Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:25, 15 October 2005

Older comments are archived by chronology: 2003-2005.

Things to do

I added a list of things to do with its first item. If consensus can be reached on what should be on the list, then that's a good thing! :-) Agreeing how to go about doing what's on the list would be even better! There have been plenty of substantive and process proposals made here. Although I have some experience with hypnosis, I don't consider myself to be an expert. However, I do know a resolvable issue when I see one. My main proposal at this point is to use this list as a tool to find and document the "highest common ground" for what should be included in this article. Then just go out and do it! ;-) — RDF 14:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The NPOV way to introduce a subject is to give it a fair hearing in the introduction, and present the sort of intense criticism I found in a later and appropriate section. There are a variety of opinions, and they all will be heard, but the former introduction was not neutral or encyclopedic. Please help me in further proofreading the article, its very long and needs alot of work. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with your idea that the way to present a controversial subject in an NPOV fashion is to disclose one and only one POV in the introduction, and wait until the body of the article to disclose that major portions of what has been presented to the reader as established uncontroversial fact is in fact the subject of much debate. Nor do I see what is "not neutral or encyclopedic" about the previous introduction, which did not presume the truth of one view or the other. Accordingly, I am reverting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree w that too, because its not what I said. I said we give it a fair hearing in the intro, and leave the smear job for its own section ;) Tasks you can do 00:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other; you're still saying that only one POV should get a fair hearing in the intro, and the other one, the one you dismiss as a "smear job", should be isolated in its own section. If anything, we should do the reverse of what you're proposing: disclose right up front in the intro that there is a substantial body of opinion that hypnosis doesn't actually exist -- and then in the article, discuss hypnosis as what it is if it exists, with no need for constant reminders that "then again, some people think it's all BS and doesn't exist." There will no artificial ghettoization of such references, but they will need to actually say something beyond just proposing that hypnosis doesn't exist: i.e., detailing exactly what the alternative theory is to explain a particular observed effect, etc. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your talking about, but if you have a psychologist you can cite who agrees w this "hypnosis doesn't exist" stuff, that would help alot. Tasks you can do 15:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

And now you're blithely adding references to "brainwashing" and "mind control" as if those had any scientific consensus on their existence. One editor alone is not enough to deal with your bad faith, Sam. You make extensive unsupported claims about what hypnosis is and what it does and at the same time you demand massive citations for just the fact that your view of hypnosis isn't the only one? You're acting in shockingly bad faith, Sam. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I know you are but what am I? And where are those cites I asked for 2 weeks ago? Sam Spade 00:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Changing the subject and deliberately juvenile mockery are neither of them adequate defenses, Sam. If you are seriously arguing that because you are too lazy to type "Hypnosis does not exist" into a Google search box and verify that yes this is a POV on the matter then there is no point in digging up any citation for you; you would just discover new endless bullshit hoops to be jumped through. "Oh, but it doesn't count because your citation is from 2003; you haven't proved that anyone still believes that in 2005!" Meanwhile, the proof that you are demanding citations not out of any good-faith attempt to edit according to Misplaced Pages standards, but just to harass, is shown by your additions of the above-cited material casually claiming that "there are examples of brainwashing or mind control where is far more difficult." To read your version of the material one would never suspect that the American Psychological Association has specifically stated that no theory of mind control so far has been scientifically verified. Yet did you cite this claim? No, you did not. If you think you have the right to demand that I jump through hoops that you are passing by, you are far mistaken. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Read Ewan Cameron (MKULTRA), and stop being so abrasive. When you make claims they are expected to be backed up w cites, its not my job to verify your claims for you. Practice rigour. Sam Spade 16:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Your job is to demand that others verify their claims only to the degree that you verify your own. That is to say, your job is to act in good faith. Claiming "here's a link that shows that the MKULTRA program tried to find methods of mind control and that's all I need in order to state that mind control does exist" is bad faith. Claiming that "you have to cite sources just in order to show that there is any dispute that this exists" when the article history alone shows that there is dispute is bad faith. Combining the two into a double standard is manifestly bad faith. Is it your job to verify claims for me? No. But it is your job to verify your own claims when the burden of proof falls upon you; if you are going to claim that there is no dispute that hypnosis exists, the burden of proof for that extraordinary claim falls on you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I never suggested there is no dispute, rather I asked you to cite some examples for the benefit of the article. Sam Spade 21:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The original article is extremely unprofessional in its non-neutrality. If someone wants to learn about hypnosis from this encyclopedia, they are obviously not primarily interested in the arguments against it; they are interested in it itself. It's like creating an article on Judaism that begins with an argument supporting Christianity over it. The fact is, there is very little information in this article (original edit, I mean). Hopefully a real hypnotherapist will eventually rewrite it. -- CGameProgrammer 17:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, let's see, is that a valid chain of logic? Let's try something out. "This article is extremely unprofessional in its non-neutrality. If someone wants to learn about white supremacy, they are obviously not primarily interested in the arguments against it; they are interested in white supremacy itself. Hopefully a real white supremacist will eventually rewrite the article." Somehow that fails to convince me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What were discussing

Hypnosis is a trance state similar in appearance to sonambulism, wherein a client is in touch with their subconscious. In this state the client is receptive and suggestable, as well as possessed of acute recall of memories, often even those not remembered consciously.

There has always been a certain amount of controversy regarding hypnotism, particularly in its precise definition. Among psychologists that practise hypnosis, some view hypnosis as an altered state of consciousness, others as a type of focused attention. The states invoked by clinical practitioners of these methods are very similar, implying that they are, in fact, describing the same phenomenon. The methods employed and the underlying methodologies have still not converged to the point where there is consensus on a single definition of hypnosis.

---

Hypnosis is a psychological state whose existence and effects are strongly debated. Some believe that it is a state under which the subject's mind becomes so suggestible that the hypnotist, the one who induces the state, can command behavior that the subject would not choose to perform in a conscious state (even behavior to be performed after the subject has left the hypnotic state, through post-hypnotic suggestion,) or even behavior the subject would be incapable of in a conscious state, such as not feeling pain, manifesting skin blisters as if the subject had been burned, or recalling things the subject's conscious memory does not retain. However, there is strong dispute and skepticism about what behavior and effects hypnosis can induce; some believe that the state does not actually exist, and that all effects of 'hypnotism' that have been observed are in actuality a combination of subjects' expectations (based on their beliefs of hypnotism's effects) and their desire to please the hypnotist (see Hawthorne Effect).

Not surprisingly, given the disagreements described above, there is also wide disagreement about whether it has uses in fields such as mental health, medicine and law enforcement. Some promote hypnotism as a powerful tool for therapists to treat patients, claiming that it can bring up to consciousness painful repressed memories. Some even claim that it can retrieve repressed memories of alien abductions, Satanic ritual abuse, or memories from past lives. Others point to this very fact, that subjects under hypnosis can develop and come to wholly believe in "memories" that are implausible (or even proven false by existing evidence), as proof that hypnosis is, if it even exists, a tool proved too unreliable to be safely used in any important undertaking.

---

The second of these two introductions ("Hypnosis is a psychological state whose existence and effects are strongly debated.") seems much more balanced in its presentation of the facts as we are able to determine them regarding hypnosis. It makes the point up front that the phenomenon is highly debated (very important), and then goes through and presents various sides of that debate as they concern specific aspects of the phenomenon, with relevant links to other Misplaced Pages articles. It's really quite well done, actually. I would be hard pressed to do as well. I wish the author had signed it. -- BBlackmoor 05:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It's mostly my work, actually; Sam didn't mark them well, but these are the introductions (minus some changes made in the meantime) to the two versions currently under contention. Out of the two, of course, I favor this introduction, but I'm not stuck on it as the final form; I think it's a bit long and I suspect there must be some way we can keep it well-balanced but move some of the detail it now contains into well-organized sections of the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources

Regarding somnambulism. As far as "stating the effect of hypnosis on memory as undisputed", I'm not doing that (of course its disputed, everybody knows bad therapists instill false memories sometimes, particularly regarding past lives, alien abduction, and satanic ritual abuse), so I don't see how a cite is necessary. Sam Spade 17:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What is disputed isn't just that some some hynotists create false memories - what is claimed by the skeptics is that all hypnotic memory recollection is false, and that if ever there is success, this is just by chance or prior knowledge from the hypnotist. See: --Fangz 00:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

recent edit

This state can be induced by placing tension on binds, the client is receptive and suggestable, normally experiences memory loss, while becoming very aware of themselves and not their surroundings. James Braid (physician) referred to this as being a state of "nervous sleep". Ivan Pavlov demonstrated this behavior in Pidgeons by taking away the reinforcement, sleep resulted in the animals and it was referred to as "Cortical Inhibition".

Hypnosis can effect a persons judgement and therefore could potentially cause them harm. In the hand of a "Professional" seeking to promote their welfare it can produce profound effects and be a compliment to treatment. One can always resist Hypnosis if one so desires.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand that very well... Can you please rephrase, and maybe ad this info somewhere other than the intro? Sam Spade 13:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Fangz's reversion

I reverted Spade's edit because I do not think it is appropiate to state categorically as a fact that Hypnosis is a trance state in the introduction. Not when associations like the APA themselves express such reservations - there is simply no clear mainstream scientific view that we can focus on. Nor do I consider it right to refer to the claims of hypnotists with vested interests as factual, instead of claims.

Any criticism we have here needs to be inline - not in its own section. Why? Because depending on how we start our interpretation of the phenomenon, this is going to inform every statement that is made. Criticism here isn't that about peripheral issues, but about everything, and so for everything we talk about, we need to be adopting the form: {What is objectively agreed}{What the proponents say it means}{What the critics say it means} The only appropiate way to treat this subject is to start with where the two viewpoints diverge, and then to go along the list of known facts and represent each side.

Remember our rule of thumb for judging NPOV - read through the article, and ask yourself: Which side is this on? If it is on any side, then we are in trouble.--Fangz 13:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If you have one subtle difference of opinion don't revert. Thats totally unreasonable. Instead make the needed corrections. That said, where is your source? Who are these critics? And furthermore, your premise regarding NPOV is inherantly flawed.

"The only appropiate way to treat this subject is to start with where the two viewpoints diverge, and then to go along the list of known facts and represent each side"

I think not. The appropriate way to handle the subject is first to describe what is being talked about, and then later address verifiable criticisms within the body. Critique and debate has no place in the intro. Have a look at some feautured articles. And regarding the trance state tie in, according to Houghton Mifflin's medical dictionary, Hypnosis is:

A trancelike state resembling somnambulism, usually induced by another person, in which the subject may experience forgotten or suppressed memories, hallucinations, and heightened suggestibility.

Sam Spade 16:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

These critics are the APA, the AMA, links like , and all the articles listed by , such as , and so on.

The answers link you gave had three definitions, all under 'medical':

1. A trancelike state resembling somnambulism, usually induced by another person, in which the subject may experience forgotten or suppressed memories, hallucinations, and heightened suggestibility.
2. A sleeplike state or condition.
3. Hypnotism.

Number 1 is the proponents definition, number 2/3 is the skeptic's definition. Everything makes it clear - there is no absolute mainstream opinion here, so NPOV should be essential. Note additionally in 1 the use of the words 'trancelike' (as opposed to direct statement of trance state, which you used), and the cautious use of 'may'.

Furthermore, we have things like : "the presence and nature of this process we label as hypnosis is defined by the associated phenomena that are present or elicited".

This should be the guideline we follow here - direct objective phenomena, followed by analysis. It's the only intellectually honest path to follow. I don't have a subtle difference of opinion here. I'm making a fundamental disagreement about how you are trying to structure the article.--Fangz 16:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Woah.

I think that you should start with what is not disputed, which is that the theoretical base has come afterwards. The observed effects form the basis for the model that is only a "best fit" to the observations you make.

The fact that people can produce the effect, doesn't mean that they know the actual workings of it.

If you find the time, look up the historical perspective of hypnosis. I find that Tad James has a good description of a time line stretching from some ancient healers who used props and found them to be unnecessary.

Fundamental to the term hypnosis is the concept of a subconscious mind, trance and rapport.

A subconscious mind is a descriptive model of some other-than-rational traits that seem to govern how a person responds to and learns from exposure to different impressions.

A trance is an altered state of consciousness where your critical faculties are bypassed. You have different set of resources in different states, and a persons' state governs behavior. There is a common misconception that a trance is a relaxed state. A phobic reation to a spider is also a trance.

The idea of rapport is to establish a reflection in the other persons mind. Since all human states can be considered a trance with different qualities, the objective of an induction is to help the subject to produce a trance that includes rapport with the hypnotist.

Edit war?

It would be better to discuss edits here instead of hitting the revert button.... If reverts continue I will place this page on WP:RPP ≈ jossi ≈ 23:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The reverts are happening without discussion because the edits have already been discussed and one contributor continues to insist that the only "NPOV" way to discuss hypnosis is to "give it a fair hearing in the introduction", by which he means air his theories that the phenomenon exists and is closely connected to mind control, which is also presumed to exist -- and then, only later in the article, after much reluctance, admit the fact that there is no scientific consensus for anything that was just stated as "this is what you need to know about hypnosis," and that there are other POVs on the existence and extent of the phenomenon.

If you feel that the existence of an edit war means the issues haven't been discussed enough, feel free to join the discussion. It will be interesting to see what you have to say on the subject, and especially whether it represents any consistency with your own behavior in the revert wars you've been a full participant in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I also would welcome your participation jossi. Sam Spade 12:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Amateurish and out of step with current thought

This article is so poorly constructed and out of step with research and theory that it is not worth editing. I would suggest scrapping it and wait for a more expert writer to take an interest rather than present this as an authoritative entry. It certainly makes Wik look bad! -- unsigned comment by Hyp (talk · contribs)

I agree the article sucks, but please help, rather than simply complain. Sam Spade 12:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I submitted an RfC, and am asking editers who are familiar w the subject to lend a hand in overhauling the article. Sam Spade 12:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Please also see the RfC submitted two weeks before Sam's, in the correct section. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

64.136.26.235's contribution

The following text was added to the "Hypnotism as a social construct" section. It has been removed, since it violates NPOV by stating only one POV as fact and provides nothing in the way of verifiable evidence for that POV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hypnosis is not about strong social expectations. It is a trance state. This state has been know for thousands of years. No one in their right mind would endure painful and agonizing medical proceedures while under hypnosis, simply to play a part or please their hypnotist. And yet, under hypnosis thousands of surgical prceedures have been preformed over many years. The patients typically reporting little to no discomfort, even from exceedingly painful operations, and often no recallections while under hypnosis either. Consciousness does not corrisponed to any particular location or mechanism of the brain either, and yet we all have an experience of being observing and conscious. Hypnosis is an altered or differing aspect of that consciousness. Hypnosis is a real thing, it does exist, as a part of our consciousness, our subconsciousness, and until science can point to the brain and say " there is the seat of consciousness, right there in such and such lobe." They will not be able to find the seat of hypnosis either.

Simplifying introduction, while keeping it NPOV

One of the problems I think the article has in its current state is that the introduction is rather too long. The current version is still an improvement over the previous version, which stated that hypnosis "does not have a single definition that is universally applicable," because some people when they said "hypnosis" meant a scientific concept and some meant a fictional construct. Of course, they were both describing the same thing, but differing on whether it actually exists and what its actual effects were.

I have always believed that Misplaced Pages articles, like newspaper articles, have to be constructed with special attention to their introductions; the question that has to be asked is "if the reader quit reading after X sentences, what knowledge about the subject would they take away?" This is why it is absolutely an unacceptable proposition to rewrite the article so that the introduction actually hides the fact that the existence of hypnosis is disputed. However, the introduction is currently very large in size, trying to capture a) the whole cluster of beliefs about the effects of hypnotic states and post-hypnotic suggestions, b) the fact that various POVs exist about whether hypnosis exists at all and if it does, how much of its effects are real/exaggeration, c) what hypnosis is used for (i.e., why it's an important subject, always important for an introduction) and how these uses are affected by the strong debate over its existence and reliability. It's going to take a real careful eye, and discussion, to figure out how to move some of the detail from the introduction into the body of the article without removing important information that really should be imparted to anyone who starts reading the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The alternate intro does not hide that the concept is disputed. Indeed it accentuates that by providing a balanced introduction, first describing what everyone agrees with (the external, visable results and behaviors) and then describing the dispute over what occurs within the client during the hypnosis. Sam Spade 15:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The alternate intro relies heavily on weasel wordings to create a particular impression while giving lip service to NPOV. Let's go through it point by point:

• Hypnosis is generally described as a trancelike state, similar in appearance to somnambulism.

Generally described by whom? Would those who believe that hypnotism is a social construct "generally describe" it as a state at all, or as people attempting to emulate the social construct?

• In this state is often believed that the client is receptive and suggestable, and has increased ability to recall memories, often even those not remembered consciously.

Obviously there's a word missing; it should be "It is often believed that in this state, etc." Another weasel wording.

• There has always been a certain amount of controversy regarding hypnosis, particularly in its precise definition.

Oh, this is a masterpiece. "Particularly in its precise definition." This suggests that the main points about hypnosis are all settled, so that the real debate is over the precise details and niceties. One would never suspect that there is no consensus that hypnosis exists.

• Among psychologists who practise hypnosis, some view it as an altered state of consciousness, others as a type of focused attention.

See above. This suggests that the only disputes of note are among those who fully buy into the existence of hypnosis and practice it themselves.

• The states invoked by clinical practitioners of these methods are very similar, suggesting that they are, in fact, describing the same phenomenon.

Hmmmm, is that the aroma of fresh-brewed original research I smell? Why, yes it is! Tell me, who examined "the states invoked by clinical practitioners", decided that they were "very similar", and decided that this meant they were "describing the same phenomenon"?

• The methods employed and the underlying methodologies have still not converged to the point where there is consensus on a single definition of hypnosis.

Or, in fact, consensus that it exists.

No, the "alternate intro" is not an acceptable base to work from. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Generally described by books of reference, see . I've never seen anything about this "social construct" fluff in any reputable source. You'll have to go to skeptics.com for such foolishness.
2. Thank you, I've made the correction.
3. You have some strong and contentious opinions about this, to such extent that I'd like an outside view.
4. Again, review some books of reference. This might help.
5. I find it aamusing that you accuse me of original research. I am happy to cite sources, but you have so far been unwilling. So far one guy cited some skeptics dictionary, which is valid for the criticism section, but obviously unacceptable as asource for the intro.
6. Please provide a citation for that claim.

Btw, we actually agree more than you think. We both think the article (in both forms) sucks and needs a rewrite. How about you and I engage in some mediation, and allow others to edit the article? Sam Spade 09:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

And now you see why the edit war has come about. Sam promotes any idea which he holds to 'so widely known that I don't have to source it' and dismisses any idea he disagrees with as "fluff", "foolishness" and "smear job" that cannot come from "any reputable source". Sam claims his intro is NPOV, but then doubles back and explains that he means it explains the POVs he thinks readers should be exposed to. I will do many things in the name of cooperative editing, but jumping fruitlessly through hoops to meet a blatant double standard from an editor who keeps reverting to his version when no one but himself has favored it is not one of them.

So the question comes back to: how do we fix the current intro so that it clearly conveys the major points that need to be known about hypnosis? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

When have you cited your sources? and when have I not? Sam Spade 17:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

A Novel About Hypnotism

Is Hypnosis a significant fictional treatment of hypnotism? If it is, wouldn't a link to it be useful (especially since it can be read online)?

--Vibritannia 11:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Four Tags?!

I dont mean to butt in in an editing dispute (so i'll refrain from editing), but the four tags on this articles page is REALLY too much. If the tag really MUST include more information, perhaps a custom tag to say what is absolutely necessary would be more appropriate. This just looks plain silly. --The Minister of War 15:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Please help. Sam Spade 16:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Reading around, i'd be happy to. First of all, i'd suggest replacing the four tags with just one, {{merge}}. It looks a lot better, and refocuses the discussion towards a goal: making one good article. --The Minister of War 17:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually {{twoversions}} may be better suited to stay on. But reading around, i am becoming more and more curious of what the exact disagreement is all about. Can you summarize in, say, three sentences what forms the core of the dispute? --The Minister of War 17:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Now thats a good idea! See below:

What this tossup is about

I began to edit the article, and first thing I cut most of the intro out, and created a criticisms section from it. Almost immediately, the edit war began, and little has been done since then. I therefore propose that we resolve the intro, and the criticism sections. Sam Spade 19:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright. So what points would you dispute in the article right now? --The Minister of War 20:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's how the problem looks from the other side: Sam "cut most of the intro out" because it's a POV he doesn't agree with. You can see on this talk page where he's called it a "smear job", "fluff", and "foolishness". He claims that the only "NPOV" way to handle the article is to give the "subject", by which he means his POV on the subject, "a fair hearing", by which he means supressing mention of differing POVs until later in the article, and writing the introduction as if the existence of hypnosis was agreed on by all significant POVs.

Does he claim, from time to time, that he is justified in excluding this POV because not enough citation has been made to show that this POV exists? Yes, indeed, he does make that claim. Is it shown to be a false claim? Yes it is; it is shown as a false claim by his own refusal to abide by the same standard. Note the following sentence which Sam introduced to the article: "In most cases one can resist hypnosis if one is aware of it, but there are examples of brainwashing or mind control where this is far more difficult." If you follow the links to those two articles you will find that there is even less consensus on the existence of brainwashing or mind control than of hypnosis; you will find that the American Psychological Association, when asked to consider the theories of mind control, specifically stated that no research as yet that met scientific standards had verified the existence of mind control. Sam is acting abusively as an editor, demanding a standard of citation he will not himself abide by.

The reason little progress has been made in improving this article is that the editors who actually care about making it an NPOV article that presents the various POVs and lets the reader decide from there have been kept busy fighting POV-pushers who want it to be a platform for their unverified opinions about mind control. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

/*grin/* did I say three paragraphs?

Seirously though, in every dispute things get out of hand. I'm sure that User:Sam Spade would characterize your views equally as POV, leaving us no step further. What i'm trying to do here is listing, specifically, and without the frustration (probably on either side), what exactly constitutes the dispute.

Again, taking the current version as a frame of reference, i am curious to hear what points User:Sam Spade exactly disputes. --The Minister of War 20:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes. Sam would characterize my views equally as POV. The difference is that he would be wrong, since my goal is to create an article that fairly treats all POVs, both for and against, and explains for the reader why the adherents of those POVs believe them. Sam has made it clear, however, that his vision is for 'separate but equal' treatment of POVs, where the viewpoints of "professionals" (that is, those who believe in the existence of hypnosis and practice it themselves) are found everywhere in the article, but anything which discloses the existence of the other POV (the one he calls "fluff", "foolishness" and a "smear job") is only represented in the section reserved for their kind. I'm a great believer in EMDR but you don't see me running over to that article and trying to stuff every reference to any questioning of EMDR's existence into a "Criticisms" ghetto. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The intro is the criticisms section + a crappy intro combined. My idea is to carve citable portions of the criticisms section out, and rewrite the intro. Then, we should promptly proceed to overhaul/rewrite this article, which, while containing a dash of good content here and there, is a complete mess and disservice to the reader. Sam Spade 22:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but an intro needs uncontestable claims, and on hypnosis there seem to be few.

How about, for a start:

Hypnosis is a psychological state induced by a hypnotist, often by using repetetive and slow talking, though other methods are also used. The subject of the hypnosis often becomes highly susceptible to suggestions made by the hypnotist. This susceptibility is used in a variety of ways, from amusing performances to recollecting subconscious memories.

After that the controversy starts about the nature of the state. Does this look promising? --The Minister of War 10:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds ok, how about:

Hypnosis is generally described as a trancelike state, similar in appearance to somnambulism. In this state it is often believed that the client is receptive and suggestable, and has increased ability to recall memories, often even those not remembered consciously.

There has always been a certain amount of controversy regarding hypnosis, particularly in its precise definition. Among psychologists who practise hypnosis, some view it as an altered state of consciousness, others as a type of focused attention. The states invoked by clinical practitioners of these methods are very similar, suggesting that they are, in fact, describing the same phenomenon. The methods employed and the underlying methodologies have still not converged to the point where there is consensus on a single definition of hypnosis.

Sam Spade 11:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Euhmmm that sound like just about exactly the disputed intro. Let's not. And dont put it online without consultation please, thats bad form. Let me clarify the way i think this should work.

1. I try to find a common ground intro
2. You guys add or criticize points (preferably in one sentence + argument)
3. I try to figure them in there
4. go back to point 2 until we're there.

So my question would be: what points should be added or substracted from my little dabbling up there? --The Minister of War 08:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is Sam's disputed intro, verbatim.

I had an idea regarding the intro: we have two definitions of hypnosis from the APA, the one from 1993 and the one from March, 2005. What would you think of putting those two definitions right up front in the intro? That goes a long way towards showing that, while there are some very detailed POVs about what hypnosis is, there is very little expert consensus about what it is and whether it exists as a state. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, i noticed...

Sounds good, what is the definition? It seems to me the APA might focus on clinical hypnosis mainly though, but as an unambiguous source i concur theyre pretty neutral. --The Minister of War 11:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's the two definitions:

In 1993, the American Psychological Association defined hypnosis as "a procedure during which a health professional or researcher suggests that a client, patient, or experimental participant experience changes in sensations, perceptions, thoughts, or behavior." (Executive Committee of the American Psychological Association Division of Psychological Hypnosis . Psychological Hypnosis: A Bulletin of Division 30, 2, p. 7.), citation culled from .

This definition has been revised, and as of March, 2005, it reads "Hypnosis typically involves an introduction to the procedure during which the subject is told that suggestions for imaginative experiences will be presented" .

I believe we can use reference templates to endnote the quotations, so as not to frontload the intro with lengthy citations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, something that I notice is that in both definitions, the APA describes it as a process rather than a state; this strikes me as a good choice to follow. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Geez Sam, stop doing that!

I dont like the first definition that much, since it limits itself to clinical hypnosis, but if you cut out the health professional it works nicely. The second one is much better; i like "imaginative experiences"! Much better than "changes in perceptions".

I think its a good idea to focus on a process; i tried to do so in my proposal as well, but didnt succeed half as nicely. As far as i'm concerned, you can try to put it in. --The Minister of War 08:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop doing what? Restoring the better version? I certainly won't stop doing that, until the article has been overhauled. I have repeatedly offered the olive branch to Antaeus, and he is well aware I am willing to engage in mediation and a mutual truce regarding this page. He, assumably, is not. Why you think his version is the default version is beyond me, but we clearly need an expert to overhaul the page w/o Antaeus discouraging them. Sam Spade 11:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Listen Sam, you asked me to come aboard. I am entirely impartial on the topic, and in the dispute. And i'm just saying, lets not edit until we agree on some version here. Why bother asking me to mediate when all you do is revert to your side of the story? Then when i do come in to help, at the very least you owe me some respect in my call for a cease-fire.

Now, I dont think his version is better, it was just the one on when i came in. While mediating, we cant remove the entire article. One of the two versions simply has to stay on. It would show great character if you could swallow your rejections for the time being and leave his article on.

I am going to revert to his version, if only not to restart the revert war. I suggest you put forth some critical points on the definition above. --The Minister of War 12:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I won't agree to a false page protection. If you think the page needs protected, request as much @ WP:RfPP. What I have (repeatedly) proposed is that Antaeus and I agree to stop editing the article until we come to some agreement, or one of us leaves. Its bad for the article to be stuck in either version, both of which suck.

My best case scenario is that both Antaeus and I step back while someone else rewrites the article. If I recall correctly i never asked you to mediate, but generally requested your assistance w the article. Mediation requires consent, and Antaeus has yet to accept an offer of mediation. Sam Spade 16:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sam's idea of a compromise version shows why mediation with him would be a waste of time. Mediation would be appropriate if this was a personal issue, but Sam's attempts to portray it as one are false and self-serving as his claims that the article is more NPOV when the introduction deliberately neglects to acknowledge the "fluff" and "foolishness" of a POV he doesn't agree with, in order to give a "fair hearing" to his POV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Qualifications?

I don't want to step on toes, but I'm wondering what qualifications people might have in writing this hypnosis information. I've found this article interesting, but controversial in some areas. I'm willing to add my two cents as a person knowledgeable and experienced in this area (PhD Clinical Hypnotherapy, MA Counseling Psych (Dec., 2005), MA Education, and 8+ years of clinical work). DrMattGomes 21:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do, it would be much appreciated. I, for my part, am a psyche undergrad. Sam Spade 22:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

However, please make sure you understand WP:NPOV and Misplaced Pages:verifiability. The fact that the article is "controversial in some areas" does not mean it is incomplete or incorrect from Misplaced Pages's point of view; when multiple POVs exist on a matter Misplaced Pages does not try to declare one POV correct and the others incorrect, but rather describes the POVs and describes the reasons why those who hold those POVs hold them. Very often, people get frustrated because they have "improved" an article by applying their "expert knowledge" to remove what they "know" (believe) to be incorrect or assert what they "know" (again, believe) to be correct, only to see these changes reverted because, by applying their "expert" knowledge to declare as settled a matter which is not in fact accepted as settled by the relevant professional community, they are in fact committing original research. This is not even getting into the fact that, ahem, we rarely if ever have a way of checking whether someone who shows up claiming to have expert credentials that settle the matter actually has those credentials or is just claiming them. But if you can provide us well-referenced contributions that help us accurately describe what is known and what is debated in the field, they'll be more than welcome. Hope to see second and third edits from you soon! -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that the article is a disgrace. Your lack of expertise is self evident Antaeus, we need no further proof of that, and I must say it is imperative that you avoid this and related articles until you are willing to stop playing guard dog and allow improvements. This is a wiki, not some dictatorial nightmare w you playing the role of our Ministry of Truth. Sam Spade 11:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that you are trying every means fair and foul to turn the article into more of a disgrace. I am 100% for improvements to this article but your proposed changes are not improvements. This article needs to be streamlined. It needs to be better-balanced. It needs to be better-organized. What it doesn't need is your proposed changes, which include inserting dubious unreferenced statements about hypnosis in cases of brainwashing and "mind control" (a concept that the American Psychological Association has never affirmed, I repeat again; exactly where are you getting the standing to declare that someone else's "lack of expertise is self evident"?) and surpressing a significant POV on the subject. When you have improvements to make that will actually improve the article instead of just pushing your POV, please contribute; I'm sure we'd love to see you being constructive instead of just obstructive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I will read the appropriate documentation of NPOVs vs POVs. I understand the difficulty in claims of expertise, so I will be sure to cite sources. I also understand that hypnosis in itself is controversial and I try to talk about it in a balanced way. I look forward to my relative improvements. DrMattGomes 23:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to them too. One thing which could really help make this article shine, IMHO? The effect that I think is most commonly cited as proof that the hypnotic state is "real" (that is, it produces actual effects which are not available to someone merely compliantly playing out a role, even if unaware they are doing so) is pain suppression. We have all heard the stories of surgeries undergone without anesthesia thanks to hypnosis, but the problem is that sometimes the story that gets around isn't quite accurate, or isn't the whole story (see for instance the memory RNA experiments of James V. McConnell). Any citation of sources for the experiments best considered to show this effect, and of course any criticism of those experiments, will be quite helpful. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Last try

Well guys, its back to the old dispute again apparently. Sam, you are right Antaeus didnt agree to any mediation. However, when i offered my help, he did suggest the APA definition, actively engaging in making a compromise. I suggest you do the same, and we end this silly reverting! I am sure that starting the revert war all over again without making an active contribution on the talk pages will hurt your chances on any other mediation as well. --The Minister of War 08:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you can get Antaeus to stop editing the page, I will do likewise. Alternately, we can request page protection. I won't agree to having the page artificially locked in his version, or to discuss with him in the manner he has been conducting himself however. Sam Spade 10:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we can get that promise. Lets talk here, and I'll be the only one doing some editing after reaching consensus. Agreed Antaeus? --The Minister of War 10:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Minister. I can fully agree to refrain from editing the article (save for minor things like typo-fixing) until we have consensus on the changes here on the talk page. However, I can't go along with what Sam is proposing, because what it amounts to is that the article be locked on his version -- a version which I have to point out has so far been favored by no one except Sam. I am beginning to think that those of us who are willing to work together on a version to eventually replace the current article will have to request page protection against Sam's repeated attempts to force his personal version on everyone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No, he's proposing that he stop work on it. As before, it is currently loaded into your version and I for one intend to keep it that way, if only not start the discussion on that again. This means your version stays on for the duration of the discussion, as before. Can you agree to it then? --The Minister of War 19:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't even agree to that. I've been clear thru-out, forcing the page to stay locked in either of our versions is unacceptable, particularly without page protection. What I will agree to is that Antaeus and i step back and allow others (understand clearly, by others I do not mean only you, TMoW) to edit the page. The page needs a complete rewrite, not some sort of incremental point by point debate between Antaeus and I. Its been suffering from too much of the latter, and not enough of the former. Sam Spade 21:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. This is going nowhere. I have re-edited the entire thing, putting the introduction in some kind of logical order with the main points by both of you included. It shouldnt be controversial to either of you, and can serve nicely as a template to play around with. I suggest we take this as our working version then. Its not intended as a final version, but its unavoidable that some version stays on - we cant just delete the whole thing!

Can you both agree not to edit this version until we reach some consensus? --The Minister of War 09:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Good edit. Sam Spade 12:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a step forward. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Page protection will always result in the wrong version being protected. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists