h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I really have to object to this entry. There's a lot of dubious stuff in it.

"she realised her psychic gifts early on" -- I don't think so! If there were such a thing as "psychic gifts", I'm sure we would have heard of it by now. It would be lovely to think so, but nobody has ever demonstrated such a thing as a psychic ability.

"he disapproved of her interests and her abilities as a psychic and medium" -- likewise. It suggests she had abilities. And yet such abilities do not exist.

I could go on.

Why does this piece of fiction get presented on the Front Page, when this is supposed to be the Guide to Life, the Universe and Everything? Why are we presenting articles about a fantasy world with magic and "psychic abilities"?

I've no objection to Wiccans believing this rubbish. They can delude themselves all they like. But this Guide is supposed to be about the Real World.

Hey Gnomon,

I can agree with you in that psychic ability is not a quanitifed, measured science, and as such cannot be 'proven'. There is not, to this date, a way to establish a set of rules and measures about psychic ability. One day, maybe, there will be.
(Two centuries ago, we didn't understand lightning and thunder, but now we have examined them and we can replicate the phenomena under controlled conditions. Eventualy science catches up with nature.)
But psychic phenomena are VERY real, as I have witnessed. I used to be a diehard skeptic myself, until I experienced it first-hand. Of course, my telling you that I have will not convince you that I have -- I could be lying.
As for h2g2 printing "rubbish" like this, well you have to admit that it IS an aspect of life that many people believe in.
What about h2g2 reports on hobbits, trolls, or Doctor Who? They are fiction, but they still get front-page mention.
Is Wicca fiction? Some would say it is - but some would say that all of religion is fiction. Would you protest an article about the miracles of Jesus Christ?

blessings,
Miles

I would certainly object to an article on the miracles of Jesus. There's no evidence that any of them ever happened. Any such article would have to say that people believed they happened, not that they actually happened. But this entry on Wicca does no such thing. It states that this woman had psychic powers, even though all the evidence is that she did not.

I'm split on the issue. I am glad a piece has been written about her (although whether she would have wanted it here is another issue entirely). But, as Gnomon says, using the words 'occult', 'psychic ability' and 'medium' are dubious.

"...but nobody has ever demonstrated such a thing as a psychic ability."

Indeed- and claming that one of the founder members of modern Wicca has them makes Wicca appear dubious as a result. Wish I'd been around for the PR conversations in the beginning- my fault for almost never looking in there. *slaps wrist*

I agree that the article in its current form isn't what I'd consider Guide material, although that's as much because I think the article has done the Craft no favours (despite the author's intent) as disagreeing with the material itself.

----------------------

However. Gnomon, Wicca may be 'rubbish', and Wiccans may be deluding themselves, but then how can we include any articles about *any* religion? Surely they're all the same, deluding themselves that there is any higher power?
Atheist I may be, but I give Pagans the same status in my mind as any other deity-based religion (slightly higher, in fact, as it is non-doctrine based and therefore can be less warped over time. Or at least, it was never designed to be static anyway and remain closer to its intentions). Paganism (in its many forms) is the oldest religion in the world. Wicca itself may be new, but it is still a religion like any other. Therefore it deserves the same h2g2 presence as the rest of 'em. Although minus the 'psychic ability' gubbins might help its case.

Do I make any sense, these days? I can never tell.

*awaits Gnomon's knowledge to rip my arguments to pieces*

---------------

In a (barely) related comment, have you seen A347708? I think it would be a useful article to hae linked to the main Wiccan (A531794) page. Mind you, the main Wiccan page has it's moments too, as the vast array of conversations can show. Bah. Religion can be so tiresome to placate all sides...

"to be static anyway and remain closer to its intentions)."

I mean "... anyway and has therefore remained closer to its...."

Vip, I certainly agree with you that Christians, Muslims, etc, are just as deluded as Wiccans. I have no objections to any of them expressing their beliefs here, as long as they make it clear that they are only beliefs, and don't claim them as facts.

Hi everyone

I will have to write a full reply later as I'm pretty exhausted at the mo n probably not thinking completely clearly.

I'm the first to admit I'm not the best at putting myself across in writing but am very willing to learn and have been trying to do so here. I 'did' put this entry into peer review where I fully expect to be criticised ad asked to say things either differently or ot at all..thats part of the learning process after all. It is very disheartening to to try your best with something and ttry to accomadate other views and critiscisms as presented to you in Pr as est you can to then have it go through and 'then' be told its all wrong. What is the point of oeer review then?

I only wrote this entry, I did not pick it for inclusion or accept the recommendation.
If I had been told people felt it this unsuitable in PR I would have either scrapped it or put in the work to make it acceptble according. I do value the opinions of other researchgers here.

this is the Peer Review thread by the way http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/plain/F4711807?thread=3248821

and also this one as it was submitted twice http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/plain/F3383784?thread=1990776

Thanks. Sorry to have sounded harsh, it wasn't directly supposed to be. I like the tone of the piece, by the way, just not so hot on a couple of the wordings.

It's definitely something that should have happened in PR and not here but I wanted to both support Gnomon and argue slightly with what he said.

*goes to read threads*

It sat in pr for a couple of months n got about 5 comments.

I didn't review this entry. I'm not under any obligation to review every single entry. I had thought there were enough people reviewing now that I didn't have to look at every single entry.

I'm disappointed with the Editors, for letting through something which is obviously an expression of a belief system without pointing out that it is only a belief system.

I guess it's not something a lot of people know anything about. I don't know an awful lot beyond my own studies of Wicca (which consists of a few books and a few conversations with people I know rather than in-depth study).

They pointed out the typos and didn't comment on content. I guess quite a lot of people wouldn't want to question something that's a belief of the religion/person being discussed. Whether that's correct [in PR] or not I don't know. *frets*

I did not mean to imply ny obligation to anyone and I'm soe=ry if you felt I had.

I was merely saying that if someone, anyone,had pointed out these problems to me in Pr I would have done my best to please everyone. I didnot mean the entry to come across the way it obviously has and I would rather the eds deleted it than it cause futher offence as I can't fix it now.

Apologies if I'm notmaking myself very clear, I'm not great at that t the best of times and worse stil today for reasons I wont gointo here.

I thought the problem you had was more with the 'psychic' elements.

I would have thought it fairly obvious that it was talking about a person from the belief system. It states clearly that she was involved with Wicca, with a link to the h2g2 entry on the subject, just in case people don't know anything about it.

Serephina, I can make changes to the entry, but I am unwilling to do so, as my own beliefs are so different from yours, and I don't want to force my views on you. I had hoped that the Editors would have tidied it up and made it so that everybody was happy.

Okay, I am not a Guide researcher and I'm not a reviewer and I'm not involved with the writing and presentation of what appears on this site.

I'm just a guy who likes to read the articles, and comment on ones I like.

I defended the article on Doreen Valiente for two reasons:
One, it was an article about a real person; the primary subject of the article was not about psychic phenomema, but about a woman who claimed to be a witch.
Gnomon went on a tear about how any article about unprovable stuff should be banned, and I thought he was missing the point of the article.
Two, h2g2 is a place to report on "Life, the Universe and EVERYTHING", not just on "Life, the Universe and Everything that can be scientifically proven" or "Life, the Universe, and Everything except religion."

Doreen Valiente is (or was) part of everything. Religion is part of everything. Gnomon is part of everything. So everything gets a fair shake.

If you want to add a disclaimer, "This article is about a woman who claimed to be able to use an unproven concept" or "this article is about a religion", or even "you may or may not agree with this article" , that's fine. As for myself, I think it was well written and I liked it. So there.

With respect to all, I suspect Gnomon's issue s not with you, Serephina. He does not say it was badly writtin, just that he disputes its content. So the conversation needs to take place with the editora and italics, not with the author.

The criticism is not of your writing, Serephina, nor even of your beliefs (no one has the right to criticise you for those). The criticism is for the fact that the entry was included in the EG> That is a debate on policy begging to take place.



and a for S

Wilma

Oh I didn't take anything as personal towards me don't worry

I'd be more than happy for you to make corrections to the article Gnomon as I would make them myself as if it was still possible. You're right that I should've stated more clearly that Doreens beliefs were her own and not necessarily based in truth.
perhaps, 'she began to believe in psychic phemonomen an that may have such anbilities from an early age' may be better for instance?

I wouldn't see it as you pushing your beliefs on me, just reminding me that others see things differently. I personally do not believe in 'GOD', many do etc. It can be gard when new to writing such artickles from one view point to always clearly see the other no mater how we try.

please excuse my awful typing, im drugged up to the eyeballs n the keys keep moving