00:5100:51, 24 January 2021diffhist+120
Mediumship
Science cannot disprove mediumship. I've been told that I'm "edit warring" over calling mediumship pseudoscience, but I've learned my place now. Mediumship is not pseudoscience. Hence it is important to point out that science has been unable to disprove it's mediumistic abilities.Tag: Reverted
00:4300:43, 24 January 2021diffhist−24
Mediumship
I'm sorry, but there is no proof that this doesn't exist, hence there is no reason to have that word in there. Please respect MOS:WEASEL.Tags: UndoReverted
21:1621:16, 22 January 2021diffhist+79
Mediumship
Making the favored viewpoint (non-scientific) of this article stronger. Doing my part in contributing to an enlightened society.Tag: Reverted
16:1016:10, 21 January 2021diffhist+205
Crystal gazing
Non-neutral article. The scientific view is extremely downplayed by using terms to "suggest" it "may not" be possible to see the future by gazing at a crystal ball. I have made some minor corrections to make it less offensive from a scientific perspective.Tag: Reverted
19:0219:02, 18 January 2021diffhist+454
Mediumship
Making the article more neutral, the scientific view has not been demonstrated in the introduction. Adhering to WP:NPOV.Tag: Reverted
19:5719:57, 17 January 2021diffhist0
Mediumship
Switched the ordering of two paragraphs to emphasize scientific view, which appears downplayed throughout the whole article.Tag: Reverted
19:3919:39, 17 January 2021diffhist+650
Mediumship
It is important to make it clear that "the practice of communicating with the dead" is pseudoscience, it doesn't matter whether or not the article is a "scientific article".Tags: UndoReverted
14:1614:16, 17 January 2021diffhist+650
Mediumship
"Spirtiualism" is not recognized by science either. Spiritualism is basically the definition of pseudoscience. Hence, "mediumship", as you say yourself, is a type of spiritualism, is also pseudoscience. Q.E.D. Please don't start an edit war.Tags: UndoReverted
10:4310:43, 17 January 2021diffhist+650
Mediumship
The article is written as if the scientific point of view is a mere mild "skepticism", as if it holds little authority. This has been somewhat addressed. Furthermore, the scientific explanation is not presented properly in the introduction. This has been somewhat addressed. I encourage others to find better references, an overview paper to summarize the academic consensus on the matter would be good. I have reused the references from the scientific section, please correct the syntax if needed.Tag: Reverted