Talk:Spiritism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Number of Adepts[edit]

Because Spiritist Moviment doesn't proselytizes and is not a religious denomination (as states in the article), there is no current estimation for the number of Spiritists in Brazil. The IBGE estimation came from the census on religion, but many Spiritists do not consider themselves Spiritism "followers", because it is not a religion. Another poll made by a established poll research institution in Brazil shows that half of Brazilian population believes in reincarnation. Once Buddhism and Hinduism are almost non-existent in Brazil, it shows the strong influence of The Spiritist Doctrine and other native believes in Brazil. Moreover, in another poll (Rede Globo Mineira, 2000) in the populous State of Minas Gerais, Chico Xavier, the most popular spiritist medium in Brazil, was elected the Mineiro (Minas's citizen) of the century, competing against other popular celebrities like the former President Juscelino Kubischeck and inventor Santos Dumont. Recently Epoca Magazine comments an statistic of 20 to 30 millions of spiritists in Brazil. For the reasons above I'm removing the badly grounded statistics about the number of spiritists in Brazil.

Article needs to be split again[edit]

I see that "spiritism" was merged with "Kardecism". This was a big, big mistake. Wile the word "spiritism" may have been coined by Alan Kardec, it now has a general meaning in English, for a concept that is much older than Kardec and quite distinct from the specific religion "Kardecism" or "Kardecist Spiritism" (which is only one of many religions that include spiritism in their belief systems). I am Brazilian and I know very well that Kardecism is usually called Espiritismo in Brazil; but this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Portuguese version. One must respect the standard meaning of words in English, not try to redefine them to match the usage of cognates in other languages. As a result of the merge, the article is now a big mess, a battlefield between those who want to write an article about Kardecism, and those who try to keep the general sense. Please, let's split again the article, and let's be careful about not confusing apples and oranges with fruit. Also note that a Wikipedia article on Religion X is not just another webpage about X. It is definitely not a place where believers of X have more "right" to write than non-believers. Among many other requirements, the contents of a Wikipedia article must be fully acceptable to most readers of other religions (or with no religion at all). In particular, the fact that believers of X dislike the mention of some objective fact or major reference that is relevant to the topic is not sufficient reason to delete it. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi 16:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The articles should NOT be split again. While Spiritism is a "diverse" word, Kardec was the first to codify a real and consistent Spiritism. This is not about "POV or partial", he was the first to deservedly take the word Spiritism, the first to explain it and her coherence and the penetrating form he wrote his books give him the right to have propriety on his name. Please if want to argument, read "Book on Mediums", challenge the book author; and if you accomplish giving the word Spiritism a better purpose than now exist, than try to change the world and write in Wikipedia!
However, in the English-language Wikipedia the meaning of any unqualified word is its current meaning in English. This is a basic principle for the whole project and is no longer open to discussion. So the definition given in Kardec's book (or any other book on spiritism) is irrelevant; what matters is what the English dictionaries say.
Webster online:
spiritism = spiritualism (sense 2a)
spiritualism =
1: the view that spirit is a prime element of reality
2a: a belief that spirits of the dead communicate with the living usually through a medium.
2b (capitalized): a movement comprising religious organizations emphasizing spiritualism.
Also, for technical reasons, the capitalization of the first letter is irrelevant in article titles, so "Spiritism" and "spiritism" must be the same article. So if you want an article about "Spiritism in the sense defined by Kardec" you must give it a more specific title, like "Kardec's Spiritism", "Kardecist Spiritism", "Spiritism (Kardecism)", "Spiritism (Alan Kardec)", etc..
"Scientific Spiritism" would be OK too, although it is less clear than the previous ones (the typical reader would not know what the phrase means without opening the article, even if he has heard of Alan Kardec).
Note that "Scientific Spiritism" is distict from "Scientific spiritism" and "scientific spiritism" as an article title, since capitalization is important after the first letter.
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 13:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I support Stolfi´s opinion. Subramanian talk 07:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Trying to be nicer than my previous comment… : - )
It must be clear that all the time I am saying "Spiritism", I’m referring to the one codified by Allan Kardec.
Trying to be concise, I do not think the Spiritism doctrine codified by Kardec is different of the meaning of the spiritism word in English language. Although the article should follow a “technical” or impartial approach to the word spiritism in its factual sense, if we intend a solid article, the “part” or “section” of "Kardecist Spiritism" should be included (obviously). Following arguments...
The meaning in English for the word SPIRITISM: “a belief that spirits of the dead communicate with the living usually through a medium”; this statement obviously doesn’t contradict in any way the spiritism principles.
It would be more proper or nice for the spiritism article to be solid article about its “general” or “original” meaning, but, sincerely, I can't see this term in a free, general public, world encyclopedia succeeding having a solid article without Allan Kardec having authority on it; I mean it logically of course. But, unassumingly, I would say we would get to the time that Spiritism would be pleasant or appropriate for the same article. Even though Kardec might not have created the term (in English language and in its very root, for he has coined the modern French term), and, that being the case, even though it is correct that the definition given in Kardec's work would be truly irrelevant (yet the same subject) regarding the accurate history of the word, it is true he was the first to got involved in a deep research on a matter concerning obviously this subject. This fact evidently doesn’t make him proprietor of the name, but, by facts, the categorical superiority (who did come near?) and the unrivaled profound elucidation (on a delicate matter) of his work make him much more than suitable, but actually required for this article. The word spiritism in English language may not be Kardec creation, but Kardec’s work is clearly intrinsic to the subject; modestly we could say his work is an elucidation attempt, much more than just related. Removing Kardec’s research on the Spirits communication nature from an article that should be about spirits communication (isn’t it correct?) seems to be incoherent.
Spiritism was classified here to be rather distinct from the specific concept of the word; but it is not true, since the very concept of the word is clearly the same subject of the Kardec doctrine.
When studying Spiritism, it is clear that the moral principles is the most important part of the doctrine; in this sense, is also clear that it shares religion concepts, since the fundamental point of Spiritism is to see a conduct change; but it doesn’t share in any way the ritual obligations, nor induce people to believe in its tenet by means of fear, mysticism, or anything related to these ways of causing uncertain.
It’s true that a Wikipedia article shouldn’t be a religious debate forum; but it should have place for all significant POV and every person have the right to read all substantial shared opinions exposed here. Just accepting this as a criterion for Wikipedia, we must agree that all good-faith substantial shared opinions about every subject has “the right of being”; and again from this norm, Kardecist “form” of Spiritism should have the right to be in a Spiritism article.
Since we’re talking about the word spiritism, automatically we’re entering in a new order of things, moral and intellectual. Regardless the word could have any different meanings, actually any meaning, since we admit the "continuance of life" and the "individuality conservation", absolutely everything contained in the Spiritism doctine would be at least worth seeing. But due to the fact that the spiritism word meaning is exactly the placed here, so the doctrine is not only suitable for the article, but actually necessary, and to prove that it is true, here are some facts:
1) if this article had never had Allan Kardec name into, and the only first line in the article being the spiritism meaning as in a English dictionary, without any debate, Allan Kardec investigations would automatically enter in this article, just because there is no one who have compiled and organized so much materials about this SAME topic called spiritism. The materials and mainly the nature of his work by itself is what differs his work from any related subject;
2) the articles merging (Spiritism and Kardecism Spiritism) by itself was a fact proving the voluminous amount of information of Kardec’s codification against the superficial knowledge and mainly little awareness on the subject. To take into account the “ownership” of Kardec on the Spiritism, it is relevant: a) the first line in the Wikipedia Spiritism article was “Spiritism is a religion started by Allan Kardec”; b) even when the two articles were split, the word Allan Kardec was never removed from Spiritism article! c) before articles merging, the article was completely unsubstantial, saying no much that the Spiritism is the believe that dead people can communicate with humans through mediums; the only thing that could give some substantial information even in the earlier stages of the article was Kardec’s books, which was a door to Spiritism studies.
There is no more way of saying Spiritism is diverse or different of any other spiritism; and since all that was demonstrated, we can see that Kardec took (coined) the word not for possessing purposes but for convenience; it was a intelligent method of differentiate it from spiritualism and he probably knew the little understanding on the subject (which continue nowadays).
Other thing that we should perceive is that always when analising any religion or doctrine, is common by the those who examine it or just read something about the theme to use every information about the religion/doctrine founder or creator (or related) as a criterion to judge the religion significance. This is a very reasonable way of discerning a valid believe from a failed one, and the diffusion of believes such as the Buddhism have proven that. Well, there’s no good sense in the world that can say a person who spent all his life working for the better has not the right of exposing not only his ideias, but also actually his hard work from a subject that isn’t even known by the humanity up to now. I’m absolutely convinced that Kardec’s astounding scientific background and proved good intentions towards his work by itself made him much more than something “legitimate”, but actually something worth surveying. Thus, what would be removing Kardec’s work from this article?
An article is always better being more complete but always neater, but this one is entirely impossible to be even substantial without Kardec’s codification. I think what I have said on this issue is enough.
One argument somebody could say is that every aspect of the Spiritism is entirely deception: the scientific approach, the moral principles and specially the Spirits communications. Well, I think it is unnecessary here to explain what can induce a person to have such conceptions, first because Kardec has already spent a lot of time advocating his observations in The Book on Mediums, and mainly arguing against its opponents; second because there’s always one fact pretty clear in practically all Spiritism opponents: lack of inquiry; how can someone criticize or condemn something he doesn’t understand profoundly?
One might say anyone has the right to believe in anything he wants to, and I think it’s ok; or perhaps one might say it isn’t necessary to understand deeply something to condemn since we observe something absurd enough to reject or anything that reason refuses; again, I think it is ok, but this is the strongest point of the doctrine, that is, the reason appeal, not only in the scientific approach, but specially in the justice and moral principles towards God.
One thing I also see could lead one to disappointment is a kind of rejection based on allegorical things; that is, since is not possible to refuse the fundamental beliefs and deny with facts the nature of communications (which is fairly evident), critics sometimes have condemned the whole doctrine for anything distant or allegorical or related. Like in Bible, since the reason could not accept such things as true like the “eternal hell of fire”, many people could not admit it could be a metaphor, rejecting totally everything related; in the Spiritism, it is also alike: people take something related or sometimes barely related but completely distant from the fundamentals beliefs (that when it is not unscrupulous at all, that, in my view, is common in this subject), and utilizing it’s allegorical characteristic, refuse totally anything related, just because since he cannot understand by reason any metaphorical stuff, therefore everything related is imaginary; blind and poor way of judging.
For those who would like elucidations on this matter, I would suggest the reading of The Book on Medium (although better after The Spirits’ Book, but not obligatory); Kardec writes in a pleasant and persuasive way. jes 18:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Well, according to the followers of Spiritism, the term "kardecism" is improper, since Kardec only codified the doctrine, and did not CREATE it. I believe it is better to call kardecism "Spiritism", and to call other beliefs related to spirits as "spiritualism".

Rafael "Banzai" 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the word "Spiritism" and based on my own experience with my American colleagues, we find no problem in distinguishing between the words Spiritism (uppercase) and spiritism (lowercase). The first concept (Spiritism) refers to the specific philosophical doctrine compiled by Kardec, the second (spiritism) refers to all other spirit-related meanings mentioned here. Also, I would like to offer my two cents to this discussion by presenting our website called Spirit and Science (.org) here:

http://www.spiritandscience.org/ Blessings, Ulysses UlyssesCastillo 19:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This article really should be split, I am Brazilian as well and there is huge difference between all these religions mentioned in the article, the biggest one is that spiritism as per Kardec's books is not a religion but a doctrine.
Honestly it offends me that you guys join my doctrine with some other religions. Also Kardec coined the word back in the 1850 something I believe, even in Brazil we use "Espiritismo Kardeciano" so that our doctrine does not get mistaken by those other religions.
I say please Split the article and reference/link them. Quantumleaf (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it's quite obvious by now why we should NOT split the articles. Jesvane (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Previous comments[edit]

Allan Kardec highly disregarded the term "religion" for what he had "founded". He follow a scientifical approach to prove or disprove everything he investigated, and more than a religion what he created was a way to look at life using reason rather than faith.

--Ricardojimenezr 04:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed that what was written was completely wrong as regards the meaning for the word "spiritism" and the confusion which was made concerning Spiritism and other spiritualist religions, like Umbanda and Santo Daime, which have absolutely nothing to do with Spiritism, which was in fact founded in France by Allan Kardec in the mid-1800´s.

I myself have a long experience (more than 20 years) on this matter and a book written on the subject. So I could see that the other fellows who had written about Spiritism before me either know little about it or wanted to denigrate it.

I will be free to discuss on this matter with the ones who disagree so that we can come to terms. Thank you all. (afaf@click21.com.br) --ArturF 13:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If you believe you can improve this article that is good. However you cannot just delete the existing text and call it rubbish without a very good reason and some verifiable sources. You must also present the subject matter with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Removing references to skeptical sources and valid critical passages in the text is not neutral. You should also keep to wikipedia's style guide, particularly by not using CAPS in the titles. If you don't follow these guidlines, myself or someone else WILL continue to restore the previous article nick 14:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, what I really could see was that the information about Spiritism was incomplete and confusing, with the tendency of denigrating it, once they were based only on the opinion of its author. The information I have inserted is totally based on the books the doctrine is based, which are Kardec´s books. Therefore, better than being "neutral", is to be loyal to the information which derives from the recognized source of the doctrine. --ArturF 14:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

What I could also notice is that while visiting articles about other religions, I did not find any critical passages and skeptical sources. I myself would have many about them and do not think this would be ok. Why only with Spiritism? Is this what you call "neutrality"? --ArturF 14:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I freely admit that I know nothing whatsoever about Spiritism so I cannot judge the accuracy of any article about it, however one your first acts was to remove the the link to René Guénon. The Spiritist Fallacy (2004), Sophia Perennis. ISBN 0900588713 (That is the skeptical source removal I was referring to) which made me instantly suspicious of your motives (religous articles are often altered by people trying to push there own view). Other articles on religion that I have looked at, (ie Islam), do have opposing viewpoints, at the very least in their links section.
Having re-read the orginal article, I have realised something else. The Spiritism you are talking about is covered in the article on Kardecist_Spiritism, maybe you should contribute to that page. This page was about a the generic term "Spiritism". Different people use the same words for different things. nick 15:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
In the very minimum then this article should have a link to kardecist_Spiritism to avoid confusion, Also this article should the Kardecist_spiritism since it obviously it's mean to be about the doctrine that Allan Kardec codified after all it has his picture in right side. The other religions nothing to do with spiritism and they should have their own page, and since Spiritism is not a religion it should be grouped together with religions. I agree with ArturF on this one, Quantumleaf (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


The King James Version does NOT mention spiritism or anything of the like under Galatians 5:20 as one can see here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205;&version=9;
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

It happens in some Catholic translations to *Portuguese*. Therefore I'm erasing the reference from the article. Ricardo Dirani 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Movies section, why not mention the film "Ghost" ? UlyssesCastillo 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Spiritism <> Spiritualism[edit]

The word Spiritism is a neologism created by Allan Kardec to refer to the then new-born doctrine he "founded". Therefore, there is only one Spiritism: the Doctrine of the Spirits. I have already visited the article you mention and I found it really good, but making the recurrent mistake of giving the idea that there is more than one Spiritism. I once more say that Umbanda, for example, has nothing to do with Spiritism, once it derives from African beliefs which date from the second century, whereas Spiritism "was born" in the mid 1800´s. The fact that many people use a word to refer to something doesn´t mean those people are right. I can call a tree "flower" but it continues to be a tree, not a flower. Many people can call umbanda "spiritism", but Spiritism is not Umbanda because both have different origins and practices. --ArturF 17:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure. If that is the case, probably the correct thing to do is redirect this article to that one, rather than making this article an duplicate. I see you have left on comment on the talk page of that article, if you redirect this article there, you should probably also note there that you have done so.
If you strongly feel that the article title should be "Spiritism" instead of "Kardecist_Spiritism" you could also raise the possibility of switching them round. nick 17:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I was sure you would understand. But I don´t think I would feel comfortable switching them round, as you kindly suggest, because I do think the article is good and its author could feel bad about it. I only edited and erased what was in "spiritism" because I really thought the content was poor and with too many mistakes. I apologize for being so straightforward. --ArturF 18:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, ArturF. You foobared the article completely. I am VERY tempted to just revert it to the version previous to your first edit and call it a day. Is there any justification for pretending that Kardec's version of Spiritism is the only one that exists? Worse yet, for unceremoniously deleting links such as that for Rene Guenon's criticism of Spiritism? Luis Dantas 20:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I might be talking Greek! My justification is very clear: Kardec created the word in order to distinguish the new doctrine from all the other "spiritualisms" that already existed at the time. Am I clear? --ArturF 20:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Kardec failed on that intent. Spiritism is ambiguous enough that it is worthwhile to specify whether one is talking about Kardecism or some other version of Spiritism - Umbanda, some Daime cults, Ramatis-related beliefs. Even Roustaing contradicts Kardec and yet has a confortable place in the current Brazilian Spiritist Federation. Why you prefer misleading generalism over clarity I can only guess at. Luis Dantas 12:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no other Spiritism than Allan Kardec Spiritism. They are the same thing, the Umbanda and Santo Daime are things totally different from what is known in the world as Spiritism.

That is not true, just Kardecist wishful thinking. Luis Dantas 12:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the alleged problem with the page as is?

Arthur, as Spiritist that we are, we have lived for hundreds of years with people that have denigrated our studies. This is ok, we have never feared that, since it's part of what other people need in order to make a decision of what to believe and what not to believe.

Asking for clarity is not "denigrating", although I have come to expect such ill-intended confusion from kardecists. Not completely your fault, as Kardec himself is the first to make a point of posing as the misunderstood victim of all those people who do not want to take his sayings at face value. Luis Dantas 12:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

If there are 1000s of external sites that have proves against Spiritism, let's find them all and add them to this page, so everybody can reason from themselves and find their own answers.

As a matter of fact, there are indeed such sites. But that is neither here nor there. The issue is whether it is better to call Kardec's doctrine "Kardecism" or "Kardecist Spiritism" instead of plain "Spiritism". You and ArturF insist that it is somehow "wrong" to call spirit-based cults other than Kardecism "Spiritism", yet we apparently have to go by your words alone. That is just wrong. Luis Dantas 12:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

As is wisely put on the current article, we do not force other people to believe what we do. And if other religious articles won't show any external information questioning their believes we should be happy for them.

That is just plainly delusional of yours. Luis Dantas 12:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You see? The article on Spiritism in Portuguese has basically the same content and nobody said anything about it. Why so much trouble in English speaking countries where there are just a few Spiritist centres? --200.217.93.135 20:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the portuguese article is wrong, or at least incomplete? Truth is not defined by your own knowledge, you know. Luis Dantas 12:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

What I know is that the truth, in this case, was defined by the founder of Spiritism, Allan Kardec, who precisely defined the meaning of the word he himself created, and you want to change it based on your own (mis)conceptions. --ArturF 11:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Language is not "owned" by one person. Meaning is what people make of it, in language. Even trademarked words break down and gain new meaning threough use, like aspirin or kleenex.

Rather than only value the opinion of one scholar who holds a vary narrow POV on the meaning of a single word, I would like to see the article take a more open approach, at least until the interested parties have determined how "the masses" use the word, and what they mean. It is easier to later narrow things down than it is to broaden them. --Choz Cunningham

Agreed. In my view, this dispute is semantic. There seem to be:
1) a specific set of beliefs named Spiritism (ie Kardecist_Spiritism).
2) a long-standing generic use of "Spiritism" as a pejorative term for Spiritualism (ie the Spiritualist church) by its opponents, whether religious or skeptic. For instance, The Catholic Encyclopedia uses "Spiritism" in that sense, while reserving "Spiritualism" for a philosophical term for the opposite of materialism.
3) a minority use of "Spiritism" as a value-free synonym for Spiritualism.
"Spiritism" as a barbed synonym for Spiritualism, and for spirit-based beliefs in general, turns up in The Times from 1867 onward. Quotes if you want. On that basis, I'd say an appropriate article structure would be one about Kardec Spiritism, one about Spiritualism, and a disambiguation page distinguishing between the usages of "Spiritism".
Or alternatively, one about Spiritualism, and one about Spiritism (ie Kardec) with a disambigation link at the top saying sometimes used as a synonym, often pejorative, for Spiritualism.
I do, by the way, strongly support the merge of the existing articles Spiritism and Kardecist_Spiritism. The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion guidelines are very clear that religious articles are not expected to be merely a vehicle to propound the undiluted POV of believers and/or the religion's source texts. External views, if reliably sourced, are part of the picture too. RayGirvan 03:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

“Strictly speaking, Spiritualism is the opposite of Materialism; every one is a Spiritualist who believes that there is in him something more than matter, but it does not follow that he believes in the existence of spirits, or in their communication with the visible world. Instead, therefore, of the words Spiritual Spiritualism, we employ, to designate this latter belief, the words Spiritist, Spiritism, which, by their form, indicate their origin and radical meaning, and have thus the advantage of being perfectly intelligible; and we reserve the words spiritualism, spiritualist, for the expression of the meaning attached to them by common acceptation. (…) and we designate the adherents of the spiritist theory as spiritists. In a special sense, The Spirits’ Book contains the doctrine or theory of spiritism; in a general sense, it appertains to the spiritualist school, of which it presents one of the phases. It is for this reason that we have inscribed the words Spiritualist Philosophy on its title-page.”(The Spirits’ Book, Introduction, I).

It would be reasonable the name Kardec’s Spiritism only if Kardec had created another version for the word Spiritism. But that is not what happened. He has created the word and established its meaning. It seems that some others wants to borrow the neologism of Kardec, wich is unnecessary. If so, provided is to create another name. It could be, for instance, Dantas’ Spiritism, if someone named Dantas decided to review the original concept of Spiritism. Of course it is important to know “how ‘the masses’ use the word”, because we´ll find uses apart from its original meaning. But an encyclopedia must, at first, be loyal to historic registries. A public database such as Wikipedia must attach to evidences, and not what is theory, and plus pure philosophy.

The first historical registry about the word Spiritism is Kardec’s works. So in the site the other meanings must come after this confirmation. Unless someone brings any evidence that demonstrates considerable works around the word Spiritism before Kardec.

[Marco Paulo Denucci Di Spirito]

For those who read Portuguese, there is a nice summary on the history of this controversy at http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/kardesp.htm ("Kardecismo ou Espiritismo?") Luis Dantas 10:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC).

It doesn't matter how the word was created and when to stabilish it's meaning. The meaning is given by the use of the word. If it wasn't so, "doom" would mean just destiny, and not impending disaster, since destiny was it's original meaning. The word Spiritism is used in Brazil to describe all sorts of Spiritualistic practices, such as Umbanda and Candomble, aside with Kardecism. Kardecism is also used, and works as a disambiguation term to identify the Spiritism "coded" by Kardec. Anyway, when Kardec defined the word he didn't define it as *the coding he did*, but as "the doctrine of the Spirits". From the structure of the term, "spirit ism" it shows it is some kind of activity centered around spirits. So, Kardecist Spiritism would be one version of what the Spirits have to say. Other people might find out the Spirits have something else to say. Ricardo Dirani 13:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ricardo, the use of the word is not always the best way to define it. Astrologists call themselves "scientists", as well as many esoterists do. And this is not a motive to write about them in an article about science.Arges 12:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is. "science" is also a generic term, needing disambiguation. In the sense you are using it, "Science", usually with caps, it has been precluding esoterism for ages. Still, esoterics claiming to practice science (in that meaning) is *not* what I'm calling "use of the word". "Use of the word" is the most general, well known, most often used meaning of the term. And the esoteric concept of science including esoterics is *not* the "use of the word". When most people use the term "Science", they are thinking of Academia. The actual gray areas are such fringe sciences such as Homeopathy (not accepted by Academia, but still having many professionals of Medicine mistaking it for Science). Now, Spiritism is *only* used in the strict Kardecist sense by Kardecists, and not by all of them mind you.
It's very interesting you brought the issue of Science, because the very Kardecists we are talking about claim *Spiritism* is a science, in such a way that they feel the need to adjectivate Science as we know it as "Oficial Science", considered something minor when compared with Science in general, of which the "Spiritist Science" is part. Doing so Spiritists hope to be associated with the confiability of Science without having to pay the price of, say, falseability, which Spiritism can't stand to. Ricardo Dirani 16:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

While sorting all Paranormal categories I merged all spiritism categorised articles into the spirituality category for now. Most have been in Category spirituality already, begging the question for significant differences between both in general. Next step may be a "Spiritual traditions and communities" subcategory when differences between each are defined. --Ollj 12:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reincarnation, Karma in Chistianism[edit]

Hello! We may need your opinions here, as the article on karma, as well as the article on bible and reincarnation, have been labeled tendentious (POV). Subramanian talk 23:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II[edit]

I quote

"Therefore they accept as "perfect spirits" people from other religions as well. Recent examples include Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa of Calcutta and Anne Frank."

Being a text meant to figure on an encyclopedia and not a text of personal opinion, we should restrain to facts. Is there some source to this statement or that's just deduction or "guessing"? Why should John Paul II be a perfect spirit? In The Spirits Book, Kardec mentions 3 categories of spirits, being imperfect spirits, good spirits and pure spirits. This last one should be a more precise term, since this pure spirits "… have attained to the supreme degree of perfection imaginable by us", but are not said to be perfect. I wouldn't include though specific names, such as the Pope John Paul II without mentioning the source of this information.

Estevao 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My friend, I guess all of this was just some misconception. When those people were referred as "pure spirits" the term "pure" was meant in a relative and not in an absolute way. I mean, they may be purer than most living people we know, but not near as pure as a spirit can be.

Personal appeal from me to NATIVE English speakers: I hope you could understand my text. You know, we Brazilians have fame out there for having kinda difficulty expressing our toughts in English. Most foreign people appreciate my communication capacity, and I myself consider my English to be almost perfect. However, we are all subject to mistakes. If you did not understand something, please write me, you will be helping yourself in understanding some more of this discussion, and helping me to write better.

--Rafael "Banzai" 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

By the By[edit]

Boy, there's a heckuvalotta argument about somesuch or the other on this talk page! Can you tell I didn't read any of it? On the other hand, I did boldy edit the crap out of this article, mostly in the interest of better English grammer. I assume the original author of this excellent article was Brazilian, given the numerous syntactical errors, and I mean no disrespect, just trying to help. :) Also, about everything I know about Kardecist Spiritism comes from reading the article I just edited, so I hope I didn't accidetnally change the meaning of anything. I always try to retain the original sense (except in articles where I think I'm qualified to correct any mistakes, I guess). Anyways, good luck on splitting or not splitting or whatever.Eaglizard 10:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal[edit]

This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. DurovaCharge! 17:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Science?[edit]

I haven't seen anything related to science in this article, in spite of the many occurences of the word in it. I'll put this on my watchlist and remove all the pseudo-scientific claims unless someone rewrites it correctly. Jonig4 14:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Allan Kardec certainly claimed it to be scientific, but I would say it's not. The doctrine consists in techniques to communicate with "Spirits" and the teaching of the spirits (acquired by employing those techniques) . I'm not aware of any scientific work published (in a scientific journal, of course) about those spirit-communicating techniques, so that it could be reproduced by others. And the part of the doctrine that is based on the "teachings" from the spirits is not scientific by definition (they are dogmatic, instead).
The first sentence in the article
"Spiritism is a scientific and philosophical doctrine..."
should read instead;
"Spiritism is doctrine first published by French educator Hippolyte Léon, that described it as a "scientific and philosophical doctrine"..."
--Abu badali (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I would not oppose that. jggouvea 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Context Tag[edit]

I have boldly edited the beginning of the article. I would like someone to read it and clarify whether we are getting closer to removing that infamous context tag ;-). jggouvea 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

theres a book called:scientific basis of spiritism,it explain how spiritism doctrine can be called of science,is a stud of the doctrine in a scientific vision,search for something about Kirlian photography,its one of the focus of spiritism science —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.195.144.222 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal[edit]

I think it is about time to create a portal to gather all pages related to Spiritism (and they are already many). What do you think? jggouvea 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I also took off the Paranoraml project tag which someone had placed on this page, as Spiritism is a religion/philosophy that is similar to Spiritualism and the Spiritual Church Movement and Espiritismo. I do not think that the Spiritual Church Movement (African American Spiritualist denominations) has its own page yet, and i thiink it probably should -- or else a section on it should be added to the Spiritualism page. Some Spiritual Chrch Movement folks used Kardecian practices too, e.g. setting out bowls of water. cat Catherineyronwode 05:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Undone Move[edit]

I reverted the movement because the user, someone who had never ever appeared in the article discussions, decided to move the whole stuff by himself. Not happy yet, changed a hardly built definition for another one from "reliable sources"... The dictionary, says him, would be one of them. Why don't you try to use "dictionary definitions" on a scientific work? You'll see how reliable, in a scientific sense, professors and revisor will find it... We are talking about knowledge, about science. Here we are specially discussing a social phenomenon, whose reliable souces for dicussion are scientific works instead of NGO sites or "dictionaristic" ones. Besides, here are people who have studied in a scientific aproach the subject, who helped building this, and who deserve at least the politeness of being informed of the move proposal before it's done. Arges (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Human spirit[edit]

Any reason why human spirit redirects here? I can't even see that combination of words once in the article. Richard001 (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps soul, or simply spirit, would fit better. Arges (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritism or Spiritualism?[edit]

This article seems to be mixing together Spiritism (a teaching of Allan Kardec), with Spiritualism - which was a wider movement that was inclusive of Kardec. Moreover, since there are separate articles for both Allan Kardec and Spiritualism, I do not see the need for this article. It would be better to merge it with the other articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This article should not mix Spiritism and Spiritualism (if this is happening, then shame on those who are editing it that way). Spiritists claim part of the Spiritualist books as their own, but they are not, definitely, Spiritualists. I think the article on AK is right to the point, being about him, and this article should concentrate on the movement he started, especially its current underpinnings in Brazil jggouvea (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Proselytism?[edit]

Some recent edits to the article seem to be proselytism. I am considering reverting them, as they contain spelling mistakes, unreferenced claims and divert significantly from the previous article. jggouvea (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms added to the main article[edit]

Unbounded by material chains, why would spirits inhabit only this corner of the vast Universe?

Someone jumped to this silly conclusion and put it into the article. While this was kindly removed, it is worthy to keep note of it here for future use: Indeed Spiritism claims the very opposite: that spirits actually pervade ALL of the universe and life exists nearly everywhere. jggouvea (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Espiritismo[edit]

There's an article called Espiritismo with some sections that I think should be merged into the Espiritism one, and others that should go to the Spiritualism one. So, I'm adding the merge tags to both this article and the Espiritismo one.

Furthermore, once the relevant parts are brought here, it would be a good idea to remove the merge template from this article, add one such template to the Spiritualism one (plus a target discussion point there, of course), and then point Espiritismo's template there.

What do you think? -- alexgieg (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Espiritismo article needs MAJOR renovation, but I don't think Merge is the solution. Espiritismo, a particularly Latin American form of Spiritism, has enough to be said about it for a stand-alone article. That's not to say that some parts of each article might be borrowed for the other one. - House of Scandal (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that what's explained in this article here is the Brazilian form of Spiritism. Not to mention Espiritismo is the exact word used in Brazil to name it. Thus, either this article goes entirely there, or the one over there comes entirely here, or we find a better way to distribute the content, since many movements in fact adopt the word "Spiritism" for themselves (or are called thus by 3rd parties) without fitting the specific description here. -- alexgieg (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Actualy what's the difference between the two? Espiritismo in Brazil is the same as Kardecist Spiritism, and when any sect or alike try to use that name in Brazil, even though people got confused, still we call it "low spiritism", at least the more informed ones, because "low spiritism" is any group that evoke spirits but don't know Kardec, this way considering that fact (spirits) in the way they like. That is the biggest distinction in both; someway similar with one who experience with something in which advanced studies and solutions are colected, but, not knowing that, they just ignore it.
The Espiritismo article is confusing, it starts with "Espiritismo (Spanish for "Spiritism") is the Latin American and Caribbean belief that good and evil spirits can affect health, luck and other elements of human life". Well, anyone can evoke spirits and these spirits can say what they want to. Espiritismo in Latin America do not claim that which was written there. Although a group who denominates themselves Espiritista may claim that, a lot more have a different view. Actualy the difference between those groups and the consistency of Kardec Spiritism (and the fact that some of those groups consider themselves Espiritismo) is what justify the term "low spiritism" created.
I think that article is very poor. Spirit action is an evidence. Why so much confusion? I don't see necessity for both articles, but it cannot be merged that way, because it would degrade the quality of this one. Actualy unfortunately this article is bad too, but hopefully we'll improve it, and then yes, we could evidence why Spiritism in singular. jes (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Merging the two is a Very Bad Idea. Espiritismo in Mexico for instance) is not Kardecian. The problem is that the Espiritismo article is not good yet -- but merging it into Spiritism is the wrong-wong-wrong way to solve that problem. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The solution, in my opinion, is for the "Spiritism" article to describe the generic concepts on which everything that uses this name is based, namely: dualism mind/body, spirit as synonymous of soul, spirit as a monad and support of the mind, a spirit separated from a body as self-conscious, the possibility and actuality of communications between spirits themselves when unlinked to bodies, and between them and living humans either directly, by such and such means, or indirectly by way of a medium/channeler/other, syncretic motivations, historical spread, and so on and so forth. Specific religions/sects/branches/geographic variation, such as Mexican Espiritismo, Kardecian/Kardecist Spiritism, High Spiritism, Low Spiritism, Santeria etc. would then become independent articles, which the new, generic one would link to. -- alexgieg (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion it would not be a solution, even though I understand your view. I think what you proposed is a good idea, in that it will make this article much better. For example, the general concept, an introduction to it, etc, all very neat... I think is necessary for this article. But your idea - which is to branch - just will not work, because Kardecism is THE central part in Spiritism. A general concept certainly isn't a disambiguation page! Everything orbit Kardec work, even those who doesn't know his work, because nobody has consistency, everything on this matter is contained in Spiritism (by Kardec). To me, the introduction lines from Espiritismo article is a fact proving it, because it states something obvious, but as if it was another doctrine, or anything. I don't know if Mexican "Spiritism" is very different from Kardecism, but if it is, then it is different from Espiritismo too.
As I said before, spirit action is a fact since early times. Anyone longing for it can attest this fact. The Spiritism (Kardec) theory explains very well all this issues, and it in some way made difficult any branch to become consistent. What do these others "Spiritisms" claim? that spirits can communicate? This is what is written in Espiritismo. I hope you got the point.
Synthesizing, Allan Kardec made a comprehensive Spiritism, and it is very consistent with all possible Spirit phenomenon. For example, there is Candomblé, and some call it Spiritism, but, all that happens there which have real spirit manifestation, IS contained in Kardec work. Just because people in a sect do communicate with spirit, we cannot put their beliefs "competing" with Kardec. This is the nature of what I've said that this kind of branching can't work.
Hope you understand my view. :) jes (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Just adding... another solution would be a Spiritism (Kardec) and spiritism (generic) disambiguation, as Ulysses Castillo has said, but I don't know if it would work too. jes (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, considering it cannot be a solution. jes (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

I suggest that the criticism to Spiritism should be deleted from its page, since it is oposing to the overall expalanation about Spiritism. I suggest names of authors who has citicized Spiritism could be given, as well as titles of their work, but not the whole text exposing their arguments, since they are just ideas from one or more thinkers against ideas from other thinkers. The page should explain what is Spiritism with all the relevant information, but should never incite a debate by bringing up ideas of those who did and do critize Spiritism. Besides, no other religion here in Wikipedia has "Criticism" text about them, I checked Christianity, Paganism, Catholicism, Buddhism and Atheism, and I am sure all of them have their critics.

As a Spiritist, I am insulted with the attention to criticism to Spiritism in its page.

Thanks Janete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witch2 (talkcontribs) 15:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm the author of (most) of the Criticism section, and evidently I beg to differ. The problem is that Spiritism doesn't see itself as being "just" a religion. It also wants to be seen as both a science and a philosophy, what leads to the following two consequences:
a) While purporting to be a Science, Spiritism automatically subjects itself to the scrutinity continuously suffered by all sciences, what means that any notable criticism of its ability to fulfill the requirements of the scientific method should be, well, noted, as happens in articles for other disciplines that want to be seen as sciences, see Astrology#Astrology and science for an example;
b) Something similar happens when Spiritism wants to be seen as a Philosophy, as what pretty much characterizes any philosophy is its goal of reaching perfect internal logical coherence and consistency, with all philosophical schools criticizing each other on their mutual failures, and articles on philosophical subjects usually showing such criticisms, see Platonic realism#Criticism and Positivism#Criticism and limits of positivism for short examples, or Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel#Detractors for a really long one.
Therefore, it's clear to me that the Criticism section must be not only kept, but further improved. Provided, of course, that the tone keeps being NPOV.
P.S.: Please notice that, while Spiritists at large, mostly those from Brazil, use to say that Spiritism is "a philosophy, a science and a religion", Kardec's own original formulation was that it is "a philosophy, a science and a moral". This means that, strictly speaking, one could call upon Ethics schools as a third source for criticisms, as they in fact do appear among some small intellectual circles in Brazil. But I think doing this would be overboard, and clearly non-notable. -- alexgieg (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the criticism sould be removed or edited down to a few sentences. It is improper of anti-theists to continualy sabotage articles on theistic subject matter. This is endemic throughout Wikipedia and i believe that it must be fought with the same vigour used to remove other forms of socio-political vandalism to articles on ethnicities. cat yrownode Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Taking my own words to heart, i have deleted yards of SPAM concerning Rene Guenon (of all people!) that was injected into this article. I have reduced and boiled down long, wordly digressions, and have left a few salient points. However, not a single one of those points cites a reference, so i have placed fact-tags on them. If they are not cited soon, they are up for removal. Wikipedia is not a soap box for opinion-slinging; it is an encyclodia and should be treated as such. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind your changes, making the article more encyclopedic is always a good thing. I'll work on providing the references, and if I get some references that make it worth restoring some part of what you deleted I'll restore it on an improved form.
On the other hand, I don't think it's appropriate for you to call me (since I've done most of the previous editing on the section) an "anti-theist", as if there was an agenda here, when I'm pretty certain of my, so to speak, "theisticism". As for Guénon, he deserves some detailing and citing basically because his anti-Spiritist book, when first published, become very influential. Spiritism all but disappeared in France afterwards. -- alexgieg (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
You think that the reason Spiritism disappeared in France was the book published by this guy...? I think you should get your facts straight before you try to make yourself seem like an expert on criticism of Spiritism (at least think about the time period after Spiritism began). Anyways, to the criticism itself, I would be perfectly okay with it if other religions had it in their main page too. However, they do not, so to keep an objective base appropriate for an Encyclopedia, it should be removed. Daniel4sw (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Great job ![edit]

I have collected many books and documents about Spiritism and this article corresponds to the historical facts. 83.206.96.113 (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not so great. Recent edits are marred by bad grammar and unreferenced claims. One can also notice a tendency to be sympathetic to the subject. A good review is needed, so I am tagging the article for a cleanup. jggouvea (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Jggouvea, for other editors, could you perhaps be more specific about what you're purporting to be the article's "tendency to be sympathetic to the subject"? thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Parts 1 and 2 (Definition and Character) have been heavily edited since I read them last, months ago, but still fail to present a proper account of the doctrine and its relation to others. I have tagged the article for cleanup because there are punctuation mistakes, badly formatted references and some obscure grammar. The following are quotes showing the bias I noticed (perhaps wrongly):

jggouvea (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see how the quote above is bias? It affirm a couple things that are beliefs that much I agree. Quantumleaf (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Alberta group sole exception?[edit]

I've added a citation request tag to a claim appearing in the final paragraph of the "Character of Spiritism" section, because I'm having a difficult time getting my head around the notion that "The National Spiritist Church of Alberta" is the only Spiritist body in the world, which is both "officially" recognized by the government of the country which it's in *and* maintains a regular membership list. The only one? Broadly speaking we're talking about millions of participants in at least hundreds of organizations under this label worldwide; this seems like an exhorbitant claim to me and in my opinion I think a reliable reference should be provided. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"About Spiritism and Spiritualism"[edit]

[copied and pasted from my own talk page]

I have followed your changes, and noticed, not without a surpise, that either English speaking people does not know XXI century spiritism, or just ignore it. Repeatedly I state, that Allan Kardec, does not propose a "French spiritualism", since he created spiritism, due to the lack of ethics and scientific knowledge (there were plenty of mediums dedicated to phenomenology, as he aimed to get a scientist approach of such discipline). His approach, as in his latest writings is stated, did not exclude the word "Christ", fearing to be pursued by witch-hunters (That's why he used an alias). Therefore, his work does not propose a religion. Kardec followers, also seem to ignore XXI century spiritism, from Joaquín Trincado Mateo, who based on Allan Kardec, and philosophical contrasts, founded a new spiritist doctrine "Spiritism, Light and Truth", he was based in Latin America, so it was only distributed along Hipanic-talking people. He did not allow his work to be translated into another language, fearing what happened to Kardec's work. Nonetheless, it IS Spiritism, as a philosophical doctrine, rejecting religion, and based on research and continuous formation, not defined by phenomena (that is, spiritism not explained by ouija, dead people talking spirits, and so on), since as philosophy asserts, everyone has a spirit, that's why we are all spiritists. Trincado's doctrine has it's drawback when he died, since his family did not worry on taking it into public domain. However, there were almost two hundred schools on latin america that continued his task. We represent such task, and we have the ownership of his command. To make it public at absolute no profit. Keep it in mind, before undoing my changes, and rather to improve them, since they are not randomly made. These changes to the definition respond to an obligation, We will not stop to achieve. Emecu178

I know religious (and related) topics can be a very sensitive area of discussion sometimes, but the simple truth is that here in Wikipedia, no matter how much personal knowledge an editor has on a given topic, they still must provide reliable references in order to substantiate any claims they make in the material they're adding to an article in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies which prohibit "original research" when it comes to submitting material, I'll provide a link at the bottom of my comments so that you have a chance to check those policies out. Also please be advised that no editor (or group of editors) can claim specific "ownership" over a particular article, all editors are always welcome to present well referenced additions, which of course are still subject to vetting by other editors. Also, "neutrality" is an important tenet here in Wikipedia. The purpose of an article is to advance information which is drawn from mainstream sources and to present it in a neutral fashion, articles are not to be used to promote or advance the position of a single person or group, thus we have a policy against using the encyclopedia as a "soapbox". Here are some links to the Wikipedia policies I've been mentioning above,WP:OR WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, please feel free to get back to me with any questions you might have. We all want the best article that we can get, but the encyclopedia has certain policies that all of us are required to adhere to. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my persistance. But I can't just agree with you. I am not posting a "soapbox". I claim that there is stated that spiritism is religion. That's untrue. I claim that Allan Kardec did not found French spiritualism. ¿Is that partialism?. Please read his books, and not fit into whatever article that assures to define this term. If this is a reliable references, I wonder from where they came, since did not come from Allan Kardec's work.

Then, I ask you ¿Which is your source, since, neither Joaquin Trincado exists for this matter (now that you tell me it's not proved to be referenced, nor allan kardec is Spiritist from a scientist point of view. Also, to tell what Kardec states about spirit. Now, I claim that Spiritism exists in Latin America (not just Brazil) because that's partialism. Why?, because that implies barely Brazilian Kardec followers. Out there are many more, and to allow such interpretations are a bigger irresponsibility from us. Why? Because, thanks to articles like yours, people does not think on spiritism as a philosophy, but a religion, as a dirty practice of spirit evocation, and witchcraft. That's a crude consequence. I ask you to consider, to read about Joaquín Trincado Mateo, since I repeat, It would be irresponsible to allow that such "referenced material" caming from who knows where, ignores the roots of an importan branch of spiritism, the philosophical, non religious.

¿What if I presented a "referenced article", where I spoke about Christianism and ignored "the Old Testament", since it is irrelevant and "unreferenced"?¿Would you say it is Soapbox?. I have been including some material regarding this doctrine over wikipedia, since it has been poorly included, but it is widely explained and shown over the internet. ¿Are those such references that you need? ¿Please confirm since I would provide you, but not allow to let be said, what it is said there. Need published books?, we can forward it to you, if that is the case. (talk) 20:00, 05 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind offer of free books, I would be glad to have them in my collection, but I'm afraid that's not how it works in Wikipedia. Having appropriate and reliable sources are important when adding information to Wikipedia articles. It would be a good idea to carefully read and understand the policy that instructs editors on what constitutes a "reliable source" WP:RS for Wikipedia purposes. If I understand correctly what you are describing above, in terms of the type of material you are proposing to add, I'd suggest that you may have some problems. For instance, it's usually not a good idea to use self published websites as a supporting reference for claims being made in an article, because basically anyone can set up a website and place information on it that will support any claim they choose and thus they are generally regarded as unreliable as sources. In terms of you expressing your own interpretations in the article based on your own research, I'd advise you to click the link to the "reliable sources" information above. Down the page slightly you'll find the following quote, which I think sums up a lot of policy: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." I did a few preliminary searches online, looking for a reliable mainstream scholarly source supporting the perspective I think you're putting forward and it appears to me that it may be a difficult task to easily obtain references that would be appropriate in Wikipedia. Please remember that "original research" is not permitted in Wikipedia.WP:OR cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I neglected to post a link to this policy,WP:V which is equally important when you're thinking about adding information to articles. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-Neutral[edit]

This article, in my opinion, continues to be loaded with instances of non-neutral wording, which appears to simply espouse Spiritist beliefs. Rather than describe Spiritism in an objective fashion, the current version of article, at times, seems to be using the encyclopedia as a vehicle for promoting a particular belief system. In my opinion adding qualifiers to some of the material would help tremendously. I will try to get back to this article shortly and add some of those myself. In the mean time, in my opinion, it would be a good idea to leave a "non-neutral" template in place at the top of the article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What else is the article suppose to show? Non Spiritist beliefs? I thought this article is about the works of the spiritism doctrine, if it is, then the source must be all the books that Kardec codified. Quantumleaf (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

New research and Trusted sources needed[edit]

A real problem to the definition of a term comes when it's sources are not reliable. As far as I know, even texts from Allan Kardec suffered that luck, since some original text in french were burned after publication by religious dispute. Of course talking about spirits, evocation in the XIX century was by the hand of witchcraft and discredit (That would explain to many why Hypolite Léon Denizard Rivail changed to Allan Kardec). That's what an academical responsible of contents from wikipedia must be aware.

This is not an easy topic since it's often related to witchcraft, and "simply espouse Spiritist beliefs", and even to rely on a cristian-like belief. Hard to understand why someone would think that a formerly pointed out as witchcraft doctrine from latest XVIII and XIX century would be cristian. There is where the reliability of definition stands for a doubt, since by then historians tell us that story with academical trust.

Not to mention, the lack of reputed researchs involved in serious investigation regarding this "belief", although it may not be a belief. So, XX and XXI century Spiritism must not be ignored, regardless of this. Research is a need. To start it, we must understand that after separating Spiritualism from Spiritism, path is clear to understand it. Spiritualism, clearly defined has a position. So does Spiritism and Spiritists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.157.200.76 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Brazilian (Portuguese) Espiritismo[edit]

The Brazilian version of this article has it right, why is that? Also I didn't see any mention of the differences between Allan Kardec spiritism and the American spiritism in USA nobody in the Spiritism usually knows about Allan Kardec, and even though they are similar in belief they have some MAJOR differences, for example in America is believed okay for the medium to charge money for a reading, in Kardecist Spiritism the 'spirits' via Allan Kardec codification and post modem publications warned that a medium should never charge for a reading ever. The brazilian version of the article has way more information and links to related spiritist works as well.Quantumleaf (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Christian?![edit]

Christian a well-established word to refer to religions so much different from spiritism. Christians don't have Allan Kardec as their "fundamental base". Other religions, such as Baha'í Faith and even Islamism, also have Jesus as an important reference, but they are not considered as christian religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.61.71.202 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A French point of view[edit]

Hello,

As a French contributor to Wikipedia and also as an author about Spiritism, I can assure you that "spiritism" IS NOT "French spiritualism", from a French perspective. At the beginning of ancient history there was the necromancy, then Fox sisters started a spiritual movement called "modern spiritualism", then Allan Kardec used some elements of this movement to build a new philosophy called : "spiritism".

Only one book of Kardec, out of five, is about the communication with the spirits (the book of mediums). That means that 80% of spiritism IS NOT about talking with the dead, but about social progress and christian morality.

This last point leads us to another question : is Spiritism a christian movement ? Well, if we take a look at books such as "The Gospel according to Spiritism" by Allan Kardec, or such as "Christianity and Spiritism" by Leon Denis, we can see that the founders of this philosophy considered themselves as christians and encouraged everybody to read the Bible and to take Jesus as an exemple. I hope this will help a little bit. 83.206.96.113 (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

Doctrine spirite[edit]

Hi, you may want to have a look on our current treatment of spiritism on the french Wikipedia. Two separate articles seem a better approach to the subject, since spiritisme is pointing to various pre and post christian religious rituals dealing with "spirits" (including a mention of Kardec's) and "doctrine spirite" is specifically pointing to Allan Kardec's design. Not sure it is relevant to you, but I wanted to share anyway. Best regards, --A t ar a x i e--parler 06:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think this issue was already (at least partially) debated above in this talk page. My argument is that if we split up the article in two, the article concerning pre-Kardec spiritism, or only spirit manifestation history, would suffer from the apparent lack of relation with Spiritism (by Kardec). I think Spiritism, being valid, would benefit from having an isolated article about its roots; by this I mean we should write all concerning this in the History of Spiritism. This article already exist. We are far from quality standards here, but we can improve it, but again not by creating an ilusion that "Kardec" Spiritism doesn't embrace all aspects of the phenomena. Jesvane (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the Kardec spiritism should also be splited in two articles, because in Brazil the doctrine become a religion, in France remained as literature and theories. It's also unclear how Kardec structured spiritualism and if is derived from the Fox Sisters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.82.234 (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputes[edit]

I have looked over the discussing going on over the past couple of years, and there doesn't seem to be any disputes in the last few months. Thus, I find the "neutrality disputed" label unecessary at this point, unless I missed something. Daniel4sw (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

correction; there has been discussion over whether this page should even be called "Spiritism," but this is just repetition from a discussion that was already somewhat resolved. And I feel like this dispute does not have to do with the article itself. Daniel4sw (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Spiritualists also believe in Reincarnation[edit]

Thus, the "difference" between "Spiritism" and "Spiritualism" in this article is null. There may be other differences in terms of the development of Kardecism and Umbanda and European and New World Spiritualism (among other spirit medium disciplines) but there is no difference in belief on the main point of reincarnation. Please reference current day spiritualist spirit medium training materials. 148.63.163.118 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

What is spiritism?[edit]

The definition is missing in the article.--90.177.208.162 (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Article could be rewritten[edit]

To achieve a better neutral point of view, the article could be rewritten, mostly by French people. To understand Allan Kardec and Spiritism, you should split what happened in France; and what happened in Brazil. In France, Kardec led a studies about a phenomen, compiled in papers and published books.

In Brazil, the "Spiritism" (a mere neologism used by Kardec in his writings) achieved status of religion, by the man known as Bezerra de Menezes and later developed multiple psycographers, such Chico Xavier, Divaldo P. Franco, etc. There's a huge difference between what Allan Kardec made and what was developed in Brazil as "spiritist movement". Say that Chico Xavier was a simple follower of Kardec works is wrong, because is own books contraditcs Kardec writing in many points. "Nosso Lar" is nothing then a fiction story and does not correspond to any Kardec studies.

Controverses goes on, as the Spiritism itself developed as a religion "that could be expanded" in Brazil, and this is not what Kardec concluded.

Sincerelly, a Kardec reader. --201.79.185.180 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent attempt at rewrite[edit]

At a glance, the rewrite seems to place the Brazilian religious pov over all other viewpoints. While that pov probably needs expansion within the article, this article is not about only that aspect of the topic. The removal of tertiary sources and their replacement with primary (or at least in-world, non-independent) sources is the very reverse of what we should have here, and only makes the already identified and tagged problems worse, rather than resolving them. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Persecution[edit]

Is there any information out there on the persecution of French mediums in the WWI era?

Awful[edit]

This article is grossly lacking in sources. The sections that are unsourced, especially those that assert supernatural claims as if they are facts, may be deleted at any time without warning. Please improve the article with reliable secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)