean POV is at work. --WebHamster05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• But the first articles in the Bibliography are "Tamm, J.M. (1979). Materialism and spiritualism: the dualistic way of Western thinking. and "Bahm, A.J. (1947). Spiritualism, materialism, organicism" Surely these show that this isn't an original synthesis on the part of the author? The Zig (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - violates all the big ones -- WP:V, WP:N, WP:POV, WP:SOAP, etc. To be kept, this needs significant rescuing. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This will inevitably be OR, with the approach being taken. Perhaps a sourced comparison of some sort can be undertaken, but it would better to start over for it, basing it on the sources, not basing it on original writing and adding some sources at the end. DGG (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment/question There are whole books on this topic. I don't see how citing them will create OR. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Changed to Weak keep. WP:FRINGE research at best, WP:OR and WP:SYN more than likely; none of the current standard reference works use the terms in this fashion. Skomorokh —Preceding comment was added at 17:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Article has problems but has changed radically since its deletion nomination and now qualifies per WP:HEY. скоморохъ 10:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete I was going to give it the benefit of the doubt, but then I ran into its creator, User:Lucyintheskywithdada, who has been plastering the solely Spiritualism related template {{Spiritualistic_small}} all over the place, including barely related topics like paranormal and topics that also relate to other religions equally, like spirit. I explained that this was "categorical ownership" and removed the inappropriate ones, but then watched the editor put them all back up, twice reverting. I can only assume POV fork after talking to him/her this evening and watching something that looked more like "marketing" than encyclopedia writing. The template, slapped on the related-to-all-religions article spirit, says "Part of a series on spiritualistic topics" and links to Spiritualist Church under "Beliefs and practices", basically saying that the Spiritualist Church is claiming ownership of the article on "spirits". The actions of the article creator are more than a little questionable. --Nealparr 05:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment And it is somewhat WP:OR in the form of WP:SYN. If you read this article, and the one at Spiritualism (beliefs) (not the one on the religion, see the fork?), they both make the claim that "spiritualism" is the base of all religions, equating "spiritualism" with the belief in spirits, which is really just animism (the belief) and shamanism (the practices). But then when you examine the sources for both articles, many or most of them are either about Spiritualism the religion or just about spirits in general, rather than sources that use the term "spiritualism" explicitly instead of animism to describe the belief in spirits. Both of these articles are suppositioning the term "spiritualism" as a replacement for animism (which has probably been done before, but how commonly?), but also in a dubious way. After watching the creator of the article plaster {{Spiritualistic_small}} all over Misplaced Pages, a template that links topics related to "spiritualism" as such things like fortune-telling, you have to start wondering why Misplaced Pages needs three articles (Spiritualism (beliefs), Spiritualism (religious movement), and this one) to assert the point of view that a religion founded in the 1800s is the base of all religions. Because that's what they collectively synthesize, using sources talking about spirit in general along with Spiritualism the religion to promote a collective "ergo, Spiritualism is the base of all religions that believe in spirits". Sounds like a lot of POV pushing nonsense to me. --Nealparr 05:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I am sorry from the context of the philosophical debate between spiritualists and materialists that raged thoughout Europe this is an entirely out of place comment that underlines the individuals lack of understanding of the use of the word and should really be excluded.

Neal confuses it time and time again with the modern American religion of spiritualism and now animism. Partly this is cultural. I am discovering that amongst American editors, with an inward looking nature, spiritualism is related more to what we would call Modern American Spiritualism. I am sorry but the rest of world ... and history ... uses it differently.

I am also concerned that this discussion is taking place entirely without regard to the literature or any discussion of the references and citation. And NO ABSOLUTELY I am not suggesting that a religion founded in the 1800s the base of all religions. Hold on whilst I pull myself back into my chair --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that, but it doesn't explain the plastering of the Spiritualism template all over the place, nor does it demonstrate why this article isn't a POV fork when Soul and Dualism (philosophy of mind) and Idealism already talk about souls/spirits/mind and the difference between them and materialism. The article even says in Europe it's synonymous with Idealism, so why two articles? Nor, if it's as you say not related to Modern American Spiritualism, does it explain the sources you used that are totally related to the religion of Spiritualism, like Arthur Conan Doyle for example (a Spiritualism (religious movement) writer), or the definition (4) off The Dictionary of Philosophy which says "(4) means the faith that spirits of the dead communicate with the living through persons who are 'mediums' and through other forms of manifestation. The word Spiritism is more properly used for this faith." That's a clear demonstration of why this article isn't simply a philosophy article (a philosophy already covered by other philosophy articles) and is instead religious-ish (a quasi-religious view also already covered by other articles). --Nealparr 09:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.