Talk:Berkeley Psychic Institute

Untitled

I chose to delete this sentence:

"The education and instruction of the Berkeley Psychic Institute is indicative of cult behavior, and should be analyzed very carefully before engaging in."

This statement is based on opinion and does not describe facts. There is no reason that it should be incuded here, anymore than it should be included in other spiritual organization articles. The phrase "should be analyzed very carefully" is also the author's opinion; advice is meant for forums, not wikipedia articles.

-67.116.253.115 (Talk) 00:44, March 28, 2007

quoting internal terminology

I extended the quotes in the following sentence to delineate terms that represent internal terms used at the institute:

The Institute primarily uses psychic readings as way to "clear energy" and "de-energize mental image pictures."

I'm not sure this is the best way to handle this particular sentence, but I think the terms should definitely be somehow delineated if they are included at all.

Pahool (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As a graduate of BPI I can say definitively that the terms "Clear energy" and "de-energize mental image pictures" are not part of any dogma nor included in any course outlines of BPI. These are probably Scientology terms. BPI uses terms like "Blowing pictures" which may be interpreted as being similar to the "de-energizing of mental images" performed in Scientology. I will add actual facts to this article in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.222.106 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed that sentence. It was uncited and obviously not very helpful if it's not reflecting actual terminology. I look forward to the addition of some cited facts. Pahool (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, still new to Wiki editing, will flesh out the article with personal knowledge in the near future, though I suppose that may be deleted as unsourced. Damn where is that tilde:) Psychicattorney (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the statement that BPI is a "religious organization" and changed it to a school. I have no idea how someone could infer BPI is religious organization based on the reference. Of course I only speak from personal experience so can't disprove an unfounded and unsubstantiated statement. I am not going to put any effort into U.S. Wikipedia in general because it appears to have become a shill for banks/monetary interests. Psychicattorney (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no country-based Wikipedias, only language based. As English is an international language, we have a large number of editors who do not live in the US (or Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia, etc.) I have no idea how you conclude it's a shill for anything, but that's just as wrong as your assumption it's a US site. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify these confusing dialogs - the Church of Divine man IS a religious institution, and the Berkeley Psychic Institute IS a seminary of the Church, not a workshop. It is not a school. To call it a school places it outside the protection of the church and that was not Lewis' intention. I am a long time student of his and knew him before he passed away. As for it being investigated, or the need to do so, previous students for BPI have included FBI agents, policemen, military personnel, and other high level executives and business men. To say it is a cult is to make a statement not founded in any level of truth and shows a lazy lack of investigative ability. The Church of Divine Man in Washington State, and The Aesclepion Healing Center are just two of the offshoots of the Church of Divine Man in Berkeley California. One of Lewis' Quotes is "God gave you the right to know yourself." as a description of why you need spiritual tools. Lewis was a self made millionaire and was originally owned a watch repair shop. He started the institute and the church because he wanted others to know how to see what he could see. He truly believed everyone is psychic and had a lecture series called "You May be Psychic Not Crazy". Those who never met the man or read any of the documentation about the man should not be posting information regarding the man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenacity4truth (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Uncited Material

I removed the following paragraph due to it's lack of any citations:

A full examination of Lewis Bostwicks belief system seem to indicate that he suffered from some form of mania. It is unknown whether he suffered from Bipolar Disorder One or was Schizophrenic. His belief in questionable abilities with such certainty in addition to erratic and eccentric behavior leads one to question his state of mental health. It is well documented but not well known amongst most church members that Lewis was on Predisone. His personality changed dramatically after he started taking his medication. Additionally, Lewis attempted to committ suicide by overdosing on Prednisone. His failed attempt led to hospitalization and loss of the use of his legs.

Pahool (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Notabliity and Reference

On October 16 2011 a proposal to delete tag was added to the article regarding notability and reliable references. I have added content to the lede with references from San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times that address the concern of notability. For example according to one article from Associated Press (AP) the institute has contributed significantly to a surge in metaphysical schools that was happening across the nation in the 1990s. Also as a matter of process this article was created 5 years ago and has had numerous editors. I am presently removing the delete article tag. - Steve3849^talk 15:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

advertising tag

I've added this, though if you know a slightly lesser tag, feel free to replace it. There's some issues with tone - e.g. "Beginning meditation classes as well as psychic readings and healings are offered for donations. There is no donation suggested for the aura healing clinics, which occur on a weekly basis." reads like advertising material - but they certainly aren't as bad as a lot of other articles. Just needs a bit of a rewrite. 86.** IP (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the line regarding donations; most else that I see concurs with newspaper articles. I changed the tag to neutrality per your suggestion. However, I personally do not think the article currently has a neutrality problem except for the widespread editing issue that exists across wikipedia for which skeptic-focused editors advocate for disclaimer content applied to articles which have content not supported by science. This is not an article about science. - Steve3849^talk 16:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's POV, for the record. Let me review it without that sentence and see what I think about tone. 86.** IP (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

[unindent] Went ahead and removed the tag. That line was probably the only one with questionable tone, on review. Also, since the article doesn't go into the BPI's beliefs, there's no real need for balancing material, and so there's no POV issues to deal with. If it did delve into the beliefs, then we might need to include such discussion, but this is a particularly well-done neutral description of the organisation, and so doesn't need it. 86.** IP (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I actually do think there's a lot of articles where the disclaimer content's needed, but they're qualitatively different than this one. There's nothing in this article that presents any potentially pseudoscientific content, either explicitly or by implication, as anything but a quasi-religious belief held by this institute. If there's no chance for being misled[*], there's no reason for disclaimers. =) 86.** IP (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

[*] I should probably note I mainly deal with alt-med claims, where "misled" is a bit more appropriate of a word choice.