Talk:Frederic W. H. Myers

POV Article that seriously Smears Frederic Myers

I am removing the needless sexual reference and character assassination to Frederic Myers in the criticism section as it has no bearing on his scientific work whether he had a sexual interest in a Medium - the source of which is highly suspect and UNPROVEN and insinuates a kind of lack of credibility to Myers that is a smear against his character. Myers met with many of those who claimed they had mediumship capacity over the years and in none of the accounts of these mediums was some kind of sexual perversion recorded.

Frederic Myers had the highest credentials as a man of Science and was a good friend of William James, a renowned scientist and professor at Harvard University whom also founded the first school of psychology in the US. This kind of despicable smear against Frederic Myers does not belong in what is suppose to be a non subjective biography.

I am also removing references that Podmore and Gurney disagreed with what the article leads the reader to believe was Myers final and only conclusion to his work. The Metetherial world was one theory among several that Myers posited at the time, that had some agreement and disagreement with his peers. There was a good deal of scientific discussion and analysis of the empirical data that was being collected at the time. None of this is written about in the original article. Only a very intentional misleading statement that would make any ordinary reader here believe Myers was unobjective and no one agreed with him including his colleagues. This is again a disingenuous POV slam of Myers character by what appears to be someone writing his biography with a very clear negative agenda.

Please do not undo my edits as Wikipedia entries are required to be one of consensus. I do not agree with the kind of smear campaign that is taking place here. Thank you. Jamenta (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Myers was a classicist not a scientist, and none of his views on "psychic" matters have been accepted by the scientific community. You are deleting reliable sources based on your personal belief, this is not acceptable. It seems you have been trolling other talk pages accusing Wikipedia of being "atheists" and "materialists" etc. If you want to improve an article then add or suggest some reliable references or discuss it here rationally; but instead you are doing long rants and invoking conspiracy theories on talk pages which do not achieve anything for the article. Doubter12 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It is you who is conducting a disingenuous smear campaign against psychical research and other credible members. And I imagine you are one of the Editors or have close connections to one of the Editors so there will be no ability to really challenge your claims will there be? This is not science you are conducting here or valid scholarship. It is intentional deceptive NPOV editing that intentionally smears the biographies of those that don't hold your POV. This is the worst kind of scholarship and most despicable kind. Jamenta (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Psychical research work and theories

This article is unintelligible within its "SPR" section. There is no scholarly survey of Myers' work or theorisations in this field, no indication of his unique discoveries, etc., his theoretical exchanges with William James ... This section will require much work to render it to an even trivially encyclopedic form. Best it were put to bed until then. Rodgarton (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I found the original article a smear piece on Myers including the ugly accusation that Myers was sexually attracted to the mediums he studied. The character assassination was callous and cynical. I have excised many spurious references and they will not remain. Jamenta (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Metetherial world

Under the subheading "Metetherial world," at the end of the paragraph is an incomplete sentence beginning with "But". I hesitate to join it to the previous sentence because I am not sure if that would be correct. Someone who knows this topic would need to decide how to complete that sentence.CorinneSD (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)CorinneSD (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)