Talk:Charmstone

old material

Don't see a need for this separate from Crystal healing. There's nothing here, anyway, to distinguish the two. Suggest a redirect. Kbh3rd 18:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think they are sufficiently different (even if both are complete baloney) for different articles. I've tweaked Crystal healing a bit, and will work on this one, too. - DavidWBrooks 19:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

definately agree. no merge should occur. Anlace 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

---

OK, I'm biased, I wrote the first draft of this ... I won't argue that there's a strong tie to Crystal healing, and they certainly should be linked. But they aren't quite the same thing, if close.

dino 19:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article seems oddly focused on crystals, though. A quick Google search for "charmstones" makes it clear that traditional charmstone practices weren't about lumps of uncut quartz as this article's illustration suggests. Furthermore, the article's attempts to connect the word "charmstone" to Chakras and New Age crystal healing seems completely inappropriate to the usual meaning of the word. The sources I'm finding talk about it as a phenomenon limited to pre-Columbian northern California, with either hazy or completely unknown purposes. 159.53.110.142 15:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bias

pseudoscientific quack therapy? Never on Wikipedia was a POV more appropriate... Beerathon 11:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Never? I suppose it is possible that this will turn into another scholastic debate about who is right and wrong, who beleives and who does not. I find the double entendre pseudoscientific AND quack therapy to be highly offensive to my sensibilities. I suppose the term 'baseless pseudoscientific New Age quack therapy nonsense' would bolster the ever so subtle message to STAY AWAY from the crystal healers! I am going to remove quack therapy from the article... the word pseudoscientific (meaning false) is enough... Come on guys... some people derive great benefit from using crystals, even if you dont believe it works. Even if you may deem it to have a placebo effect, some people still believe crystal therapy is useful. This article is listed under the Metaphysics section; it is how I found it. So some metaphysical discussion is certainly in order here.Drakonicon 14:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

One Crystal Power 'legend' I know of comes from Edgar Cayce's talk of the Tuaoi Stone in Atlantis. Check that out.Drakonicon 14:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Metaphysics Cat

I recently removed the metaphysics category from the article. The change was reverted (see edit summaries), so I am moving the discussion here. I can't see how this is metaphysics in the usual definition. There are of course, folks who call it metaphysical, however they seem to be using a seperate definition. Perhaps a second category, such as Metaphysics (new age) or something similar would be more useful. Someone who is researching Physicalism, for instance, is not likely to need a like to concepts like Crystal power, and likewise the reverse. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 17:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not someone 'needs' a link is an arbitrary choice by us as editors. I believe someone studying Physicalism, who then chooses to explore links to Metaphysics, should be given the option to see a range of what constitutes 'Metaphysics'. The reason, I think Metaphysics as a simple link, (not a detailed discussion) should be a part of this article, is I suppose because of what I know of the Edgar Cayce readings that speak about the uses, ancient and modern, of Crystals as healing tools and 'power generators'. The Cayce-readings talk about such 'crystal power' in physical terms, that to some readers can seem quite abstract, or beyond mainstream theories and applications of Physics, Chemistry, Biology... Maybe what I am saying looks like original research, in the sense that, I understand Metaphysics to include discussions of Crystals as 'Power Stimulators/Sources'. As editors, I believe we are creating articles based on our own literature review.

If we go by the Metaphysics cat definition: "Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy, that studies the most fundamental concepts and beliefs about the basic nature of reality." then Crystal Power, in the way the Cayce-readings explain it, is certainly exploring 'the most fundamental beleifs about the basic nature of reality'.

My understanding of the basic definition of metaphysics comes from reading Descartes 'Meditations of First Philosophy'.. which takes place in Descartes discussion of what the world is (to him at least). Looking also, at the mnumerous topics listed under the Metaphysics cat, i checked out the Ken Wilbur (writer) category to see he is a metaphysical healer.. and checked out the Physicalism category to see that this is a philosophical discussion, in the Cartesian sense, of First Philosophy (Metaphysics). Not that Cartesian philosophy necessarily agrees with the tenets of Physicalism, but I am trying to show that there at least two uses of the word "Metaphysics' (1. Wilbur's sense of Metaphysical Healer)(2. Philosophical sense of 'what is?'). Crystal Power can bridge both categories I feel, but initially its can be understood in the Cayce-readings metaphysical discussions of crystals as power sources and healing mechanisms. I hope this helps. Lots of generalisations here I know. Just trying to help flesh out this article a bit.

Your right about there being little need for a link between Physicalism and Crystal Power, considering Physicalism talks about holding only to what is physical. However, I like to read Wikipedia in terms of possibilites, not simply probabilities. Useful links that broaden the scope of an article interest me.Drakonicon 07:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What we have, I think, is a question of appropriateness of our definition. Professional philosophers do not subscribe to the view that material such as crystal power is metaphysics, as is made clear in the Metaphysics article. As this distinction is made in the main article for the category, I think it is a reasonable distinction to maintain here. Researching physicalism is simply an example (I selected it more or less randomly, as example of someone using the metaphysics cat), my point is that for a student researching metaphysics or subareas in a philosophy class is likely to view the crystal power link as clutter at best, and potentially view the Wikipedia project as a whole as unprofessional for failing to make the same distinctions which professionals in the field make. --TeaDrinker 07:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Yes, in a philosophy class, I would expect to find relevant articles and subcategories that define the parameters of what constitutes 'Metaphysics'. One reason I dropped philosophy and focussed on literature for my postgrad work was because of the narrowness of the field that philosophy was representing at the University I attended. It is also a reason why I took cross-cultural religion, comparative studies, postmodernism, and such, because of the broader range of philosophical interests and topics and issues talked about under these topics. What else should be considered clutter in the metaphysics cat list? I'm curious... Drakonicon 05:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and started a discussion at Category talk:Metaphysics to sort out the two. Something like Inedia would also seem to be non-academic in terms of Metaphysics. I can't say I have gone through the list systematically and examined all of them. I'll go ahead and post a note on the Wikiproject Philosophy talk page and see if anyone else has some comments. --TeaDrinker 20:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this article needs alot of revision. Maybe some one who isn't so skeptical could write some less negative comments. Stone healing (charmstone healing) maybe a different idea but it still has definite undeniable value and healing prospects. It shouldn't be written like it's untrue. To the skeptics- Try it. Please help revise this article!

Skepticism, Geology and Crystals

Do we have to label Ian Plimer a skeptic? I think that 'a debate between a Professor of Geology and a Crystal Healing Practioner' is enough information for the reader to see that a dichotomy of opinion about crystals is taking place at that link.Drakonicon 14:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous

The sentence "This belief has been part of several indigenous cultures for centuries." was added to the first paragraph. I think a scholarly citation would be appropritate here, although I was tempted to remove the sentence entirely. I am not sure "indigenous" is a useful term here, since there is no reference to a geographical location. --TeaDrinker 01:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

- I agree. I place a source citation there. I would like to see the archeological or anthropological sources for that claim.

-Bill January, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.201.225 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Section "How it works"

I just reverted to remove a section titled "how it works" from the text. It is the second time this section was removed (although the fist time was not by me). I think this is pretty clearly original research. If it is the primary, or a primary belief of the crystal power proponents, then it probably should be discussed in the article, re-worded however in a neutral manner. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

suggested name change

a better name for this article might be Healing stone or Charmstone; this would also encourage the tilt of the article to a more scholarly bent to discuss the long history of this concept by prehistoric North American and probably other world regions. Anlace 05:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good - fully support the name change and focus. Vsmith 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing the article's name from "Crystal power" to "Charmstones" may be a little ill-advised. While Charmstones are a very worthwhile topic, they are actually a very different topic from what is being discussed here. This article needs a complete overhaul to meet its new mandate. 159.53.46.141 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

to the above anon user: please create an account if you really wish to contribute to a discussion like this. its hard to take seriously the IP address which has consistently engaged in vandalism. also you are free to create more aricles on crystals if you feel they are underrepresented on wikipedia. we already have some though. Anlace 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to remain anonymous, and consider that option to be one of the greatest strengths of Wikipedia. (It's not a big, weird, personal thing; I'd just prefer not to have to worry about building and maintaining a community reputation.) As for creating new crystal-related articles, my point is actually quite to the contrary: I would like to see the crystal content removed from this article, and replaced with information that actually pertains to charmstones. The prehistoric tradition isn't really related to New Age crystal use in any way that I can see. 159.53.46.141 20:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

An anon added some tags to the criticism section. While I can certainly understand, and concur with, the need to add more citations to the article, I really don't understand how "skeptic" or "crystal healing practicioner" could be taken as weasel words, or what could be used in their place. I don't see other indications of weasel words in the article, and since there is no discussion here, I am removing the tags. I have added one ref, but will try to get to the others when I get a chance. Further thoughts or clarifications? --TeaDrinker 07:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Academic Sources

The article seriously needs to start reciting sources. Alot of it just seems to nothing but New Age talk.

-Bill January, 2008

Rework as archaeology

I've redone this article to concern the artifact. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charmstone. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130830170249/http://dunollie.org/history/the-brooch-of-lorn/ to http://www.dunollie.org/history/the-brooch-of-lorn/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130503010941/http://www.tarbat-discovery.co.uk/Learning%20Files/Painted%20pebbles%20in%20early%20Scotland.pdf to http://www.tarbat-discovery.co.uk/Learning%20Files/Painted%20pebbles%20in%20early%20Scotland.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)