Talk:Medical intuitive

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Medical intuitive article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Psychology

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Alternative medicine C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Sites of practitioners[edit]

Is this section necessary? Does the dentistry section contain a lists of dentists? AED 06:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quackery[edit]

Who thinks this category should be included? It seems there is some dispute about this. --Ariad o ss 05:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the category. -AED 23:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too pejorative, better to add detail from critics. Be careful not to unbalance the article too much towards the skeptical view, keep it as WP:NPOV as possible. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Medicine and Medical Intuition[edit]

It seems to me that this article talks more about energy medicine, auras etc.. rather than the history and practice of medical intuition. Revision needs to be made to separate the different practices. - Medintuitive 14:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Medintuitive[reply]

I'm the person who updated the page wholesale recently. I even joined the Wiki Skeptics group.

Short version:

As a working MI who's in a doctorate program for the topic, a Wiki page on M.I.s, for public introduction, should inevitably use Myss as the anchor then show how this impulse has been built out. It should also have a compare and contrast section, like I had included, because, as the old article makes clear, the field is vast, diverse and confusing to consumers.

If no comments by Aug 14, I'm replacing the old page with the new one again. Commetns invited

Long version

The old page was very dated. It mentions Carolyn Myss but does not highlight her significance. The old page lumps Myss into virtually the same group as psychics from the 1950s and 1960s. This does her and the field of MI a tremendous disservice, a slight and an insult!

The significance of Myss to MI was to define a level of professionalism and objectivity beyond the character of psychics from 1950s. People working as MIs strive to have a level of objectivity quite in contrast with 1950-style psychics and it's useful and healthy for readers to be able to discriminate this difference today in the field.

Myss spawned a new more professional level of intuitive practitioner, one who cooperates and collaborates with Mds and Dos in solving problems. Christel Nani, Karen Grace Kasey MUST be mentioned. These are the famous people taking over where Myss left off in her 1:1 practice with clients. Up and coming people include Maryann Castellanos.

The people mentioned in the old article, Parkhurst Quimby, can easily be seen to be only extremely distnat cousins to the example of Myss. Why include them? If you want a history of psychics, put that info there. As a working MI who's in a doctorate program for the topic, a page on Mis, for public introduction, should inevitably use Myss as the anchor then show how this impulse has been built out. It should also have a compre and contrast section, like I have, because, as the old article makes clear, the field is vast, diverse and confusing to consumers.

Also the International Association of MIS (IAMI) needs to be mentioned and is not.

I agree that listing of Mis is not a good precedent.

I'm replacing the new page again. Please make comments here on WHY it is inappropriate. Comments are of course welcome. - Medical intutitive 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the article back to the last version. If you think things should be changed in the article, at least attempt to follow Wikipedia guidelines for writing and formatting articles. Of particular concern to me (beyond the formatting, grammatical, and punctuation problems) is that you keep signing yourself at the top of the page and putting editorial/discussion comments within the body of the article (that's what this Talk page is for); you also have a tendency towards both unbiased wording and quoting yourself as an expert. - Motsa 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday deletion tag[edit]

The reason stated in this tag are inaccurate and do not comply with WP:NPOV - "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them" - Myss, Caroline (1997). Why People Don't Heal and How They Can. Harmony Books is obviously a RS on MI. To claim otherwise suggests entrenched bias. SmithBlue (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Holistic in Introduction[edit]

The introduction says: "Many medical intuitives present information to the client in a way that is more holistic, ..." More holistic than what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.21.170 (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC) I agree that this needs to be qualified. The material may be in the references cited at the end of the sentence. Who knows in an article this badly written? SmithBlue (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality experimental design concerning evidence based medicine[edit]

I'm not sure if this article is properly encyclopedic, as it seems to be partially an argument against MI. But, I'd still like to point out that the argument concerning potential experiments on MI is extremely poor. As of today, it claims that MI could be investigated by seeing whether MI practitioners' predictions are better than chance. It's quite likely that even untrained people can spot medical conditions at a rate better than chance through simple observation and common sense. Those who have had practice looking at people may well have a hit rate even higher than that. Therefore, diagnosing medical problems at a rate higher than chance does not prove any special powers or abilities of MI practitioners. If the MI practitioner was consistently able to diagnose illness more accurately than an untrained but experienced health professional such as a nurse, then that would support MI practitioners' claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.227.1.12 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text Removed[edit]

I have removed the text and ref below because the text is confusing since diagnosis by a unlicensed person is illegal. Also the link to the source is dead and the source itself may be biased as the author is a medicial intuitive themself. For these reasons I've parked it here until we can get clarification.

However, some medical intuitives say they diagnose, and in some cases, address an illness over the telephone. Meredith, Sarah.Abstract "How a Medical Intuitive's Abilities Can Help You"-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?[edit]

The history section appears to be original research as I doubt either source mentions the term 'medical intuitive'. If so, then according to WP:OR it should be removed. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Medical intuitive/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Medical intutitive 20:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC) strongtogether (domain name:) dslextreme.com[reply]

I posted this once to comments and either I posted it incorrectly or it was removed. Posting it again.

I'm the person who updated the page wholesale In June 07. I even joined the Wiki Skeptics group. No mail from them yet.

Short version of comments-

As a working MI who's in a doctorate program for the topic, a Wiki page on M.I.s, for public introduction, should inevitably use Carolyn Myss as the anchor then show how this impulse has grown or failed.

This page should NOT have a general discussion of psychics.

It should help readers distinguish between the older model of "psychics" and the newer, more professional model of "medical intuitive"

Because the overlap of psychics, intuitives, energy workers, shamans etc is so great, a compare and contrast section is required. See the one posted. As the old article makes clear, the field of intuitive practitioners is vast, diverse and confusing to consumers.

Long version of comments -

The old page was very dated. It mentions Carolyn Myss but does not highlight her significance. The old page lumps Myss into virtually the same group as psychics from the 1950s and 1960s. This does her and the field of MI a tremendous disservice, a slight and an insult!

The significance of Myss to MI was to define a level of professionalism and objectivity beyond the character of psychics from 1950s. People working as MIs strive to have a level of objectivity quite in contrast with 1950-style psychics and it's useful and healthy for readers to be able to discriminate this difference today in the field.

Myss spawned a new more professional level of intuitive practitioner, one who cooperates and collaborates with Mds and Dos in solving problems. Christel Nani, Karen Grace Kasey MUST be mentioned. These are the famous people taking over where Myss left off in her 1:1 practice with clients. Up and coming people include Maryann Castellanos.

The people mentioned in the old article, Parkhurst Quimby, can easily be seen to be only extremely distnat cousins to the example of Myss. Why include them? If you want a history of psychics, put that info there. As a working MI who's in a doctorate program for the topic, a page on Mis, for public introduction, should inevitably use Myss as the anchor then show how this impulse has been built out. It should also have a compre and contrast section, like I have, because, as the old article makes clear, the field is vast, diverse and confusing to consumers.

The International Association of MIS (IAMI) needs to be mentioned and is not. It's shortcomings could be usefully addressed.

I agree that listing of Mis is not a good precedent.

I'm replacing the new page again. Please make comments here on WHY it is inappropriate. Comments are of course welcome.

Last edited at 20:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 23:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of work commencement[edit]

I am going to dig into this article. There is significant room for improvement and maybe I can help. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is not a lot out there on this. Hopefully others can find more. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claims to be[edit]

I just reinstated this, but there is a small problem with the wording. Is the term commonly defined as someone who can actually do it? Then such people do not exist, and we have to state that. It would be like unicorn. Or is it someone who claims to be able to do it? Like Yogic Flying. Those are the two main avenues to go. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]