Talk:Religion and schizotypy

Untitled

This article has nothing to do with my point of view on matters, just to tell anyone who's interested, I saw a request on a user page for an articlee such as this so I made the preliminary version. Ketrovin 18:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This page was created as a gift for Vashti, hopefully he can make it better too. Ketrovin 19:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is an incomprehenisble muddle and has a bizarre title. Odds are good there is something we can redirect this to, otherwise an actual article should be created elsewhere. DreamGuy 22:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am truly srory if you don't like it, but simply becasue you do not like it does not make it worthless. Have a nice day. Ketrovin 22:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

Some editors may look at this and assume this article only exists to push an anti-religion POV. Thus, it's probably important that it get NPOV'd quickly. For starters, I bet we can't get away with saying things like "there are those who believe" in an article like this. Using actual quotes from actual experts is probably neccessary here. Friday 23:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it can be NPOVed quickly... It just seems like a rather random soapbox thing. Do we have another religion and psychology article here somewhere we can redirect to? Singling schizotypy out out of all the classifications seems rather bizarre. DreamGuy 23:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

you do it often enough, even ifits notyour article, that makesyou seem like a hiopocrite. ( my last edit here for two weeks) Gabrielsimon 23:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe any article belongs to any editor. We don't own things personally here; this is a group effort. Friday 23:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see there being a good article on religion and mental illness, but as this page stands, it's POV, unencyclopedic in the style it's written, and it has no sources. My suggestion is that it be deleted, and the creator (or someone else) puts it on a user subpage and works on it there, until it's ready to face the public, as it were. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Do I hear a call for a VfD? I'd support there being a vote. DreamGuy 00:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dreamguy and others drove Ketrovn to leave wikipedia, by pestering him all day, which was his forst day. i say keep the a rticle and expand it, and make it someting lasting. Gabrielsimon 23:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"He" didn't leave Wikipedia, you just went back to posting under your own name because so many people spotted the sock. DreamGuy 00:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

he left and your still an asshole. just shut up. Gabrielsimon 00:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, the personal attacks have to stop. As for the article, we can either put it up for a VfD, or if everyone on this page agrees it should be deleted, I can do it as a speedy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy would be nice, but Gabriel has already objected to deletion... Unless you can convince him otherwise. DreamGuy 00:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with speedy. Perhaps something on this topic can be written, but what's here isn't much help. Friday 00:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

i beleive the subject matter has merit, and so i would suggest getting religious and phys cological experts, who arent dreamguy ( becaxue we both know he says his expertise is mythology) to take a look and improove t his articel. it was only one of ketrovins two attempts at adding to this place before he was driven off. so i say we keep it. Gabrielsimon 00:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, would you be prepared to put this article on your user subpage and work on it in there until it's ready to go in the encyclopedia? It needs a few changes in my view before it's a proper stub. For example, you might want to rethink the title. Calling it "Religion and schizotypy" is restrictive, and schizotypy is a disputed psychiatric term. It also needs sources, so you'd have to find credible published sources who said that religion was a sign or consequence of mental illness. It doesn't need a lot, just some tidying along those lines, in order to make it a proper stub. What do you think? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

would that guy who was shouting to a lion " jesus will save you" when he tried to put a feather boa on its neck., and got himself killed be a decent source for mental illness? Gabrielsimon 01:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Not in and of itself, but several good sources are available by Googling 'religion schizophrenia'. ~~ N (t/c) 01:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

research

This page stems from a comment on my user page stating that I thought such a page might be necessary and workable. There is a sizeable chunk of published research that studies the purported relationship between religiosity and schizotypal traits, mostly by Diduca and Joseph; one of the things on my heap has been tracking down those papers to see if I could work them into an article on the topic. This page is not quite what I had in mind. :) Vashti 10:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that such an article might be of value. For example, there is the case of an American man named Joel Hanson, whose case is documented in his parents' (Dan and Sue Hanson) book Room for J. He has been diagnosed as schitzophrenic, believes he is God incarnate, and has written a book which might be very easily construed as "holy scripture," called "J's Guide to the Universe." This cased was discussed extensively on the American radio program "Speaking of Faith," and information on the episode and Joel Hanson may be found at the program's web site. The similarities between this case and any number of past religious figures who have considered themselves God or God's messenger on Earth are obvious.

Hovever, it is also very clear that this article needs to rise to a much higher standard before it can be suitable. Note the very first sentence, which opens with the weasel words "there are those who..." That sets the tone for everything that follows: a soapbox speech disguised as objective inquiry.--Craigkbryant 14:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

looks like it was sopmeones second try at making an article, so the way it is should be forgiven. Gabrielsimon 22:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not a question of "forgiving." The article, as written, has certain shortcomings. We are discussing ways of overcoming them. The question is whether anyone wants to invest the time in making this a quality, neutral, encyclopedia-grade article, by investing time, doing research, citing sources, and generally striving for excellence. As is, this article is a POV source spouting undocumented opinion. Gabriel, are you interested in putting the work into this article that it needs? I would be happy to give you any advice that I can. --Craigkbryant 23:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

certainly i would, but theres still a lot of trouble in other parts of my wiki career, such as someone with a vendetta against me, trying to get me banned, but thats unimporant. Gabrielsimon 00:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought perhaps that it would be a nice way to begin my stay at this site, by doing something nice for people, this article is by no means finished, and i still have a lot of work to doon it. Please do not delete it, the base of the article was all i was putting down for starters, I find it odd about how rude and subesquently accusitory DreamGuy has been about this matter. Having read the good faith policey article, i beleive that DreamGuy has violated this in his dealings with me and has served no purpose but as a rabble rouser on an issue that has, so far tried to rob me of my sense of self. I have said my piece, .Ketrovin 03:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Rob you of your sense of self? You are a proven sockpuppet of Gabriel's, you have no sense of self. Geez, what melodramatic twaddle. DreamGuy 12:20, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The VfD of 7 August, 2005

How does 7 Keep votes, 16 Delete votes and a bunch of Merge votes get counted as a vote to Keep? There's a clear supermajority to get rid of it, and even with the merge votes taken out Keep is still less than half of the votes to get rid of it?

I really do not understand how some admins count these things, because we can have far and away more votes to get rid of something and still someone will come along and claim that the vote was for the exact opposite of what it really was. DreamGuy 20:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

--The admin who finalized the VfD evidently rejected 4 delete votes because he thought they might be sockpuppets or were "new" users. He did not specify which votes he rejected. I don't really know if this is in keeping with precedent or not. In any event, as a fairly new user, I am personally a bit upset by this decision, and in particular, not knowing whether my vote was counted or not. (If I'm not qualified to participate in VfD's, I should stop wasting my time on them...) I am planning to ask for some clarification, and a better understanding of what constitutes the "rough consensus" for a deletion. Two thirds?

In any event, the default position in a VfD is "Keep." The admin declared that, with 12 votes to delete, 7 to keep and 2 to merge, no consensus to delete had been achieved, so the article stays in place by default.--Craigkbryant 21:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The official Wikipedia:deletion policy is, as I understand it, that the question in a VfD should be "Is there any point to having anything, an article, a redirect, a blank page, here at all?", rather than "Is the present text any good?" Not everybody does this; that's one reason there are so many VfD nominations. For more, see Wikipedia: deletion reform.

But it follows from this, that merge equals "move the content (or some of it) to another article; and keep a redirect to that article." Likewise Redirect is keep a redirect here. In this sense, the vote was 12 to 9 to delete, to expunge entirely and throw out the history - which is not Wikipedia:consensus.

Throwing out sock-puppets is necessary; otherwise some editors would vote a hundred times to keep their favorite article. "New users", in this context, usually means accounts created since the beginning of the VfD, who are ignored on the grounds that they are, all too often, sock-puppets. (Unfair to those who aren't; but it does take a short time to become used to Wikipedia and see what our unwritten conventions are.) Septentrionalis 15:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy Kel-nage 12:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In response to queries I've performed a full analysis of my closing decision on the VfD. The rejected votes are fully identified and I examine the impact it would have had on the decision if I had counted those excluded votes (excepting a single admitted sock puppet). The excluded votes were 4 delete, 1 keep and 1 merge. Some pressure has also been brought to bear to persuade me to discount Gabrielsimon's vote; after consultation with two other administrators the conclusion was not to do so, but I also examine the effect it would have had on the conclusion if I had discounted that vote. The bottom line is that even if I had counted those six excluded votes and excluded Gabrielsimon's vote the majority for delete would have been nearly 3% short of the most generous interpretation of "rough consensus". See Wikipedia talk:Votes_for_deletion/Religion_and_schizotypy. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I am religious.

Nevertheless, I find that this more or less accurately describes the logical fallacy atheists use to attack my Faith on an ever constant basis. Therefore, do not delete it but probably rename it and please do cite sources. Reject 05:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving the page/redirects

Trodel, stop moving the page just because you don't like it. It's disruptive.

First off, I have no opinion on whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. I am merely interested in implementing properly the result of the VfD, which was adjudged by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) to be keep because of no consensus.

Redirecting this to Psychology of religion is not useful because then the content disappears, which is effectively the same as deleting it (albeit with history preserved), and that's an end run around the no consensus/keep result.

Naming this to Psychology Attacks on Religion is problematic as well because firstly as an article name it doesn't make much grammatical sense. A title that can be parsed properly would be "Attacks on religion in Psychology", but the problem with that is that the word "attack" is not NPOV. A secondary problem with the moving was of course that the capitalisation of Attacks and Religion were against naming conventions.

I would suggest that this article be edited to provide the citations asked for therein, or else to be left with the notices up so that people know that this article is problematic. Once the problems are fixed, if the article is short enough, it should then be properly merged with Psychology of religion. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

As an addendum, if people want this page deleted, wait a reasonable period, then put it up for VfD again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting this to Psychology of religion is not useful because then the content disappears, which is effectively the same as deleting it (albeit with history preserved), and that's an end run around the no consensus/keep result. — There is nothing in policy supporting that POV. — David Remahl 13:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It's called gaming the system. You can't get rid of it legitimately one way, so you try to get rid of it through a back door method. Not on. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The result of the vote--contrary to what it says above--was no consensus. A redirect doesn't require a consensus vote. How is turning it into a redirect a runaround of the system? Anyone could have turned it into a redirect at any time without consulting anyone else (although anyone else could revert that if they seriously objected); a no-consensus vote is certainly no obstacle towards doing that. Aquillion 13:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't, but where does the content go? The difficulty I have here with the move or the redirect is that it is being done by someone who wanted the article deleted in the first place and does not preserve any of the content in the redirect. That smells to me of bad faith, I'm sorry to say. A redirect should be done where the article either is a duplicate of content otherwise or if the information is actually merged in the article it is redirected to. None of these was present in this case. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, look, what it comes down to is that anyone has the right to turn a page into a redirect at any time if they honestly believe it's an improvement. If there's opposition and someone reverts, then they can go to talk and try to hammer out an agreement, but until then I think Wikipedia:Be Bold applies. If the person making the change honestly thinks that a redirect would be an improvement over the current article, then it would be a good-faith edit; so please do not oppose it on just those grounds. Of course, if there already is significent opposition to a merge/redirect, that would be different; but I don't see any here right now. If that's your position, then you should stop referring to the no-consensus VfD and start arguing about why turning this into a redirect would be a bad idea. None of the editors who voted keep on the VfD have shown up to oppose this, though, and right now you're just making procedural arguments, so it seems fair to say that the concept of turning this into a redirect is no longer opposed. It is easily reversible by anyone and doesn't disrupt anything or require admin assistance, which means that the bar for doing so is therefore much lower than a delete (as low as any other edit); if there's no real opposition at the moment, then we're good to go, and formal processes be damned. Anyone who opposes can fix things and start up the necessary discussion when (and if) they arrive. Aquillion 17:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Khaos, no offense, but your argument is equivalent to stating that anytime there's a vote that just barely doesn't reach an arbitrarily defined point of consensus (that seems to change on a whim) that the normal methods of dealing with articles no longer exist. Forget the vote happened and that all the people who had voted had made talk page comments... the consensus very clearly would be to either delete or redirect, and the delete people could compromise and go for redirect. That's not gaming the system, it's following how things work here instead of letting a small minority of people dictate what happens. You've got the situation turned on its ear. DreamGuy 14:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your edit summary said it the consensus was to redirect. It wasn't. Your redirect didn't preserve the information, it got rid of it entirely. Now, if the consensus was to delete, I'd have no quarrel with that, or if your own vote was to keep, I'd have less quarrel with that either. But you're obviously adamant on deleting the article, and that redirect is trying to get around the delete by de facto removing the content, so you're basically getting your way - which was voted down. Like I said, I'm not interested one way or another in the article, but what you're doing is not right. --khaosworks (talk • contribs)

You've violated 3RR on this, by the way, and you should assume good faith. Consensus was to delete and/or redirect/merge, not at all to keep. Not having enough votes to meet an arbitrary consensus level for any one vote option does not mean there is no consensus to do a a combined option. What your doing is not right. DreamGuy 14:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

To be absolutely proper, what should be done is this - keep the article the way the VfD was closed, and then, like Hipocrite suggests below, give it a reasonable amount of time for people to try and improve it. If that doesn't work, put it up for VfD again, and let the chips fall where they may. Why the rush to delete the content? Following this, it avoids cries of bad faith, allows everyone to act professionally, and hopefully stops people from having any justification to whine if it doesn't go their way. Consensus is achieved through persuasion and the recognition of process, not unilateral action. What's the point of yelling "consensus" if you're not going to follow it in the first place? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

What's the point about yelling about other people allegedly not following consensus when you apparently have no intention of following it yourself? (Or for that matter, the 3RR policy?) Your accusations are clearly out of line, and your concept that the article must be protected as keep with no redirects or merges is completel contrary to the expressed wishes of those voting. DreamGuy 14:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, then, show me how you are following consensus when the VfD was closed with a no consensus result? And I never said you could not merge the articles - but a simple redirect is not a merge. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with merging info out of this article is that there isn't much. It's all conjecture. The best I can come up with is something like "Some religious leaders and other religious people report seeing visions and hearing voices. These subjective experiences are also typical symptoms of mental illnesses on the schizotypy spectrum." Perhaps you could go on to say "This has caused some people to believe that religious people are mentally ill," but that needs support. FreplySpang (talk) 16:56, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

There are also no sources for any of the claims, so it's nothing but original research and opinion. Nothing in the article would be an improvement to anywhere it was added, IMO. Vashti 17:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

The result of the VfD discussion was keep (the default when there is no consensus). The vote didn't tell us whether it should or shouldn't be renamed/moved, merged or redirected. If someone can get consensus for this, or just fancies being bold and seeing it they can make something that everybody will be happy with, go ahead. If you believe that there's genuinely no information to be merged, just redirect--this doesn't stop someone who thinks there is material to be merged just merging it into the target article. A redirect doesn't destroy information; it's all in the history. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't destroy information, but it doesn't preserve the spirit of the VfD result as I saw it, either, which is why I reverted the redirect. Once again, I had no interest in the content and I still think Gabriel needs to be dealt with, but this just seemed wrong to me. I still maintain, however, that DreamGuy's initial edit summary was misleading. There was no consensus, despite what was claimed, for a redirect. That being said, I'll let it go. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I second Khaosworks. There is no basis at all for claiming that consensus from the VfD was to redirect. How many users voted for that option? Dreamguy, you have to be very careful about using the word "consensus." If you wish to build a consensus opinion for a redirect, then you can count me in. Khaosworks, at a minimum, objects to simply blanking this page and redirecting. So, let me ask: what would you want to see happen here?

Trying to live within the rules, --Craigkbryant 00:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Stupid browser. I'm having some kind of strange problems here. I only saw the above comment, but now I can see that Khaosworks has already made a suggestion on how to move forward--give the article a reasonable interval with improvement tags in place, then submit for VfD again if it does not improve. I'm good with that. I would like to suggest that all editors honor the process and wait 14 days to see if anyone can transform this article into something with value. Opinions?

--Craigkbryant 00:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Needs help

Many people said in the VfD that they would help with the article. I've already spent 12 days guilting one of them on their talk page, but that individual does not appear to want to help with the article, whatsoever. I intend to put the article, unless improved, NPOVed and cleaned up for VfD again at end of buisness September 1, 2005. This gives people who think there is even one word of merit a total of 12 days to find it, and put it in the article. Get cracking. Hipocrite 12:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there's research to support a page along these lines, and I think I gave a pointer to it above. However, I don't think that this is the sort of topic that can or should be covered in a quickly knocked-off paragraph of text or with citations from abstracts. I would support another VfD. Vashti 12:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Even a knocked-off paragraph (i.e., a stub), if well-documented, would indicate that value can exist in this page, and that, for me, would resolve the question of whether it ought to be deleted. I agree with Hipocrite: wait a decent interval before calling another VfD. --Craigkbryant 00:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

One week remains, and the only change has been to move this orphaned article such that it redirects into psyc of religion. Thus, if someone comes to wikipedia, types in the EXACT search phrase, "Religion and schizotypy," (nothing in article space links to it) they will be redirected to psyc of religion. There are scores of people that voted keep - is this what they wanted? FEEL THE GUILT. Hipocrite 14:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Crunch time. Hipocrite 21:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really worth worrying about. Redirects are cheap. I agree that it's unlikely that anyone will type in the exact phrase "Religion and schizotypy", but that in and of itself isn't enough reason to go through with the bother of deleting a redirect; if you're worried about saving space on the server (and you shouldn't be), you should keep in mind that the deletion vote itself will probably take up more than this article has so far. Personally, I think relying on redirects and merges whenever possible, instead of deletions, is more "wiki-like" under the current system--anyone can do or undo them fairly easily, so they go through the same rules and dispute resolution processes that have worked for everything else, rather than the cumbersome VfD system we have at the moment. Plus, it keeps the history available just in case anyone ever wants to consult it for a record of what happened. I think that's a good thing. Aquillion 22:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep - sounds like the article could do with expansion though.

Keep - this article is a work in progress.

Keep Could be a great article soon.

Keep -- The topic is valid, apply improvement tag as needed.

Keep. - The relationship between religion, spirituality, or the mystical experience and the schizotypic personality (not the same as a schizophrenic) is a topic of significant psychological research. I've dug up some primary and secondary sources, and would like to clean up the article. If there's a consensus to merge it with a larger topic, that's fine, but I'd like it to stick around for a while as I work on it. Much appreciated.

Keep. Valid topic. Potential to offend religious people is no reason for deletion.

Keep This is an important part of psychological history. If the tone of the article is inappropriate, please fix the article, but don't delet it.

GUILT Hipocrite 13:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make personal remarks towards other contributors. Joking between friends is all right, of course, but I see no evidence that others find your guilt remarks at all funny. Uncle Ed 23:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

There are no personal remarks being made to other contributors, and I challenge you to find one. I have no idea where you would ever see that in anything I have written on this page. Apparently, trying to scare up some people who said they were going to improve something, and then never did so is now a personal remark. Hipocrite 23:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It's vandalism. Contributor did not enter a valid vote or proper comment, so it's vandalism of some sort. --AI 03:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

There is new emerging evidence on this subject that may have some relevance to resurrecting this article.

Can be found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-51MHP0S-1&_user=10&_coverDate=04/30/2011&_rdoc=4&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235897%232011%23999499995%232837738%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5897&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=20&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9e5e4652be9d8a8c7b2bfb9d4fa93016&searchtype=a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.41 (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)