Talk:Second sight

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This redirect falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles

Skepticism

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles

Article improvements

I've performed some radical surgery on the article, since so much of it was hopelessly out of date and in a style that's inappropriate for Wikipedia. Just because we can use a particular out-of-copyright source doesn't mean we should. There's been a century of research since the Britannica article, and the factual content and style of writing are out of date. I still hope this article can be replaced with a redirect to Extra-Sensory Perception, but recognise there wasn't a clear consensus for this in particular. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the old material was out of date and inappropriately styled, but there was some interesting material there, and the current article is so short as to practically be a stub. I would really appreciate if some expert (or just knowledgeable person) in the matter could expand and fill out the article a bit. Some explanation/history of the term in its Celtic context would be useful. It is my understanding that the term "Second Sight" is quite specifically a Celtic one (perhaps limited to Scotland and Ireland,) dealing with precognition or the ability to see the fairies/spirits/the dead. (No mention of those in the article.) How a person obtains the sight ought also to be discussed; if I recall correctly, being born with a piece of the caul on one's head or the 7th son of a 7th son are supposed to work, but I am hardly a source! The bit on Ancient Greece seems somewhat extraneous, as the Greeks were likely not using the Celtic concept.I think it would be better to have some examples from Celtic folklore or mythology. (The older versions of the article did do this; perhaps one of those examples could be re-written to meet quality standards and re-included.) --Heather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.249.54 (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Second Sight is a multi-generational, Scottish/Irish anthropological phenomenon. It would be optimal to leave this topic in play and build it from that perspective. Spirit of James (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An Da Shealladh is the Gaelic name given to "second sight",

An Da Shealladh is Scot's Gaelic for "The two sights." "Second sight" is English. The article should correct this. There are numerous Gaidhlig (Scot's Gaelic) words for second sight phenomena.Wrmckinney (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following site could be of some use as background info, though I'm not sure whether it fulfills requirements for references, not being experienced in writing Wiki articles. Mesmer1944 (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC) http://uhblog.ulsterheritage.com/2009/06/second-sight.html[reply]

I take exception to the statement that there is " ...no scientific proof ... " In my personal experience, most people are scared and frightened by the concept of second sight, and as a result, DAILY occurrences are often ignored or kept secret, out of polite respect for others. In my personal experience, and based on discussions with others, I would estimate that this phenomenon is as common as rain. I will attempt to provide examples in the near future. 98.194.85.137 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even without using second sight or An Da Shealladh, it can be safely predicted that you would be wasting your time - it would be OR (original research) and would be in breach of the talk page guidelines (see above).Orbitalforam (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

diplopia?

Why is diplopia listed under "See also"? Are people really likely to confuse the expressions "second sight" and "double vision"? --Thnidu (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Extrasensory perception

This article should be merged to the main article extrasensory perception. 82.132.225.5 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support this merge, there is no point in keeping this poorly sourced stub. ScienceStudent99 (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. This is a different concept from ESP; second sight is specifically the ability to see things present which are not susceptible to ordinary sight, while ESP is a more general concept, and the most usual case of ESP is the ability to see things that are at a distance, but could be perceived by ordinary sight to someone who was present at their location. Also, present length and sourcing of an article, by themselves, are never sufficient to justify a merge, just as they are never sufficient to justify deletion.

—Syrenka V (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ESP says this is a synonym, and this article says it is “a form of extrasensory perception”. Seems obvious. RobP (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge echoing the comment immediately before. Easy decision. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this has been hanging out for a while I think I'm gonna just merge them if there is no push back on the idea over the weekend. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done, we'll see if it takes I guessRap Chart Mike (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]