This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects 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.
Does the Dune series contain any spiritual possession? The existence of "spirits" is never mentioned of in the series, except by the Fremen in some cases. The state when someone who is an "Abomination" refers to being possessed by an ancestor, the memories in this case pass through the cells of the person in question, not through any "spirits".--Darthanakin 10:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think straying into the realm of fictional possession is a topic so large as to be prohibitively difficult to handle exhaustively on a general wiki page. It would work as a section on "Dune", itself. For this page, it might make sense to have one small "fictional references" section with a paragraph noting the popularity of "possession" in fantasy stories -- especially if someone has statistical data to relate on the topic. Bjond (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
"Science does recognize that "possession" exists, but only in the sense that some people occasionally behave in a way that fits the expected behavior of a possessed people. However, in spite of many attempts, it has not been able to find any reproducible proof of the existence of "spiritual beings"; therefore, it finds much easier to explain such altered mental state by natural causes"
"Science" is being refered to as a person in this paragraph. Apart from the linguistic issue, I mean, what is the paragraph trying to state? Who's claiming the claims? The 'majority' of scientics? A certain conference? There truely seems to be some entity here, "it has not been able to find" etc, who is this entity? what is it trying to prove or disprove?
"I think they mean science as a synechdoche, not as some conspiracy. So yes, the science community at large are being refered to."
This article needs substantial improvement to be encyclopedic. The theory/belief needs to be clearly explained with these explanations sourced. The content needs to be sourced and reflect scholarly research on the subject not a collection of unsourced statements that don't indicate the nature of various proposed explanations of events. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems Body hopping is about a fictional ability of fictional creatures. I have doubts about its notability. —Kenfyre (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I think keeping fictional references out of this article is a very good idea. OTH, if there's data about a people where this is a cultural belief, that would be interesting. Bjond (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
On reading the page, I noted the Islam section has a serious lack of scholarly rigor and instead reads like religious doctrine. I'm mentioning this here in the hope that someone knowledgeable on the topic might be motivated to rewrite the section. The current section is rather useless -- even the two references in it simply refer to what seems to be an "Islamic Dear Abbey" site that gives religious advice. It's jarringly out out of place in a wiki page. Bjond (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
This article is a mess. I repeatedly states that spirit possession occurs when there has been no substantiation that this is a factual occurrence rather than a particular belief. Those editors who hold the belief that spirit possession is a factual occurrence please note that this must be substantiated by reliable sources and each claim of spirit possession occurring (in this or that location or group) requires a reliable source that explicitly states what is to be stated in a WP article. As above the entire Islam section is completely unencyclopedic with only clearly non reliable sources. Please also note that religious texts are not reliable sources for WP. Unless significant changes are made and or sources added I will remove the unsourced material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
A few comments. First, it probably should be clearly stated in the lead that this topic is a matter of belief, not fact. I also tend to think that discussing the topic from primarily the apparent historical, perhaps starting with Shamanism and other early traditions, would make most sense. There is also probably more room due to the development of Spiritism. I have copied the article to my computer and will be offering more substantial comments in the next few days, I hope. John Carter (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the fact that this article presents the reader with scientific and anthropological explanations makes it very clear that the phenomenon is not empirically verified. Nonetheless, it is a factual occurrence that people enter states in which they believe themselves to be possessed by spirits, and I think that the distinction is made very clear in the article's wording. I understand your objections to the Islamic section and I agree that it should be edited, but what specific sources do you take issue with? Asarelah (talk)
Guessing that the question about Islam is to User:Bjond in the section above, I will let that editor answer that directly, but I can at least try to check some of the better reference sources on the broad topics of pseudoscience, occult/parapsychology, and religion in general, maybe in some cases in particular where reference sources on those subjects discuss the matter at length. However, given the word I received a bit earlier today, it now might be Sunday at best before I can go and and consult such sources because at this point it looks like it will be Saturday at the earliest before the medics finish all the wonderful invasive procedures and sampling and all the other things they seem so intent on doing to for me. I very sincerely hope to get some information back next week. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)