Talk:Gordon Smith (psychic medium)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Needs expansion[edit]

Needs more sources and info, and before it is tagged rad the refs, he is notable and has appeared on several tv shows, and books need adding Macromonkey (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found an essay by Robert Todd Carroll that might be worth using [1]].
If he's been studied, where are the reports? --Ronz (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Best[edit]

Why is this on-topic? This article is about one Gordon Smith. Also, citing a description of his teacher to Smith's website is not really the best source. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a fact that is regularly cited in sources about Smith, including his own autobiographies. They had a very close friendship, so is worth a mention Fahrenheit 21:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was unclear - mentioning Best, who seems to have had a significant impact on Smith's life, is perfectly fine; I would even venture that to leave him out would probably be inappropriate. What I disagree with is devoting ~8% of this article to talking up someone else entirely. The fact that Best is a medium is already established by that sentence, so the clause who is commonly hailed as one of the greatest mediums of the 20th Century does not really add to our knowledge of Smith. Citing the relationship to Smith's website is probably okay by Self-published sources, but not this description.
A source intellectually independent of both Smith and Best would cure the self-promotion issue, but not necessarily the weight issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8% of the article is a little misleading, when on a short article any statement is going to form a significant percentage. It is a short description, as many people will be unaware who Best was. (Incidentally I am planning to create the article on him). He was a notable psychic, and it is a sourced statement, so I believe it should remain. All the best, Fahrenheit 16:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do create the article if you have RS establishing notability, but please don't restore puffery to this article. If you create the other article, the link will suffice, and it us giving undue weight and puffery to have such a claim in this BLP. Thanks, Verbal chat 18:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will do, I agree that that would suffice, as the new article would contain this info. But why remove the bit about the professor? Cheers, Fahrenheit 19:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because his professorship is not related to psychics in any way (eg, not 'psychical research' or parapsychology), hence irrelevant to this claim and bio. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Former barber[edit]

Smith's career as a barber is sourced to two references. Source 1 says: Having spent 15 years balancing his work as an internationally renowned medium with his day job, as a barber in his native Glasgow, Gordon now conducts mediumship workshops and events around the world. Source 2 says: Dubbed "the psychic barber" because he used to run a barber's shop in Scotland. Both of these indicate that he no longer practices, instead earning his income being a psychic. Is there some other source indicating that he still cuts hair for a living? - 2/0 (cont.) 01:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at those refs, and agree that the first is inconclusive (leaning towards no longer a barber), while the second suggests he isn't a barber any longer (while still not being definitive). I'd suggest we do the same, lacking more sources. We shouldn't state he is still a barber (a yellow pages listing might suffice?) Verbal chat 09:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV issue[edit]

      I believe that making the claim that someone is a psychic medium is to imply that there really are "psychic mediums" and by extension that psychic phenomena are real.  This is a controversial and hotly debated subject. And I believe that for an article to make such a claim is a violation of Wikipedia's policy of always writing with a neutral point of view, stating a personal opinion rather than stating an unbiased fact. I have two suggestions for correcting this:

      I would be interested in what other editors have to say about this. (Before I change an existing article, I always like to allow time for others to express their opinions.)
Richard27182 (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over a week since I posted the above and there has been no response, either for or against. I have gone ahead and made one of the changes I proposed. If anyone disagrees with it, please discuss it here.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Psychic mediums" have existed since the dawn of time and have been known as "shamans" or an equivalent name in most so-called primitive societies. Whatever term is used to describe a person allegedly communicating with spiritual entities, the role has been well-defined regardless of whether or not they "really" communicate with such beings and whether or not such beings are "real". What matters is that the function is well defined and socially recognised. Which it is.

If we apply your reasoning to priests, bishops, pastors, the pope or whichever job title applies to a religious function, we should then say that they "describe themselves" as such since their social function is to be representatives of Jesus (or whatever spiritual entity) and unifiers of the people of God, etc. and, by extension, that God "is" real which is not "factually" proven, obviously. That being the case, the Wikipedia entry for Pope Francis should then read: "Jorge Mario Bergoglio describes himself as the Pope" since there is no evidence that he "really" is the unifier of the people of God given that there is no evidence that God is "real". [1]

FYI, Spiritualism is a recognised religion in the U.K. and spirit mediums' official title is "reverend". [2]. Even the BBC does not have a problem with those titles[3].

References

  1. ^ http://churchauthority.org/blueprint/pope.asp
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism
  3. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-34051952

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gordon Smith (psychic medium). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gordon_Smith_(psychic_medium)&oldid=1202249978"