Talk:Medium (spirituality)

Untitled

Mina Crandon, Margery, was the last mental and physical medium,(the movement of objects and the production of ectoplasm) of note in the USA. Her prayers were read by the US Army. She was tested by the scientific community but did not win the award from Scientific American magazine. Harry Houdini claimed she was a fraud and duplicated some of her feats, but not nearly all. There have been claims by conjurors examining sitting records that Mina hid and removed modified body parts, connected traceas, from her altered vagina; both made by her husband, who was a Boston surgeon to produce "ectoplasm."

Mina was the highlight of the evening. After a dinner with prominent invited guests, she did her performances in the nude, and never in full light. Only Houdini refused to dine and spend the night in the Crandon home. There are rumours of sexual favors between Mina and investigator Malcomb Bird. It is little known that Dr.J.B. Rhine refused to test her abilities. This last information can be found in the ASPR Journal.

This has been removed from the article and copied here. I don't really see the point of it in the article. If someone wants to start a Mina Crandon article and put there text there (after giving it a good going-over and providing some sources. It is full of typos and confusing language), fine, but it doesn't belong in this article, IMO. Motor 12:50, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Claims

You have to account for the claims of those besides the individuals themselves.

The phrase "is claimed to have" covers both "self-proclaimed" as well as the claims of others (followers or believers), while "self-proclaimed" does not cover the followers or believers. I've changed the wording to cover both MaxMangel's "self-proclaimed" as well as the claims of others - seems a bit clumsy, however. Why a citation is needed for this should be explained. It's Grammar and English IMO, not something that needs WP:CITE - (if that's what the citation edit summary comment was about). Whatever citation is there for "mediums have many followers" covers any aspects besides plain good English grammar and clarity. Dreadlocke 18:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, my perspective is that the following is precise and concise: 'John Edwards claims to recieve messages from spirits.' I would never say 'John Edwards is claimed to have the ability to recieve messages from spirits,' despite the fact that that is also true. It is wordy, and the extra/different information it contains is not worth the additional complexity of the sentence. I doubt any reader would assume that saying someone claims something in some way limits them to be the only person claiming it. 'Jesus Christ claimed to be the son of God,' is an accurate and non-misleading sentence. If it is important that I specify the claims of others, I would ensure that the phrasing is meaningful, so I'm clearly providing additional information. Such as: 'Jesus Christ claimed to be the son of God and this view is supported by more than a billion people worldwide.' In that sentence I have clearly provided addition *useful* information. Let's face it, pretty much anyone claiming to be a medium has some followers.

With regards to the 'well above guessing rates' stuff, could you provide us with a specific example, even if only here in the discussion section for the time being. I think having a very specific example is far better than a generalised statement, particularly when it is a controversial claim. MaxMangel 05:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Heck, you're right, it is more precise and concise. I still think I would write that "a Medium is an individual who is claimed to have the ability". It's a fairly standard phrase found in many publications to cover both personal claims and claims made by others "claimed to have". It, um, also covers deceased mediums who can't currently claim for themselves...well, unless it's through a living Medium..  :)

I did provide a reference for the "well above guessing rates", an article in the "Journal of the Society for Psychical Research" January, 2001 - Vol. 65.1. Num. 862. That article can be found in the online library of the SPR but I think you have to be a member for access to that one, here is an accessible online copy: "Accuracy and Replicability of Anomalous After-Death Communication Across Highly Skilled Mediums".

There is also a link to the CSICOP take on that article, if you want to post a link to the skeptic's view on it: CSICOP' take

I did like BillC's version, but I was concerned about incorporating the two since I'm not sure if my citation covers the original language. Dreadlocke 06:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm pointing out something that doesn't necessarily need pointing out but, the CSICOP article is a really good article for pointing out the holes in the research method used by Schwarz study. I dunno if I'd call it a 'skeptic' view on it, more just an article on good research practice/methods. Treblent 14:21, 14 June 2006 (BST)

NPOV tag

Can anyone explain the NPOV tag anon placed in the article? I'll remove it until then. - Dreadlocke 01:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

anecdote

I have removed the anecdote about the Montel Williams show since it takes up far too much space in an article of this size and contains a completely non-neutral description of the events (e.g., "embarrassingly wrong") intended to support a negative interpretation of psychics. If this kind of one-off account is allowed then we could cite hundreds of cases where "such-and-such a psychic on such-and-such a TV show gave an "extraordinarily in-depth" reading including the fact the my uncle henry had a wooden leg or some such thing. Davkal 11:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed "embarrassingly" and reverted section. Thanks Davkal for helping to improve this. Askolnick 12:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think we need to be remove the section since it's just an anecdote. Just ask why it would be wrong to include something like:

a recent example of the predictive power of mediums was shown on the Oprah Winfrey show when world renowned psychic davkal accurately described a member of the audience's great uncle henry, wooden leg and all, and so on and so on and so on.

Also, the description of events on the show in the article and the conclusion are a bit tenuous to try to prove the medium wrong. We don't know the cause of death (the body was never found), Brown didn't say she psychically saw the water the person drowned in coming from a fire fighting hose she simply suggested that this was maybe where it came from when it emerged where the person died - there were presumably many sources of water in buildings such as the Trade Centre - who knows what actually happenened. The kind of tangled argument used in the article to "show" that Brown got it wrong is no better than the tangled argument I have just used above to suggest she may still be right. Neither have any place in an encyclopedia - they are mere storytelling from a particular standpoint.Davkal 05:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

JREF Challenge

I removed the bit about the JREF challenge being set up so that it cannot be passed. If you have a source that proves this to be to case, please name it here. My addition was factual. The response seems to be opinion. Stevepaget 15:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I made a few changes which I believe to be NPOV, though I fully expect my changes to be modified. If you believe in these psychic abilities, please keep in mind that any claims should be listed as "claims" unless verifiable by a respectable main-stream source. Zeke pbuh 05:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, see WP:WTA. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This Article

This article, as it stands, says virtually nothing. I think a number of sections should be added. 1. History of mediumship. 2. Famous cases 3. Links to other cultures and traditions (such as shamanism) 4. Scientific reaearch.

Additionally, next to nothing is sourced at the moment. For example, the skeptical section simply lists a number of objections and makes a number of claims without any indication where those claims come from. Davkal 17:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Seems like most "paranormal" articles are that way - possibly to to the interaction between the "skeptics" and the "believers" on Wikipedia, everything gets whittled down to nothing - oh wait, I think we've had this discussion before, Mr. Davkal! Good to see you again, I've been worn down by skeptics on the John Edward article lately...  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 19:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Skeptics like facts. Wikipedia is a place for facts. Paranormal topics tend to be very light on verifiable facts, preferring hearsay and speculation. That is why the articles tend to be quite sterile. The Criticism section does not make claims. It says skeptics doubt the existence of mediums (that is surely a fact), and that techniques such as cold and hot reading exist (also undeniable). At no point does it claim that all mediums are fakes. Stevepaget 11:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

At no point does it claim that all mediums are fakes? I think it does, after all the very first sentence under "Skeptical Perspective" clearly says that all mediums are fakes or self-deluded, "Skeptics dispute the existence of genuine mediums, arguing that individuals who claim to possess this ability are either self-deluded or charlatans who engage in cold or hot reading." Can't get any clearer than that! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole dispute over using "believed to be" is an example of what we're talking about, that the skeptics whittle down paranormal articles. It's a clear fact that many people (a majority, according to several polls) believe there are mediums - that's a fact! But a skeptic will say that it makes it look like everyone believes them to be, thus countering what is essentially a fact. Maybe that's not the best example, but it's handy...:) Skeptics tend to discount anything that doesn't meet scientific methodology, but this isn't a scientific article in a scientific journal. All viewpoints must be respected and properly presented to meet NPOV. Never do I see the "believers" side properly presented. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Claim to be != Believed to be

This phrase has been bothering me for some time. The term "believed to be" implies a general consensus. As such, it lends the claims of the named mediums a sense of credibility that they may or may not deserve.

However, one cannot deny that these people claim to be mediums. The discussion at the top of this talk page still holds, I think. Stevepaget 11:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the use of the word "claim" here violates WP:WTA, that's one of the reasons I came up with "believed to be" which describes the medium and their followers belief. NPOV is covered by the section on the skeptical perspective. We'll need to find a better word if it bothers you too much. Any other suggestions? Dreadlocke ☥ 17:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it to "believed by some". It's not great English, though. I'm after a phrase which says that there are people who believe in these people, but that it is not a consensus.

Maybe the whole sentence needs restructuring? Stevepaget 23:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that's not the prettiest way to put it, and makes a weaselish statement even more so. Let's leave at "believed to be" for now and restructure the whole sentence. Let's do that here instead of directly in the article. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this: "Here is a short list of popular and well known people who profess to be mediums:" Dreadlocke ☥ 01:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I'll change the page. Stevepaget 12:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My Edits of 15/1/2007

I removed much of the material added in the "supporting arguments" section. Most of it seemed to be opinion, rather than fact. The studies run by Gary Schwartz in Arizona are disputed, and Wikipedia should certainly not make claims about their robustness or validity.

Likewise, Victor Zammit's book should not be quoted wholesale. It is available free online, so if you wish to provide a link to the material, please do so in the Links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevepaget (talk • contribs) 16:09, January 15, 2007 (UTC)

Rename

I think this page should be under parapsychology, not spirituality. I suggest renaming it to "Medium (parapsychology)". It is spirituality for many people, but mediumism is not always spirituality. It is, however, always paranormal or psychic, which puts it unambiguously under the purview of parapsychology. Parapsychology has its first roots in investigating spiritualism. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I think it should remain under the current name. Mainly because it's shorter, and also pretty descriptive - after all, we're really dealing with spirits here! Can't get more "spiritual" than that! (Well, that is if you believe that sort of thing, natch :) Dreadlocke ☥ 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since medium is a term that comes from spiritualism, I'd say keep it the way it is. Changing it to parapsychology limits the scope to only parapsychological research. I'd like to see a history section here eventually that covers some of the more famous mediums from the past. I was writing something about Edgar Cayce today, so he comes to mind. Cayce would have little to do with parapsychology.--~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Newbie Question:

"How does the Wikipedia Medium talk community agree on a high-value, WP:NPOV article and subsequent community edits." I'm new to posting on Wikipedia. I appreciate your patience while I come up to speed on contributing and discussing with other users on what makes an article offer the most value to the reader while remaining true to Wikipedia content criteria.

I recently been researching the so-called Medium phenomena and as any fact seeking writer must do, I'm researching both sides of the argument. I found many websites with interesting information that show research and support for both pro and con arguments. However, the current Wikipedia article instantly convinced me of the con argument(skeptic side) because it does a better job at representing the con research and arguments than it does the pro research and arguments. To present a factual, unbiased WP:NPOV, a balanced fact-based article should replace the current one - see the example below [removed]. What are your thoughts? -Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasf (talk • contribs) 18:14, January 16, 2007 UTC)

Please delete all this uneccessary text.--- LuckyLouie 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's gone now. =) — Elembis 00:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for yelling. : ) --- LuckyLouie 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yah, try not to bite the newbies... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the bite - I earned it. And thanks to Dreadlocke for the guidance Chasf 08:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Zammit's challenge

I removed the following text in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources after tagging it two days ago. Please feel free to add it again with a better citation.

Victor Zammit has a "million dollar challenge" for "any skeptic who can rebut the evidence for the existence of the afterlife" (including mediumship).<ref>http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html</ref> To date, no one has passed the challenge.

— Elembis (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And I see no reason to wait until the "effective" date of April 1st, 2007 to remove the JREF challenge entry. This is not a "real time" alerting service. The challenge should only be posted in articles of those actually being targeted by the challenge. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For reference, the text for the JREF entry was this:

Practitioners of mediumship are eligible for the JREF Paranormal Challenge.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.randi.org/research/ |title=One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge |accessdate=2007-01-19 |publisher=[[James Randi Educational Foundation]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,72482-0.html |title=Skeptic Revamps $1M Psychic Prize |accessdate=2007-01-19 |publisher=[[Wired News]] |date=2007-01-12 }}</ref> To date, no one has passed the challenge.

I didn't make it clear, but in adding the Wired reference I was not trying to provide real-time updates on Randi's challenge, but only to add a source that we would all agree was not self-published. I'll let other editors decide whether the challenge is notable and relevant enough to be mentioned in the text of the article or listed in the See also section. =) — Elembis (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he has "revamped" his challenge so that it no longer applies to everyone, just certain, specific targeted psychics. The change does not go into effect until April 1st, but since this isn't a "real time" device, I see no reason to wait till that exact date to remove what is or will be, no longer applicable to everyone. My removal of the entry and comment about "real time" had nothing to do with your comments or edits - an earlier editor stated something about the rules being 'still the same' until April 1st, so they shouldn't be removed until then. I don't think that view holds true, especially since there is absolutely no scientific value to the challenge. Oh, it didn't occur to me at all that you might be trying to provide real time updates by using 'Wired'...heh..."real time" was in my thoughts well before you posted that...! Dreadlocke ☥ 04:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Paranormal Challenge is historically notable to the topic of the article however. Maybe it should be reworded and included. For example, it could read:

"Practitioners of mediumship were eligible for the JREF Paranormal Challenge from 1964 through March 2007 and may be eligible today under certain conditions. The challenge offered a monetary award to anyone who could provide proof of the paranormal as defined by JREF. It began with the monetary award of US $1,000 and by 2007, the prize for the challenge had reached US $1,000,000 without a successful applicant. Criticisms of the challenge included the subjective nature of the testing where JREF alone decided what constituted proof and what didn't."

That would be historically accurate, applicable and notable to the article, and also neutral.

By the way, the terms of the challenge posted on the JREF website wouldn't fall under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources guidelines. These are the terms of the actual challenge, and the JREF foundation is a notable legal non-profit organization. The guideline that superceeds the self-publishing one is the primary source guideline. This is the primary source.

--~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good effort, but it's way too lengthy for this particular article. I don't really think the challenge is sufficiently notable for this particular article to have a history of the JREF challenge included in it - it looks like over-kill to me. It would fit the JREF article just fine. Since it doesn't apply to all mediums, but just a select few - I think this is the wrong place for any reference to the JREF challenge at all. Put a reference in the articles of the psychics or mediums that are targeted (did I say that already? Hmmm. :) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Granted it may be a bit long and can be weeded down a bit. And I agree that it no longer applies to all mediums (I posted as much on the WikiProject Paranormal page). But it has historically been applicable. That's the point I was trying to make. Eventhough it doesn't apply now so much, it did in the past and bears a mention because (mentioned this before as well), it's like the first thing skeptics point to when debunking mediums. What I would like to see is it placed in context. As written on the page now, it doesn't explain what the challenge even is, let alone the valid criticisms of it. That's why my (albeit longer) version might be a better way to go. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 10:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

From April 1st, the challenge is not open to only "specific targeted" individuals. It is open to anyone who can convince significant individuals of their ability. If you are a genuine medium, you could do the groundwork and satisfy the criteria in a short time. It is still relevant. Indeed, it may become more so after April 1st, when the JREF starts publicising it more. Stevepaget 12:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw that there was a removal of the criticism line. This will eventually need to be put back in as it is a valid and widespread criticism of the challenge. While the terms of the test are mutually agreed upon, the definition of what constitutes "paranormal" is at the sole discretion of JREF. This is even clearly stated in the challenge's FAQs.--~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

JREF changes

(copied from above) From April 1st, the challenge is not open to only "specific targeted" individuals. It is open to anyone who can convince significant individuals of their ability. If you are a genuine medium, you could do the groundwork and satisfy the criteria in a short time. It is still relevant. Indeed, it may become more so after April 1st, when the JREF starts publicising it more. Stevepaget 12:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

From the way I read it, as of April 1st, it will indeed be open to only specifically targeted individuals - only those who meet the "high profile media" criteria. JREF has indeed identified specific individuals to be targeted!

Randi.org Challenge

"...any applicant will be required to have a media profile."

Milliion dollar Paranormal challenge

"Super-skeptic James Randi, founder of the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge that promises "a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event," just dropped the "anyone" part."

"Apparently his organization has grown bored of the people who actually want to take his challenge and they want to focus on those high-profile psychics who don't. After ten years of the challenge, they are enacting changes which will take effect April 1st. The biggest change is that they are closing the doors to anyone who does not have a "media profile" - television reports, newspaper articles, etc. - chronicling their paranormal abilities. They're hoping that the resources freed up by dropping low-profile cases will enable them to pursue the big dogs."

"Officially they have targeted psychics John Edward, Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller, and James Van Praagh, all of whom have expressed no desire to humor the man."

The challenge no longer applies to all mediums, plain and simple. And I don't really see any reason to have a statement in this article that goes into the history of the JREF challenge. The more you say about it, the more undue weight it brings.

Dreadlocke ☥ 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The article states that some popular and well known people who profess to be mediums are Gordon Mons Higginson, Jane Roberts, Derek Acorah, Tony Stockwell, Colin Fry, Lisa Williams, Allison DuBois, Esther Hicks, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Betty Shine, Ailene Light, Joseph Kony, James Van Praagh, and JZ Knight The reference to the new Randi challenge says, Officially they have targeted psychics John Edward, Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller, and James Van Praagh.

I see a direct connection and relevance of Randi to the subject of Mediums that would suggest that it deserves something more than the briefest possible mention. --- LuckyLouie 18:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If it does need to be mentioned, then let's try to keep it short and sweet. Something like "High-profile mediums are eligible for the million-dollar JREF challenge prize." No lengthy history or description, just a plain-vanilla properly weighted entry. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me.--~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The challenge is a rhetorical, not scientific, tool (Even Ray Hyman says so). As such, it can be weighed by the quality of its rhetoric. Thus, to balance the rhetorical implication that all mediums are frauds one could include something like the following (I hope I got all the refs right):

However, some have questioned whether Randi is an objective scientific observer. He has stated that "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!" Others have accused Randi of pre-judging paranormal claims. In a letter rejecting an applicant to the Paranormal Challenge who said he could survive without food, Randi wrote: "Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? […] If this is your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further[…]" The foundation refuses to investigate many types of paranormal claims, saying that they either pose a danger to the applicant, or are unbelievable.

Ray Hyman, a noted skeptic and member of CSI, said that "Scientists don't settle issues with a single test, so even if someone does win a big cash prize in a demonstration, this isn't going to convince anyone. Proof in science happens through replication, not through single experiments." (I can't find a better ref for this)Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Dreadlocke, "Short and sweet," will just mean unbalanced in favor of it's being a reasonable challenge. People need to know that this isn't science (although it might be fair if Randi could be trusted). Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any concrete reason to think that Randi cannot be trusted? Stevepaget 11:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, first I would question why you accept that Randi must be trusted? If we have to trust him to be honest, there's a problem with the test. He says we don't have to trust him. I also question whether it is human nature for a convinced skeptic to be convincable by the psychics who are most likely to be genuine, who would make mistakes etc. Randi makes fun of psychics, thus revealing that he is not above such things. If he were to have to give out the prize, he would be the one to take the derision. In short, he doesn't act like a trustworthy person. However, for more concrete doubts, go here. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to trust him. Apart from putting in the money and advising on protocols, he does not run the individual tests. I just wondered whether your suggestion that he is untrustworthy had any substance. Whether it is human nature for Randi to be convinced or not is irrelevant to the challenge. If you pass the criteria (which you set), you win the million. Randi can do little about it. Stevepaget 15:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I mistrust generally CSI and its members, for the same reasons Truzzi did. I think such mistrust is well-founded. Psi could be genuine, even mediums could be genuine, and no one would ever be able to pass the challenge. The challenge is great for running out kooks and swindlers, and I totally support a lot of what Randi has done. But the basic objection is that the use of the challenge to cast doubt on all psychics and psi is unjustified. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Psi could be genuine, even mediums could be genuine, and no one would ever be able to pass the challenge." Can you explain this? The way the challenge works is this: If one has PSI abilities, you agree to a challenge. You negotiate to agree on reasonable criteria (you do this publically, so that we can all see how reasonable each party is being). Once those are decided, you take the test. You pass or fail the agreed criteria. If you pass, you win the money. Short of outright fraud, how can you be cheated? Of course, most critics will say "Randi will set the bar so high it's impossible to meet", but has he ever actually done this? Can you name a single example where the challenge was unreasonable? Stevepaget 11:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Natalia Lulova thinks it was unreasonable for Randi to constantly keep enhancing blindfolding methods until the unique flaw which enabled her to cheat was eliminated  ;-). http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,199773,00.html (PS, Time Magazine: a pretty good source) --- LuckyLouie 18:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is that an example of an unreasonable protocol request? Lulova's claim was to be able to see while blindfolded. Surely the JREF was entitled to ensure that the blindfold that was used actually blocked her vision. Otherwise it's not actually a blindfold, is it? If Lulova had the ability that she claimed, she would have been able to perform within the protocols. She couldn't, and I think any reasonable person would understand that. Stevepaget 19:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to add a note of ironic humor and I totally failed. Apologies. --- LuckyLouie 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While I love the debate over the challenge, it doesn't really have much to do with the inclusion in this article. Opinions about the challenge can be argued all day, but there's three facts:

• Fact One: Randi's challenge is a notable challenge aimed directly at mediums as shown through many references and therefore merits at least a mention in the article. This mention must be neutral.

• Fact Two: Randi's challenge is only a challenge and does not prove conclusively that mediums do not or cannot exist. There are references to this as well. Even without going into credibility of Randi or JREF, there are guidelines to the challenge that by definition make it not all-inclusive. Therefore the mention of the challenge (which again should be included), should be put into an appropriate context mentioning its limitations and criticisms in order for it to be balanced and neutral.

• Fact Three: The guidelines for the challenge were recently changed and the main criteria from these changes should be mentioned. In other words, when writing the paragraph based on Fact One and Fact Two, it should say "Mediums with a media profile and academic sponsor are eligible..." instead of "Mediums are eligible..."

If we get into all the other debates over this challenge, it will take up a disportionate amount of the article and be less likely to remain stable. --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Psi could be genuine, even mediums could be genuine, and no one would ever be able to pass the challenge." Can you explain this?

All I meant was that the psi which has been proven in the lab could not pass the test. Or, not in a way where only a million dollars would cover the cost of the test. A medium could be communicating with the dead, and it would show only in statistical significance over many trials. This would not pass the challenge. But it would still be genuine.

Nealparr, so we should make clear that the challenge doesn't disprove claims. Do we say anything about how CSI isn't really trustworthy? That's the problem here. I truly don't believe that the prize could be won by genuine psi. Genuine psi is to weak, and the minds in CSI are too strong and ingenious. That's really why the challenge conveys a false impression: psi could be genuine, and the challenge could be forever unwinable. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"A medium could be communicating with the dead, and it would show only in statistical significance over many trials." Really? You think that medium abilities could only be demonstrated over a large number of trials, and some complex statistical analysis might show a small effect? That's certainly not the case purported by mediums and their clients. Whatever happened to "he told me things he couldn't have known" and the 90% accuracy claimed by Sylvia Browne? When someone attends a medium sitting, they're not participating in a long and complex trial, are they? They expect results that they can recognise straight away. Is it too much to ask that the challenge represents what the mediums actually claim to do and often charge money for? Stevepaget 07:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

" Genuine psi is too weak, and the minds in CSI are too strong and ingenious." Maybe what's needed are weaker minds? ;-) OK, sorry. I could not resist a tiny bit of humor. --- LuckyLouie 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah....(; I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that the greatest thing about being a reasonable person is that you can think of a reason for anything.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the trustworthiness of CSI should be left to the reader to determine. This is done by presenting relevant, notable facts from both sides in a neutral manner. Opinions are definitely derived from reading the facts, but can't be offered directly according to the NPOV policies. Let the reader decide if they are trustworthy rather than saying they are or aren't.

But there's three reasons why CSI's trustworthiness doesn't belong in this article. 1) It's point of view, and not a neutral point of view. 2) It would take way too much space to present everything about CSI's trustworthiness to make it neutral in an article that isn't really about CSI.

The third reason is the real reason, however. Eventhough Randi is a member of CSI, this challenge is done through JREF, independently of CSI. CSI isn't directly relevant to this topic. JREF isn't either. Expanded information about JREF and the challenge debate should be in the JREF article. Just the basic info that I outlined above should be included here because that part is relevant through its notability as a challenge to mediums. If it wasn't such a famous challenge, it wouldn't belong here either.--~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(Actually, is he even a card-carrying member of CSI anymore? Some places say yes, others no.)--~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. You know a lot more about it than I do. I've just seen than when it's used here in Wikipedia paranormal articles, it is always used in a way that indicates "DUH. If any of this were real, stupid, any psychic would be rich."Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that. That's why I am hoping it is worded in such a factual way that it doesn't blatantly express that (not necessarily true) opinion.--~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"A medium could be communicating with the dead, and it would show only in statistical significance over many trials." Really? You think that medium abilities could only be demonstrated over a large number of trials..." Sometimes they seem to give better results, which might, in a fair trial, be convincing. But see Hyman's critique of Schwartz's experiments. And, I said Randi has done a lot of good. Fighting fraud is the good side of the challenge. I only object to the way it's used in Wikipedia to sneer at all psi. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Sometimes they seem to give better results, which might, in a fair trial, be convincing." The problem is that the accuracy of information given in normal readings cannot be trusted, as it might be the result of cold or hot reading. That's why a fair trial is one where these possibilities are eliminated by controls. And mediums must hate these sorts of controls, because they don't volunteer for these sorts of tests. Stevepaget 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)