Talk:Tulpa - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Farcaller (talk | contribs) at 13:59, 20 September 2017 (→Your edit changed the meaning of the statement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:59, 20 September 2017 by Farcaller (talk | contribs) (→Your edit changed the meaning of the statement)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Buddhism High‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Occult Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Philosophy: Religion / Mind / Eastern High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion
	Philosophy of mind
	Eastern philosophy

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This article is verbose and boring

Am I the only one who sees this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.223.208.204 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if it's boring or not because I can't understand much of it after the first sentence. It's written almost entirely in jargon. You have to be an expert on the subject to even know what it's talking about, which sort of defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia article. — Gwalla | Talk 04:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, this is one of the best Misplaced Pages articles this person has ever read. If you want what you would call "verbose and boring" which you "can't understand much of" I would invite you to read the article Quantum electrodynamics. This is not an article about Justin Bieber or skateboarding. Writtenright (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and there wasn't any talk of the ever increasing interest and use of Tulpas of the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic community. --173.31.86.11 (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should add a section about the ever-increasing number of so-called "tulpamancers" who have created a tulpa as a sort of sentient imaginary friend. A lot of these "tulpamancers" have a pony tulpa and are affiliated with the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic community and 4chan's /mlp/ board. NoLongerDivided (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not notable. The idea of 'sentience' is not proven regarding imaginary friends and does not belong on the article, in fact the article on imaginary friends seems to say sentience has been disproven regarding them. What are misnomered tulpa are 'imaginary friends' and could be covered by the article on just that: imaginary friends, however there isn't a million pop culture references there, it's brief and to the point and there doesn't need to be here either. !WL2IDashiE (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The explanations in this article are far more confusing than what they are explaining. This strikes me as complete psychobabble: "accomplished thoughtform of the kye rim mode are sentient beings as they have a consciousness field or mindstream confluence in a dynamic of entrainment-secession and organization-entropy of emergent factors or from the mindstream intentionality of progenitor(s)." There isn't a single use of the term "entrainment-secession" on the entire internet that isn't a quotation of this wikipedia article. We know they are conscious because they have something that was made up in this sentence? A concept that doesn't exist and isn't explained can't be an explanation for how something is known. This page needs serious clean-up. Craig Butz (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Thoughtform be merged into Tulpa. The two articles discuss the interchangability of the terms.

A Google search reveals twice as many listings for Tulpa as for Thoughtform, and Tulpa is probably etymologically prior, although the final article should discuss both terms.

Both articles could do with some tidying, and this would be a good chance.

There was a prior merge discussion which was left unresolved, largely because no editor wanted to perform the merger. I am prepared to do the necessary editing. Andrewaskew (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is such a mess that I think it would be ok to get rid of it and redirect it to thoughtform, which has some credibility as an encyclopedic entry. Craig Butz (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger done. More cleanup and tidying yet to go. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No merge, notable and distinct from Tulpa. Valoem 18:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Valoem, there was consensus (through editing) and there was a merge. If you want to split the article, you need to start a new discussion and establish a new consensus. You can't take a discussion from 2012 and decide that there's no consensus in 2016. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Where? Also Misplaced Pages not does not recognize consensus through editing only discussion. As per WP:BOLD, I have the precedence to restore, WP:PRESERVE, also the encyclopedia favor bold expansion over bold merges. And yes I can take a discussion from 2012 and restore it in 2016 please see WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not start an edit war, I recommend AfD. Valoem 17:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Through_editing. There was consensus through editing. If you go through the edit history, you can see tulpa was a very poor article filled with primary-sourced "psychobabble" (as one editor called it) which was cleaned up subsequently. Restoring thoughtform restores the psychobabble that the community (and I personally) worked to clean up, and creates a nearly-duplicate article as tulpa and thoughtform are used almost interchangeably in the United States occult culture. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup

There is a cleanup tag on the article at the moment which asserts that there is too much psychobabble within the piece. I disagree, there is an excess of somewhat jargonistic terminology but none of this terminology originates in psychology.

In my opinion the article could do with the following (in no particular order, see also WP:GACR):

One coherent citation style, probably inline citations.
A clear series of headings providing a guide to readers. Currently there is no sense of where the article is going.
Less and shorter quotations, and less offset text in general. Reading down the page, the piece seems to waver back and forth almost at random.
A shorter, more direct introduction. We need to quickly tell readers what the page is about, so that they can decide if they want further information.
An additional, relevant image or two. An on-topic image can quickly convey a broad point.
Greater integration of the material imported from Thoughtform.
Conversely, we also need a clearer division between the use of the two terms in the text. Sometimes we say Tulpa, sometimes we say thoughtform, even if they are equivalent we need to stick with tulpa unless specifically refering to thoughtforms.
Remove or move the external links from the main body. While these translation guides can be useful, in terms of ease of reading they are too jarring to the casual reader, whereas the expert reader will normally check the external links section for themselves.
The explanations in general need to be made clearer, avoiding jargon where possible. The more accessible we can make the article, the more readers we can educate.

I welcome opinions and contributions from other editors, and I hope no-one will take offense my desire to improve the clarity of a very thorough article. I think this piece is very nearly great, but it needs clear direction to move forward. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we want to include a reference to the tulpa.info explanation of tulpas in the "further reading" section of the article? ( http://tulpa.info/guides/what-is-a-tulpa.html , assuming that permission was obtained first of course ) Aristobleus (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Tulpa.info is not related to Tibetan buddhism and has hijacked the word 'tulpa' (the usage has little to nothing to do with the original concept in Tibetan Buddhism) and redefines it from an individuals POV and is heavily biased. I don't think it's a reliable source. RainbowDashite (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The final reference or 'further reading' on the page is Speculative Fiction. Is it really alright to keep as a source? --99.63.153.120 (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What, and the Tibetan Buddhists were unbiased? A passing reference to the burgeoning community of 'tulpamancers' is more than enough to comply with Misplaced Pages's standard of objectivity. Tulpa.info is the most reliable evidence for a growing modern interest in the concept that there currently is. And besides, it doesn't matter if they "hijacked" the term. The etymological meaning of words can and does change over time. 75.83.67.165 (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

RainbowDashite's explanation is misleading and incorrect; the site is not linked because it has a history of spamming Misplaced Pages. Shot itself in the foot by adding links to itself repeatedly after being removed. Regardless, it's not a reliable source and hardly a useful source of information at all. If the site is significant, you will need reliable third party sources that discuss it. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is biased

Actually, this article has been biased since I first saw it. Repeatedly other people have tried to add other points of view, and without fail, their points of view have been removed on the next edit.

There needs to be a scientific perspective. Now I know all you magic witchy types get your panties in a bunch about this, but Misplaced Pages tries to be scientific. Look at all your other precious magic articles. Dowsing not only has an entire section devoted to science, but it says right in the first paragraph "There is no scientific evidence that dowsing is effective." Changeling talks in the "Changelings in the modern world" section about how most children seen as changelings were deformed or developmentally disabled. Even Scrying subtly hints that sensory deprivation is the same damn thing.

Now unless you all are saying that tulpa are absolute proof of magic (in which case go see James Randi and collect your million dollars) you have to allow mention of the fact that some people believe tulpa are hallucinations. Even your precious Alexandra David-Néel admitted this. The exact words of the English translation of her book read: "There is nothing strange in the fact that I may have created my own hallucination."

67.142.167.25 (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the reference to tulpas being hallucinations.

Aristobleus (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has a tulpa (but will not edit this article), i agree this article is terribly biased, but from the perspective of people who don't understand it or accept that it might be possible. Like from my point of view as a practitioner, one of the primary goals is train a tulpa into its own sentience and that perspective is sorely missing from this article. Instead, tulpæ are just 'hallucinations' based off the word of some antique woman who didn't stick with it. That's Alexandra David-Neel trying to dismiss her own tulpamancy because she couldn't muster the skills in the 1920s.

What we're stuck with is the musty ancient history that doesn't have much to do with the modern conception and practice. Sure there's a "Modern Perspective" section but it's dismissive in tone and brief in detail, and even though there's four articles from the last few years talking about the phenomenon nobody bothered to pull any cogent details. Of those References, the article by Dr. Samuel Veissière should practically be the basis of this entire article because it's at least up-to-date and has accurate (enough) information. If you want a scientific explanation, it's a better place to start than Buddhism or the Occult.

The article as it stands today diminishes the unrecognized science we do, doesn't even acknowledge how much more complex the concept has grown over the years. Why isn't Tulpa dot info linked in the references again? Because you didn't believe our community could find better answers for ourselves? It might not be perfect, but it's a lot more accurate to the modern concept than anything currently on this article. Instead it's been blocked as unreliable information? I have the conflict of interest so won't fight that ban, but it absolutely denies the best current facts about tulpæ

Foszae (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The sites is not linked because it has a history of spamming Misplaced Pages. Other than that, there's WP:NOR, or "no original research", which means you have to find proper peer-reviewed academic sources, or at the very least newspaper articles from reliable sources. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Photographic Archive?

Is there a photographic archive of tulpas that have been seen by others besides their creators? Just wondering.

Hermanoere (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the photos are posted at the same Web site where photos displaying physical evidence of neurons producing consciousness are posted.Pernoctus (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Farcaller (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, /r/tulpasgonewild, but might that it's showing the "modern" version of tulpas that are frowned upon in the original article.

Tulpas being created with the psychological approach

The tulpas from Tulpa.info, etc. have been banned from this page since it's been referred to as hijacking the term. However, I'm now seeing "tulpa" being used in a publication from the New York Times in this very context. Can we now start giving that definition some credit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.247.96 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

They're banned for spamming, not for "hijacking the term". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Alexandra David-Néel???

Why doesn't the article for Alexandra David-Néel mention her tulpa but this page does? It seems like it should be a big deal. Apparently Edmund Hillary saw the tulpa himself when he was 16. --RThompson82 (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Split the article

As this article is creating a lot of conflict and the modern practice is refered by some as "hijacking the term", I propose to create an article devoted to the modern practice. I added it in the requested articles https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Psychology#T.E2.80.93Z as I do not have the time and don't know enough about wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.201.29.236 (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Fictional characters in writing and movies considered an OR

I'd really like to see some discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tulpa&diff=723998132&oldid=723997957 rollback and some ideas how to make that reference better. The paragraph is not research per se, it only suggests that the word "tulpa", as used currently, is very relevant to things described in linked books. Do the editors expect me to link only something that literally says "tulpa" in the text? -- Farcaller (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." — Jeraphine Gryphon 06:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I found a reference to this exact statement here: https://tulpa.io/what-is-a-tulpa-detail (the very last Q/A). Does such a source fit the requirement to undo the rollback and link to it so that the WP:OR would not apply? — Farcaller (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not a reliable sourcce as far as Misplaced Pages policy goes. Bright☀ 14:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Which 'Stranger than Fiction'?

There's a link to "Stranger than Fiction" near the bottom, but it leads to a disambiguation page. Which one was it supposed to link to? --paulsd (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumably Stranger than Fiction (2006 film) since it features a person hearing voices in their head. Regardless, I've removed it since its inclusion appears indiscriminate. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Readability edit on Tulpa

Your recent edit of Tulpa https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tulpa&diff=801562683&oldid=prev page changes a few distinct statements into one huge paragraph with everything mixed up. I don't understand this decision, as clearly, the statements made in those paragraphs are only loosely tied to each other. Can you elaborate? Farcaller (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to minimize single-sentence paragraphs or very short paragraphs. As the entire paragraph deals with a single topic (the online tulpa community) I put it all together. It's not mandatory, of course... Bright☀ 13:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

While short paragraphs are bad for readability, I think in this particular case they do help. The original pre-edit text is focusing not on the "online communities", but on how the modern tulpamancy is perceived. For that it has an overview paragraph, a paragraph on populations, a paragraph on notable changes of sexuality (with two researches linked), one referencing the metaphysical part (the chapters above), and finally, an important paragraph on mental health. Even if they are short, they allow to understand the various parts of what concludes the modern tulpamancy easier and they can be extended further (I've got a new book reference this morning and planned to incorporate it). I would recommend to roll back to original form, and I'll commit to adding more "meat" on those statements to make the paragraphs dive deeper on their content. Farcaller (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I split it in two: social aspects, and psychological aspects. Bright☀ 13:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Usage of references to reddit and social networks

Your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tulpa&diff=801562891&oldid=prev removes some relevant and curious analytics. While I agree that it requires a citation, can you advice if linking to the said reddit community / russian social network is an acceptable citation in its own (given that the user count is clearly displayed on said pages) Farcaller (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources (for example, linking to reddit to show the size of the reddit community) are acceptable in this case: A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. However, they are generally not used in this way. Bright☀ 13:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ack. I'll restore that part with proper sources then. Farcaller (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, the self-published reddit tulpa sex survey cannot be used, since it's both self-published and its author does not appear to be an expert in sociology, psychology, or a relevant field, so their self-published work cannot be used on Misplaced Pages in these topics. Bright☀ 13:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edit changed the meaning of the statement

Your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tulpa&diff=801562597&oldid=801562051 changed "compares a fictional characters' influence over its writer to tulpas" to "The character of Superman manifests as a tulpa in Alvin Schwartz's book".

This changes the whole tone of the statement.

What I was going for is to reference how writer's experiences are similar to tulpas in Western society (as researched by a reporter).

What you changed it to is "Superman is a tulpa in the book". Superman is not a tulpa in the book, in a fictional sense. He could be a tulpa in the Schwartz's mind, but we cannot really elaborate on that. I suggest to revert this edit to keep the original meaning (also that way it shows importance). Farcaller (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but I still question the importance of this example. As I understand it, tulpas have become a popular topic in modern fiction, and the matter of choosing one example over others, or dedicating an entire paragraph to it, is WP:DUE. Why this book and not that? Bright☀ 13:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Because it's not a tulpa in a fiction book. It's an example of tulpa in an actual person—a writer. Why this writer? Because we had an actual journalist research this one writer in particular and we're limited by WP:NOR. While the science community around tulpas agrees there is some relationship between modern tulpamancy and writers, we don't have any actual research on this yet. Farcaller (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's no research, how do you know there's a relationship? And why do you believe the book is not fiction? Bright☀ 13:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

There was a journalistic research on this particular person (cited in original). There was no research on the broader topic. I didn't read the book—I've read a journalistic research of the author. The character of Superman is irrelevant in this context. Farcaller (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No offense but Red Dirt Report is not an investigative journal... it's an entertainment magazine, and it published a book review written from the book characters' perspective. That doesn't make the book non-fiction. In fact the review concludes with Clearly Alvin Schwartz was a gifted storyteller and, whether or not these events really did happen, there is a lot there that makes you think. (emphasis mine) Bright☀ 13:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ack. My bad, should have checked the source more carefully. I agree with the conclusion. Farcaller (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories: