Talk:Séance: Difference between revisions
imported>D. Matt Innis (→Problems with this article: give it a chance) |
imported>D. Matt Innis (something like this) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Well, seances do happen and I would think people would like to read about them. I do agree that this is not written from a [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|neutral]] position, i.e. as if it is accepted fact, but it shouldn't take too much to clear that up if all are willing. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 20:53, 18 October 2007 (CDT) | Well, seances do happen and I would think people would like to read about them. I do agree that this is not written from a [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|neutral]] position, i.e. as if it is accepted fact, but it shouldn't take too much to clear that up if all are willing. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 20:53, 18 October 2007 (CDT) | ||
Here is the first section: | |||
*Ghosts are harmless. There is nothing to fear. If an entity is perceived, simply view it as evidence of an afterlife, that the dead are alive. | |||
Could go something like this: | |||
*Those who practice the art of seance claim that ghosts are harmless, that there is nothing to fear. They believe that, if an entity is perceived, it is evidence of an afterlife, that the dead are alive. | |||
What do you think? | |||
--[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 21:02, 18 October 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 21:02, 18 October 2007
Problems with this article
I'm sorry, because I realise the procedures outlined on this page are the product of well-meaning investigation, but this is not the sort of thing that should be presented as accepted fact on CZ. I can see our critics having a field day with this. Despite the notice at the top, the whole thing is undermining scientific principles, and the neutrality on which CZ is based: e.g. that there is a supernatural realm, that humans survive the deaths of the brains and can become ghostly entities, etc. At best, this could go on a subpage such as an invited article. Otherwise, it should be completely rewritten or deleted. John Stephenson 20:23, 18 October 2007 (CDT)
- I have to agree. It is written in the style of a personal essay. And as fact. Chris Day (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2007 (CDT)
Well, seances do happen and I would think people would like to read about them. I do agree that this is not written from a neutral position, i.e. as if it is accepted fact, but it shouldn't take too much to clear that up if all are willing. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:53, 18 October 2007 (CDT)
Here is the first section:
- Ghosts are harmless. There is nothing to fear. If an entity is perceived, simply view it as evidence of an afterlife, that the dead are alive.
Could go something like this:
- Those who practice the art of seance claim that ghosts are harmless, that there is nothing to fear. They believe that, if an entity is perceived, it is evidence of an afterlife, that the dead are alive.
What do you think? --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:02, 18 October 2007 (CDT)