Talk:Xenoglossy

POV Edits

The reason for my original edit of this article was because of the wording, which implied that reincarnation and xenoglossy were a reality. This is POV. What's more, there isn't necessarily a relationship between xenoglossy and reincarnation. It's fine to leave this in the article for some kind of correlation, but only under a neutral tone. Please discuss this issue here before making any reversions. Grendel 02:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Glossolalia

I'm quite happy with the article except for the last sentence.

From what I've read, Xenoglossy and Glossolalia are two different things, having two quite different dictionary meanings. Certainly glossolalia is not what Stevenson and Thomason are talking about.

If a citation can be found to support what is being said in the last sentence, then fine. Otherwise I would suggest that the sentence is removed and the term "glossolalia" listed in the "See also" section. Johnfos 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Googling xenoglossy pulls up a number of sites that seem to use it to mean glossolalia, and (worse) sites that use it to refer to both, without drawing any distinction between the two.

Nonetheless, there was indeed a problem with the last sentence: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is not about the term xenoglossy, but rather about one concept that is principally identified by that term.

I've fixed it now.

—Ruakh_TALK 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

As I pointed out in the edit note, the Almeder quote adds nothing as it is merely a statement of opinion. The reference to a later paper of Stevenson (a) repeats the UNDISPUTED point that the speaker actually did speak Bengali and merely repeats Stevenson's view that he has refuted Thomason's critique, without reporting the evidence and argumentation. These are not useful additions to the article.

The more detailed description of the content of the news reports of the Czech speedway racer are based directly on the news reports. They are therefore not unsourced.Bill (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the Talk page. I will certainly take another look at things. But two questions first: Why have you added Category:Pseudoscience to the article when Category:Reincarnation research (already included) is a sub-category of Category:Pseudoscience? Secondly, why have you have added the statement "The existence of xenoglossy is not generally accepted by linguists and psychologists", but have provided no inline citation to support the claim? Johnfos (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Several days have passed, and I guess there is no more discussion at this time, so I will go ahead and make some changes. Johnfos (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

section "In religion"

The section is very vague and hard to understand. Maybe instead of retelling we could just cite the whole thing. It's only 13 lines.--Tired time (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Section: The Rosemary case

What does the following sentence mean? "Three books on the case have been published and two gramophone discs of xenoglossy have been recorded."

Does it mean: a) Three books on the Rosemary case have been published and two gramophone discs of OTHER examples of xenoglossy have been recorded. OR b) Three books on the Rosemary case have been published and two gramophone discs of HER OWN examples of xenoglossy have been recorded. ?

If it is the latter, why prohibits scholars of today examining them as the following sentence of the article implies?

Please clarify this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.67.59 (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a reference to examination by a modern Egyptologist. Jpg1954 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference to Hulme's examination links to a funerary service. Perhaps it can be located elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.66.76.1 (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure where you are finding a link "to a funerary service". Neither Gunn's 1937 JEA article, nor the Fenwicks' book are "funerary services". Jpg1954 (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC) fixed typo Jpg1954 (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Page title?

So far as I can tell, xenoglossia is by far the more common term. (Quick Google check: xenoglossia, 535,000 hits; xenoglossy, 65,000 hits.) It does not seem to be a regional English issue; it appears that xenoglossia is the accepted scientific/linguistic term, and xenoglossy an older term, perhaps from a religious or pseudoscience origin.

I propose this as a noncontroversial page move. Comments solicited. Thanks, --MCB (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is indeed controversial, since the subject of this article isn't Idolmaster: Xenoglossia wich represent the vast majority of your extra google hits. Glossolalia seems to be about the religious phenomenona and xenoglossy is about the parapsychological phenomena this article covers. No name change needed just yet, xenoglossia is mentioned in the opening paragraph. Hepcat65 (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

13th warrior

Should the 13th warrior really be classified as xenoglossy? Given the definition it's more a paranormal experience, "he or she could not have acquired by natural means." This would seem contrary to the statement in the movie by way of "I listened" If I recall the trip took a long time and him paying attention and listening to the words is implied that he 'learned' the language despite improbable and difficult to learn in a non instructive manner. If I recall, doesn't this also happen in last samurai too, where after living with them he learns to speak their language by listening? Perhaps this should be removed as an example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.33.189 (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article - it is simply a narrative trick to show how he Ibn Fadlan learned the language through interaction. I also removed the other pop culture reference since it was equally tangential to the topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Anglophone/U.S. bias

The article previously stated:"For example, a person who speaks German fluently, but who has never studied it, never been to a German-speaking country, and never associated with German speakers, would be said to exhibit xenoglossy."

That is biased and incorrect. A native German speaker can be born in a foreign country. He would never study German (since he's native he learnt it as a little kid from his mother), never been to a German speaking country, and never associated with German speakers (outside his parents, but his parents can also die when he's 7 or so).

The bias here, is that the article assumes that the native language of anyone is English. I have corrected this bias by adding that someone who is NOT a native German speaker and never studied German etc., might be said to exhibit xenoglossia. By the way, this doesn't seem to be real, at least not in everyday life -- I'm a Christian and Christians believed it happened once with the Apostles, but are there scientifically documented cases today? I doubt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Philip K Dick case

I think that somewhere on this page should be the example of that claimed by late science fiction author Philip K Dick, who claimed to have an experience where he spoke a rare form of Greek, which was understood by his wife at the time, who inaccurately thought of it as Koine Greek. This could be an unsubstantiated case, but should exist under ubsubstantiated cases nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.190.254 (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Swarnlatta Mishra case

Was the case of the Hindi-speaking girl who supposedly sang songs in Bengali not reanalysed by Thomason? All the other listed cases were reanalysed by her, and exposed as dubious, so the gap is puzzling. That said, singing songs in an unknown foreign language is far less miraculous seeming than actually interacting in an unknown foreign language, and the girl, even though she may never have been exposed to spoken Bengali, could well have heard the Bengali songs somewhere before, possibly when she was still quite small, forgotten about these experiences, and unconsciously recalled these memories. So this case is no better than the others, even if Thomason may not have reanalysed it. (It is also suspicious that all or almost all cases involve relatively closely related and similar languages, and not even obscure ones; Hindi and Bengali are very closely related, too, and it is not easy to be sure that a Hindi-speaker has never heard a word of Bengali, and might not have picked up a smattering of the language, which might fool an overly credulous investigator in believing that the subject speaks Bengali, so the potential for conscious or unconscious deception is quite considerable here, even really large. I bet I could feign "miraculous" knowledge of Dutch, too, given the low standards displayed here.) --Florian Blaschke (talk)

Camels not used for transport in Ancietn Egypt

Here is one reference http://people.csail.mit.edu/hanna/Egypt/index06.html

" The camel was not a domestic animal. It appears in the records of the First, the nineteenth, and the twenty-fifth Dynasties but was probably an importation as it certainly was in the Roman period when it was used as a water carrier. Not until the Arab invasion did the camel become an acclimatized domestic animal in Egypt."

Jpg1954 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Gretchen and German word "Bettzimmer"

Being German, may I state that "Bettzimmer" in an existing word in German indeed, while admittedly not being a stand-alone word: it is usually used in tourism in connection with "Ein-", "Zwei-" or "Mehr-", "Familien-" etc., the prefix giving the number of beds within one room to be let. So for example, "Zweibettzimmer" (or "2-Bettzimmer", "2-Bett-Zimmer", "Zweibett-Zimmer") would mean a room with two beds in it, in English a.f.a.i.k. referred to as to "a double". Interesting, that Gretchen stated that word when was being asked what she had had for breakfast; could it be possible that she had read a travel brochure in German before, where the prases "(x-)Bettzimmer" and "Frühstück" (i.e., breakfast) could have been easily found close to each other? If Gretchen's were not a case of true xenoglossy, this could help explain that particular answer of hers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhein-matthes (talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe we should add a note to that section. Shurakai (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In Christianity needs references

It is currently entirely based on Primary research. Zambelo (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I also seem to remember that glossolalia is usually used to refer to the "speaking in tongues" phenomenon, which still occurs in some evangelical christian sects ceremonies, which they attribute to the "holy spirit". Although this article links to it, possibly that the section on christianity also should... Finding a reference for this would probably be easier. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes by 74.195.244.87

74.195.244.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• WP:FRINGE sources such as ‪Ducasse, Wood, ‬Society for Psychical Research, etc. are not considered independent or reliable.
• ‪We can't source entire paragraphs to Ian Stevenson's reincarnation book‬s for the same reasons.
• Wikipedia can't call claims of xenoglossy "Cases subjected to scientific investigation" since parapsychology or psychic investigation is not considered a legitimate science.
• Neither can we call these cases of xenoglossy, as they are actually only claims of xenoglossy, unless we are specifically attributing Stevenson using the term.
• Additionally, listing such "cases" by the name of the person supposedly reincarnated/possessed/channeling etc. might be fine for a parapsychology book, but for Wikipedia's purposes it is unencyclopedic, and per WP:FRINGE, we can't explicate fringe content from the fringe advocate's point of view.

LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, This is Ehsan. I noticed that someone has changed the 'Xenoglossy' page and has deleted all the case reports and investigations that universities did on the subject for years. The change just left a couple of skeptic books that their author are not either linguists nor psychiatrists. I am an assistant professor and I am working with academic society and well aware of the importance of correct reliable referencing and citation. The page of Xenoglossy has been developed through years and several references reflecting both side views have been added to it. This page includes the view of proponents (such as Stevenson) and skeptics (such as Thomason and Samarin). Since the research is still ongoing on this phenomena, the article should reflect both sides references and viewpoints (also avoiding fringe references). All I did, I kept the new references that has been added recently and I added the previous references and explanations to it. So basically I did not revert it to the previous version. I just added all the viewpoints so that it doesn't look a biased article taking only one side. Let me know if you have any more questions on this topic. We are all seeking the truth. No one can claim they know the ultimate answer. We have to cite all the research and go forward to see what the majority of researchers will find in the near future. Thank you. 74.195.244.87 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

To answer some of the important points mentioned above:

• "WP:FRINGE sources such as ‪Ducasse, Wood, ‬Society for Psychical Research, etc. are not considered independent or reliable".

In answer to this comment, I should say that Ducasse was a Professor at University of Washington so we can't label a person easily as FRINGE source unless we have evidence to show us so. Please mention a reason why you consider him a Fringe source. I am not a defender of Ducasse, I am just a proponent of free expressing of ideas and findings. Let people decide who is fake and who is real by referring to source and read the actual book, material, article, etc. of the author. The same is true about Society of Psychic Research. There have been several university professors among the member of this society who participated in the research. Labeling all their efforts as invalid without studying their reports, papers, etc. is an unscientific method. Let's cite the references and reflect both side's viewpoint and let the reader decides which group is more legitimate. The sources mentioned here in the Xenoglossy article are Published peer reviewed sources. Wikipedia requires that the sources should be : "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". The definition of published sources are: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".

74.195.244.87 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• "‪We can't source entire paragraphs to Ian Stevenson's reincarnation book‬s for the same reasons".

To answer this comment, I should say that Ian Stevenson spent 40 years of his life investigating the Xenoglossy claims. So far he is the most famous academic person who has spent so much time and energy investigating these cases. Maybe in the future other people investigate more cases and find that the Stevenson's data can't be reproduced. But until this point, we don't have a better person to cite their work. Just for your information I have to add that Dr. Erlendur Haraldsson, professor of psychology at University of Iceland, Dr. Jürgen Keil, Associate professor of psychology, University of Tasmania, Australia, Dr. Antonia Mills, Professor in First Nations studies University of Northern British Columbia, Canada, have investigated the cases of Ian Stevenson independently and all have come to the conclusions that the cases are authentic. They have even developed the cases of their own which are corroborating Ian Stevenson's data. This is a whole different topic though. What I am saying is we have to cite all the academic investigation that we have and let people judge what side they want to take. When in the near future more academic investigation were launched, we will limit the section of Stevenson and add the others to this page as well. 74.195.244.87 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

According to above explanation, I will keep the academic investigations in the Xenoglossy phenomena and brief explanations of case reports on the Xenoglossy page. The skeptics points of view have been reflected as well. 74.195.244.87 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

74, you keep adding psychical journals into the article and mass undue weight to Stevenson's paranormal books - this is quite unfair considering I have told you a number of times why this is a problem in my edit summaries and even on your talk-page. This is not the way Wikipedia works. As pointed out you need to read WP:FRINGE. You are also deleting reliable sources for no reason just because you consider them 'skeptical'. I understand you are a new user and I wish you all the best in your editing, but you have messed up the referencing format and the article just looks a mess in what you have done. You might want to play around in your sandbox to get a practice or at least seek consensus with other users here for your bold edits that are adding in loads of fringe material. Goblin Face (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Goblin Face, You mentioned in your above comment that I keep adding psychical journals. Tell me which ones are you particularly considering psychical journals. I add only papers and book published in the open literature. Tell me which one you think is not valid and I will remove it. You also said that I deleted the "reliable sources". I did not delete any sources. I just added to them. Tell me which one and I will add it. I am new does not mean I am wrong or I should stay away. Communicate to me exactly what are your points and I am listening. Tell me an example of what I referenced incorrectly please. We should add all the references. I am not intending to outweigh for Stevenson. I want to reflect both side's idea. I add some of those skeptics references you see such as Thomason and Samarin.74.195.244.87 (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You really need to look deeper into the encyclopedia's policies, particularly WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia isn't a place for "free expression of ideas". It's a mainstream encyclopedia, and that means it reflects orthodox views of science. In a nutshell, articles about fringe theories must mirror the lack of credibility given them by mainstream academia, and do so very clearly. We can't Give equal validity to both fringe and orthodox views and "let the reader decide". Regarding Curt John Ducasse, a reliable independent source isn't a matter of mere credentials. As a parapsychologist, Ducasse's fringe perspective can be given little to no weight, and certainly can't be used to cite facts in Wikipedia's voice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have looked into the encyclopedia's policies WP:FRINGE. Don't take my individual wordings out of context. When I refer to "free expression of ideas" it means ideas that are supported by data and academic measurements. I agree with you that it is a mainstream encyclopedia that will reflect the orthodox views of science. For this, we have to express the cases and research and then reflect the academic criticism and linguists expert on the topic. What you have done is to eliminate all the cases and make it look like nobody has done any work in this area. The previous theme of the page was already reflecting the mainstream science belief about Xenoglossy with clear reasons and detail analysis of the cases by Dr. Thomason and Dr. Samarin. However new version reflects no details. It just says basically there is nothing to worry about or there is nothing to be mentioned. So I have to bring those cases back again to the page. I think we have to negotiate to reach a compromise on this page because this editing back and forth are not constructive. OK, tell me this. What is your problem with briefly explaining the major cases and claims of Xenoglossy a research that was performed by university of Virginia?74.195.244.87 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:FRIND, "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles", which makes a lot of sense because when the only discussion of a subject is among proponents of the fringe reincarnation theory, then it has received no notability outside a small minority and is rightly excluded. This certainly applies to the "Swarnlatta Mishra case" and "Sharada case" cited only to Stevenson's books. The fact that Stevenson was associated with the University of Virginia has no bearing on the notability of details from his individual parapsychological "case" work. The "Lucia case" is sourced to a "Society for Psychical Research" document which is not a reliable source, nor is it independent of the fringe reincarnation theory. Additionally, your nonconsensual blanket reversions introduce NPOV problems, such as calling claims of Xenoglossy "cases of Xenoglossy" and asserting that they were "subject to scientific investigation" when parapsychology is widely considered to be a pseudoscience. Also your reversions add duplicate material, such as the "unsubstantiated cases" section which is already covered in the existing "history" section. These are only some problems with your reversions, and I hope you can see why there's no consensus among experienced editors for keeping them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

74.195.244.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still adding in the same fringe sources i.e. mass overweight to Stevenson's book, paranormal books or to psychic journals like the Society for Psychical Research. How many times has this user tried to do this now? It must be over four. I ask to again discuss this here and seek consensus from other users if you are going to keep re-adding. Goblin Face (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear GoblinFace,

I have read the wikipedia Fringe Page.

It says:

"Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

In this case, independent sources have been cited both supporting and criticizing the theory.

Wikipedia clearly mentions above: "...broadly supported by scholarship in its field..." Let me explain briefly who are scholarship in this field. Linguists, psychologists who have worked on this field such as Dr. Thomason (critique of the theory), Dr. Samarin (critique of the theory), Dr. Stevenson (principal investigator and researcher on this theory), Dr. Haroldson (researcher on this theory) and other people that I can add to this list. So scientific community has defenders and critiques at both sides of this theory. If we eliminate one side of academic research, it is as we are applying our personal preference to an unbiased matter of academic investigation.

Moreover, the article is under construction! I am working on it one or two days week. So these inconsistencies in referencing etc will be revised. Give me some time please to improve this page.

Moreover, the article has been changed to a very inaccurate and incorrect version now. For example it says: ".....These included two where a subject under hypnosis..." while they were at least four cases which was investigated in details.

In addition, the article has been written in a way that does not support the life after death theory. So I don't understand why we should eliminate :the history of research on this phenomena out of sight.

I have to revert the article to the more detailed version that it was before in which more details of cases were revealed.

I have included all the information in your version in that too. If I have failed to mention one of them by mistake, please tell me so that I can add them.74.195.244.87 (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the point-by-point issues right at the moment, but I think, in general, you are interpreting Wikipedia editorial policies in a way that isn't shared by more experienced editors. Your continued reversion of the article is problematic, to say the least. If you want to work on your own version of the article, it's better if you use a (userspace draft) to create it, then post a link to it here on the Talk page for purposes of discussion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Lucky Louie,

If you look at the history of the page, you see that this page started in 2004 and since then the people were adding different researches done by validated academic societies and institutions such as University of Virginia etc. to the article. In 2008, it had already several substantial cases and reflected the academic research into the Xenoglossy phenomenon. Since 2008 the article was edited by several users and got better and better reflecting the mainstream academic society approach and criticism for this phenomenon both on research supporting or criticizing Xenoglossy. Suddenly in October 2014, you and GoblinFace got on to this article and start to cut major parts of this article out because you thought that it is not consistent with your belief system or your personal taste. You then argued that it is probably Fringe theory etc. While only people who has done original research on the phenomenon can have some major points to share. This is why article reflected the major academic research that was done on this topic. So I suggest you and GoblinFace stop reverting this article back to a dormant version that does not reflect any details of investigation. I am listening to any reasoning that you might have to justify cutting out the academic research carried out on Xenoglossy.74.195.244.87 (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Your continued refusal to get the point is wearing. The relevant policies have been explained to you in great detail. Wikipedia is under no obligation to write articles in such a way as to support the life after death theory. Quite the opposite in fact. And if you won't accept that xenoglossy is a fringe theory that is subject to WP:FRINGE guidelines, I'm afraid there's not much we can do here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear LuckyLouie, as I mentioned earlier the rules of Fringe theory (that you refer to it) as Wikipedia states it is:

"Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

This is exactly what all of the users who contribute this page have done in the past 6 years. Claims of this article are based upon independent reliable sources from the famous universities of the United States. If you don't like the outcome of research, it does not mean we should not mention it in this page. Also the theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field has not been given undue weight. On the contrary the article is saying that all of the Xenoglossy finding has been criticized by some other scholars in the field. Basically the article, even with the details of cases in it, is more against Xenoglossy that supporting the phenomenon. The reliable sources have been cited and the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea has been explained in details with a substantial manner.

However, the version that you created, without presenting any serious details of research, concludes that there is nothing to see or discuss. The new version basically says that forget about the Xenoglossy since there is nothing to be mentioned here on this page. The details of cases and critiques are totally absent from the page. Basically the article has changed from a solid article to brief but inaccurate version. Therefore, I have to add again the cases that have been subject to academic investigation in the last 30 years.74.195.244.87 (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, blanket reverting without a broad editorial consensus is problematic. Maybe a better approach is for you to take one small section at a time and discuss it here in terms of what you feel is inaccurate, what you would want the text to say, material you would want included, material you would want removed, etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear LuckyLouie, The page is in a very poor shape now. The referencing is not appropriate and is in fact incomplete. please refer to what I have written in details for the administrator, Guy, below.74.195.244.87 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected the article for a while to allow stability and ensure that our anonymous friend doesn't end up getting blocked for edit warring and so on. Any admin is welcome to remove protection if there's good reason to think the issue is resolved. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Guy, This is Ehsan. Why did you semi-protect the page? Am I hearing this correctly? Did you mention that 'anonymous freind' (me) ends up being blocked for editing war?!! I am helping to protect this Xenoglossy page from being destroyed. User LuckieLouie and Goblinface got to this page since October 2014 and destroyed what all of us have build in the past 6 years. Look at the history of the page. Cases have been gradually added to this page and have made this page so detailed and informative. I can't believe you side with them. The edit they do is based on unscientific non-academic approach. They had put Alfred Hume in the same category with Ian Stevenson. Alfred Hume was not even a psychiatrist. He was not a linguist. How can a self-proclaimed Egyptologist idea gets so important that can be mentioned as a major topic in this page while other academic researchers and scholars should be eliminated. The details of the academic investigation are totally absent form the current version of this page now and Alfred Hume story is presented as one of the important cases here. Please do not let personalized idea of a couple of users eliminate the results of contributions of hundreds of people in the last 6 years. Just look at how many years the pages have included these cases and probably thousands of scholars and researchers have studied the page and have followed up with the references. Just look at the current version, the reference section of this article. Ian stevenson has been mentioned as one of the main researchers in this article while there is no reference to even one of his papers or books at the reference section. You are aware that without referencing properly, article will reduce to just a story. The page is in a very poor quality shape now. Please return it to the original status with correct referencing and details of the cases. The one it has been so for years. It was getting better and better and more complete each day until October 2014 that everything was destroyed.

This is the voice of me and hundreds of people behind me.

I am a true lover of wikipedia, I have used it so much, I have donated to Wikipedia several times and I will continue supporting wikipedia. I suffer when I see it's decline in some areas. Thank you.74.195.244.87 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Guy, please please please, think of the children. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

74, unfortunately you ignore Wikipedia policies but these have all been given to you, and we have all offered you advice. There is not much we can do. Every time you edit the article you just destroy it by inserting a load of fringe material or pseudoscience i.e. references to psychic papers. As for your claim about other editors using an "unscientific non-academic approach", this reflects your own edits. Every edit you have made to Wikipedia has been reverted. You need to sit down and ask yourself why this is. For example your edit here on the Leonora Piper article was reverted [1] after you tried to insert Victor Zammit (a spiritualist author) into the lead and here in the science section on the another article [2] you claimed "there seems to be a form of consciousness that survives the bodily death" and your reference was a paranormal book. Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. We don't give undue weight to pseudoscientific views or fringe related paranormal books. If you want to make a valid case then you need to cite reliable sources, preferably academic/scientific books or papers not links to only parapsychology books or websites. Regards. Goblin Face (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Goblin Face, You claimed I have ignored the Wikipedia policies. On the contrary, I am respecting all them. The Wikipedia policy says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". This is obviously not the case with the current version of the article. All I have referred to is referring to original researches that were published with the major universities of the Unite States such as Stevenson's research in University of Virginia etc. On the contrary, what you have added to the article (Alfred Hume) was a non academic reference and was a self claimed Egyptologist. You decide on your personal taste that who is spiritualist author and who is not. Basically, if it is according to your personal opinion, it is a good reliable reference and if it is contradictory to your view point, it should be eliminated. Even the references should not be cited since it is contradictory to your personal belief. Look at the article you have created. A set of stories without referring to any published source. You have created a paragraph for Stevenson but nobody knows where you have found your story since there is no reference to the original research. Therefore, you have to pay more attention to referencing policies of Wikipedia and try to correct what you have destroyed. The references are divided into tow categories of psychic and un-psychic. The research and data and repeatability of results shows which one is legitimate. You call whatever you don't like psychic papers or psychic authors. I did not see anything psychic in most of them since I have read some of them. It is just an academic inquiry into the phenomena. I doubt you have read any of those references you claimed psychic. The edit on Leonora Piper article had other reasons and I don't open that discussion here. Let's settle down the argument about our article first. You mentioned: "Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. We don't give undue weight to pseudoscientific views or fringe related paranormal books." This is what exactly I did. I referred to academic researches of University of Virginia. You instead deleted all those references and add a section for Alfred Hume which is a non academic non scientific story. Please stop destroying the result of efforts of hundreds of people who have contributed to this article and return the article to it's previous comprehensive shape. Just to let you know, I did not write the Xenoglossy article. All other people did. You have just destroyed it. Think about what you have done and stop this unnecessary discussion.74.195.244.87 (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

74, I did it for the reason stated: stability and to stop you getting blocked for edit warring. There are others here who are patiently explaining the problem with your edits, I advise you to listen to them. I have no particular interest in this topic. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Guy, did you read the explanation I provided above for you? I did not edit the article. The article was in good shape for years. Goblin Face and Luckie Louie edited that and eliminate all the useful information from it. I just returned it back to the shape it was for years. Your opinion is biased. Or maybe you don't have time to look into the history of the page and see what has happened. You are an administrator. You are supposed to adhere with the Wikipedia policies. You see that the article have incorrect referencing format and inappropriate story telling mode. You should help up saving the article not just blocking the users and stay with the latest version. I ask you to remove this semi-protection mode and return the article to it's original state. Nobody is happy now with what you did. Your protecting the article is good. Your protection of it in the latest wrong format is not understandable. Please stop this non constructive approach and ask Goblin Face and Luckie Louie to stop reverting the article back to what they think is true.74.195.244.87 (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to endorse the work done on the article by Goblin Face and Lucky Louie, and to thank Guy for helping to ease the situation. User:74, you still need to read the advice you have been getting, or you will find editing wikipedia to be an unhappy experience. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Roxy the dog, Please read the previous version and compare to the current version. The version that you are endorsing does not refer correctly to the source of the studies and investigations. The Wikipedia is not a story telling page to support the idea of normal or paranormal. It reflects the reliable sources. We want the sources to be listed not that most of them be eliminated to support the idea of a special group.74.195.244.87 (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I ask for help

I want to ask anyone who is interested in this page (Xenoglossy) to compare the current version of this page with the version before October 2014. If you find that the previous version to be more detailed, informative and more reflective of the academic research done on the phenomenon Xenoglossy, please add a sentence here to support returning the page to it's original shape.74.195.244.87 (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The difference is thus. The current version is compliant with policy, yours is not. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What part of our version (It is not even ours. It is the version that has been up for 6 years) does not comply with the policy? On the contrary, this new version is not complying with the policy. The referencing is incorrect. It tells the story without pointing out to controlled study or data. There are claims without referring to the original studies, etc. Explain please what part of the previous version was not complying with Wikipedia policy. 74.195.244.87 (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The parts that are no longer there. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Request reversal of some edits

Overall, I am fine with the revisions and streamlining. However, I think it has gone a little too far in the "Alfred Hume" section.

First of all, you have removed the phrase "Rosemary Case", by which it has been known for many decades. Anyone searching for "Rosemary Case" will not be directed to this page, and they should be.

Second, you have removed all the references to earlier papers and books refuting the case, leaving only a 21st century reference. This makes it sound as if the case has only recenlty been refuted. The removed references (Gunn and Ray/Fenwick) make it clear that it was refuted from the very beginning.

Would you please put them back in.

Jpg1954 (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Jpg1954 (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jpg1954. "Rosemary case" and other cases with proper referencing should be returned to this page. I think the administrator is acting poorly on this page let a few people remove and eliminate whatever they dislike. I request Wikipedia users pay attention to this page because it is now in a very bad shape.74.195.244.87 (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

JzG, You again reverted my changes without mentioning any reason. The sentence I added was exactly what was mentioned in the reference and I cited correctly. 74.195.244.87 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

WegianWarrior claims he is not Swedish but he can pronounce seven correctly as a Swedish person. If you don't mind, may I ask who evaluated your claim to be satisfactory? 74.195.244.87 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Native swedes from the Malmø area. I suspect they can tell... WegianWarrior (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Share more details with us please. What did they say exactly when you pronounced seven? Did you say it 10 times and they said it is okay or it was in another way. Please share more details.74.195.244.87 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No scientific evidence?

"There is no scientific evidence that xenoglossy is an actual phenomenon."

Statements like this always make me laugh: unless the author has personally surveyed all the evidence in the world, there can be no way of knowing this. What is meant is "I, the author, am personally unaware of any scientific evidence that xenoglossy is an actual phenomenon."

Although I grant you that in the case the assertion is very likely true, proving a negative is notoriously difficult.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)