Talk:Lucid dream/Archive 5

Tagged sections
I have removed both tagged sections of the article, in the first case my edit summary is self explanatory. The section on near death experiences had 2 sources, one unreputable, another from the year 1913 which was being used to suggest more recent/ongoing research.

In the second case, the "induction methods" section, I checked all the sources listed in that I could access. They're all unreputable, as per the tag they're all coming from sources which play a role of advocate in terms of inducing lucid dreams. Not only this, but the claims which are being made are unsourced and unverifiable as per the tag (no peer reviewed journals or academic publications, only homebrew websites and web communities). Last but not least, the section is in itself a collection of examples of What Wikipedia is not WP:NOT. Wikipedia doesn't publish original thought (which is what the listed sources are), Wikipedia is not a means of promotion (which has been a noted problem on this article), and most importantly Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Even if there are ways that people can induce lucid dreams, detailed explanations of methods and practices is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Given the myriad of issues and the instructional/promotional wording of the text I do not see this as a salvageable section so I opted for deletion. If an academic or reputable source can be found it might be worth reinserting, but as it is there's no point in giving WP:UNDUE to old websites and unacademic information. Vietminh (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Lucidity Institute
All references to the lucidity institute have been purged from the article, this is not a credible source of information. It also appears that someone associated with or supportive of this website has deliberately inserted references of it into the article, including pairing information that is already contained in credible sources with citations that link to articles from the lucidity website. Vietminh (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

New Tag for reference problems
My recent edits have removed the most troublesome references in the article, but upon examining what sources remain I am not completely confident of them. There are several sources which are quite dated, including books which I don't have access to. There are also several references to official-sounding journals which may not actually be authorities on the subject. These sources need to be checked more in-depth, and if possible replaced with more recent sources and ones that can be verified as authoritative and academic. Vietminh (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Initiation
I fail to understand why my edits of an initiation section keep getting reverted? Think about it, any layperson visiting this site who has heard of the term "lucid dreaming" will want to know how to "do" it. This article contains no such information. Isn't that a little weird? If you deem the FAQ on lucidity.com to be unreliable I'd like to know why you think this. I deem it reliable and want to place it in this article. I am open to your counter argument.

As for the label that a lucid dream is a dream "where you know you are dreaming", I believe to be untrue. My experience of lucid dreams is very different from dreams where one knows "fleetingly" that one must be dreaming before seeing a pink elephant and going into the dream again. A genuine lucid dream is one where the dreamer is fully aware that they are dreaming throughout the dream with a similar level of awareness as to when one is awake. This is an entirely different experience to dreams where one occasionally thinks that they are probably dreaming.

I wonder how many people reverting edits have really lucid dreamt in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold333 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I currently have no opinion about this issue here, but I'd just like to remind you that we don't write how-to articles on here, there's other websites for that. Also feel free to read WP:OR. Nobody's personal experience is relevant here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I sympathize entirely - this article is indeed a shining example of "verifiability, not usefulness". It does in fact contain a Wikibooks link to a how-to guide though.  It's a featured book too - a "quality [book] that the community believes to be the best of what Wikibooks has to offer" no less.  Featured, but completely buried, and unmarked as a how-to.
 * An initiation section would be appropriate for the subject, but to avoid OR fights it perhaps it should consist of not a great deal more than a referenced, verifiable statement that tons of how-to books exist, some by prominent names such as LaBerge, plus that wikibook link hanging off its right hand side. K2709 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You will have to forgive me for removing unscientific, unverifiable pap like:
 * with only the lucidity.com FAQ as its source. I think the piece I removed speaks for itself in terms of pap content, or at least attempts to, notwithstanding the bad grammar. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally LaBerge has stated a ~85% success rate for the pap spinning technique and articulated a fairly similar hypothesis here, p90-92. K2709 (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we have had discussions along these lines in the past. In short: Unless LaBerge is an infallible Guru of lucid dreaming, he must pass his theories and experiments through peer review in recognised academic journals where he can explain to the people there how The brain cannot correctly simulate/dream self induced dizziness and what he means by ...the person's consciousnesses 'wakes up' while in the dream. He can then further articulate how many "consciousnesses" each person has and how he counts them. Of course, after the counting, the concept and the process of these "consciousnesses awaking" by "simulated spinning" has to be detailed, in the hypothetical peer-reviewed academic paper. Until such time these claims remain, just that: untried and unverifiable claims. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  01:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that these claims are verified. I'm claiming that their existence is verifiable, on topic, and of interest.  The topic is not exclusively the domain of men in white coats. K2709 (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the men in white coats, to use your expression, is the only thing we've got standing between this article and its conversion to a B-movie screenplay. As far as this being "verifiable, on topic and of interest" it is not enough. It also has to be notable. We cannot use lucid-dream fansites or add speculation just because it appeared in a book of uncertain notability. Otherwise we will convert this article into the personal blog of the latest lucid-dream guru. So if this spinning novelty is  reported by mainstream media and becomes notable then we can add it to some speculation section. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  16:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find this argument unconvincing. Vestibular stimulation is currently being touted as a necessary lucidity research direction, but even if it wasn't the attitude's all wrong.  Lucidity is a predominantly subjective phenomenon, and to be truly worthwhile the article needs to handle that rather than go into denial.  An article about icebergs that is only prepared to talk about the visible fraction seriously misrepresents reality and does nobody any favours.  I don't want to go round in circles so will stop here. K2709 (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Reality check
The Reality Check article refers to a technique used in lucid dreaming to determine whether one is actually dreaming, and points to this page. But the term "reality check" is not mentioned in this article. The technique is mentioned elsewhere on the Internet - see for example LucidWiki Reality Check. RichardVeryard (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

dreaming is a process
The name of the page should be lucid dreaming, as a single lucid dream would be hard to imagine as an object of inquiry, much less something for which there would be reliable sources to cite. (tilde tilde tilde tilde) My keyboord is lime. Let the 1 0/0 die quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLastWordSword (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can formally this renaming proposal at Requested moves.--JayJasper (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lucid Scribe Database project
"Lucid Scribe Database project - an online sleep research database that documents the effects of lucidity on dreams."

The raw data of each entry can be freely downloaded. The software used to record and visualize the biofeedback data is available as freeware and has an open interface for third-party hardware. And anyone with a device that records data from sensors worn during sleep can contribute to the database. Worthy of an entry under external links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.242.9.5 (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixing the incorrect information regarding the coinage of the term "lucid dream"
I recently made some updates to fix the common misconception that Van Eeden coined the term "lucid dream". Van Eeden references the work of Marquis d'Hervey de Saint Denys in his "Study of dreams" and research into this area makes it clear that Marquis d'Hervey de Saint Denys uses the term "Reve Lucide" in his "Dreams and how to guide them". My edits were removed and the reason being was that the "source didn't seem reliable". However I provided two sources, one a new publication - "Are You Dreaming?" by Daniel Love, which meets Wikipedias criteria for a credible source (A published book, which I'd also like to point out has the backing of one of the primary researchers of lucid dreaming: Keith Hearne). The second source was an online reproduction of a scholarly article that was incredibly well researched (here: http://members.casema.nl/carolus/Downloads/SDENYS.PDF)

Both of these are valid sources and if nothing else are at least equal to the reference citing that Van Eeden coined the term. The other recently added sources listed as "proof" of Van Eedens contribution to the coinage of the term all reference the same original badly researched work.

I am not questioning that Van Eeden helped promote the term, but it is clear that he borrowed the term from Saint Denys (he even references Saint Denys in his paper!!!)

Still, I've spent more than enough time today in trying to do my bit to help clarify matters and improve on this page. I guess it will simply have to remain poorly researched and incorrect. It's this kind of closed system in which a few users dominate a single page that is creating the widespread mistrust of wikipedia these days, and the often incorrect information available.

Hopefully reason will win out, it's sad to see the same myth being spread over and over again.

Simply because the same mistake is printed as fact over and over again, in various articles all citing the same source (more often than not it stems from the books by LaBerge), does not make it any more credible.


 * To clarify: the majority of modern references to Van Eeden coining the term stem from his paper and also the modern (and limited) translation of Saint Denys "Dreams and how to guide them" by Morton Schatzman.

To quote (from: http://members.casema.nl/carolus/Downloads/SDENYS.PDF)

''Morton Schatzman writes in his shortened English version of Les Rêves (1982)that the author uses the expression rêve lucide (transl.: lucid dream) several times. But, according to Schatzman, we should not conclude that this expression has been used in the same manner as we use it today, i.e. for a dream in which the dreamer is aware of dreaming while dreaming. The current meaning of the expression was used for the first time by the Dutch writer/psychiatrist Frederik van Eeden (1912- 1913), who refers also to "Marquis d'Herve".* Indeed, the author of Les Rêves uses the term "lucid dream" as we define it today in the sentence "aware of my true situation". On page 287 he writes:"C'est-à-dire le premier rêve lucide au milieu duquel je possédais bien le sentiment de ma situation(transl.: That is to say, the first lucid dream in which I had the sensation of my situation).With the last part of this sentence, he states that he knew he was dreaming. ''

213.246.87.157 (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)gdb213.246.87.157 (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not so. These are reliable sources. You only have one source which is by unknown people and is clearly unreliable. The five new sources I added are all very reliable sources from academic publishers. There are also many more. Your opinion about them is your own original research and unfortunately does not count on Wikipedia. Until you persuade the rest of the internet that your point is correct, the current information has to stay. In wikipedia we are not after the WP:TRUTH but after WP:VERIFIABILITY. And no Are You Dreaming?: Exploring Lucid Dreams: A Comprehensive Guide which is by an unknown publisher is in no way a reliable source. Sorry to break the bad news. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: You've clearly missed the other source I referenced in that case, which is the 1897 book by Saint Denys!!! I offered the modern book as a physical publication that backs up the research found here: http://members.casema.nl/carolus/Downloads/SDENYS.PDF

Sorry I completely and respectfully disagree. This is not "my research", but the conclusion has been reached by several independent sources some of whom had access to rare original copies of "dreams and how to guide them". If the term "lucid dream" is being used in a 1897 book on conscious dreaming, one that is well established as the "first book on the topic" and one that pre-dates the paper by van Eeden by 16 years - a book that van Eeden references himself in his paper, then it's really very clear where the term originated. The lack of access to the original publication by Saint Denys, combined with the fact that it was written in french, meant that the only accessible copy to scholars was the poorly written and highly edited 1982 translation. The sources you have supplied, whilst I agree are reliable, are unlikely to have taken time to do their own research into this area - and will have likely relied on the "standard" sources for their conclusions. It only takes one prominent author to share misinformation, for that mistake to be widely and trustingly spread as "truth". Ignoring all outside opinions and sources, if you look at the two original texts by Saint Denys and van Eeden - then it is clear that "reve lucide" or "lucid dream" was first used, and hence first coined, by Saint Denys. The point of references are that they give us a clear link to the original sources of claims, and these two publications are the original sources. I can happily supply page numbers for these original publications and the matter will then simply be a case of reading the two, seeing the 16 year gap in publication, and then concluding the very simple point that I've been trying to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.87.157 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If you insist on verifibility then you need look no further than the two original texts by Saint Denys and van Eeden. I have seen how you have dealt with previous issues in the past, and it seems you have decided that you "own" this wikipedia page. Therefore as I believe you are not someone with whom dialogue will be fruitful, I suggest that we open a dispute over this issue and perhaps bring in a third party.

213.246.87.157 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)gdb213.246.87.157 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * EDIT: You've clearly missed the other source I referenced in that case, which is the 1897 book by Saint Denys!!! No. I did not miss it. This is considered a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and you cannot use it for WP:VERIFIABILITY purposes. Sorry again. That's not how Wikipedia works. Any explanation you provide about why Marquis d'Hervey is not accredited by sources as having coined the term lucid dream is original research on your part. Until the rest of the internet catches up with your original research and starts crediting Marquis d'Hervey as having coined the term, you cannot add this information here. As far as your comment I have seen how you have dealt with previous issues in the past, and it seems you have decided that you "own" this wikipedia page. this is considered a personal attack and is used mostly by people who don't have valid arguments to bring forward. I advise you not to do that because it is also against the Wikipedia policy of no personal attacks WP:NPA. As far as dispute resolution you can go ask a question at WP:3O, the third opinion editors. Good luck with that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well in that case I throw in the towel. If nothing else today has taught me not to bother wasting my time trying to help crowd sourced projects. Go ahead and revert any changes you like - I'll certainly not be trusting articles on wikipedia again. Although I would like to point out one thing - the original source for van Eeden (now reference number 5) was a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE as it was a link to a direct duplication of his paper. So there definitely seems to be some gigantic double standards going on here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.87.157 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to help you understand the local policies as much as I could. I am sorry you see my attempts at helping you in this light. As far as your comment Although I would like to point out one thing - the original source for van Eeden (now reference number 5) was a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE as it was a link to a direct duplication of his paper. So there definitely seems to be some gigantic double standards going on here!, I agree that it was not the best source. That is why I did my Google books search and added another eight reliable sources. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On further investigation I found a reliable source from the State University of New York mentioning the contributions of Marquis Hervey and mentioning that Hervey did some of the earliest investigations in LD but stops short of acknowledging him as having coined the term and refers to Eeden as "most widely ackowledged as having coined the term". Under the circumstances I added this to the lead:
 * I think that it is a fair description given the weight of the available evidence. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that it is a fair description given the weight of the available evidence. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello my name is Garrett Schwindt and I am a student at Nebraska Wesleyan University. I am taking a Sleep and Dreaming class that requires us to review Wikipedia pages regarding sleep topics such as Lucid Dreaming. I have compiled a number of suggestions that I hope will make this page even better. I am new to Wikipedia so I would greatly appreciate your feedback.

• I think a clearer definition of lucid dreaming would benefit the general public audience. • The usage of the word 'one' throughout the page is fairly heavy. • This a complex and interesting topic which could stump some people who are looking at this page for the first time so it might be helpful to simplify the sentences across the entire page to increase flow and understanding. • It might be helpful to answer the question as to how did Marie-Jean-Léon, Marquis d’Hervey de Saint Denys reference lucid dreaming? • Give the reader some history on Frederik (Willem) van Eeden and how he discovered lucid dreaming. • When you say, “it is shown” in the second paragraph, it might be helpful to put a link to the reference, or reference the source, in that sentence so the readers know where that piece of scientific evidence is coming from. • Again in the later paragraph, detail how lucid dreaming was researched scientifically. (i.e. what were the methods of research, who was involved, what were the measurements) • Go into more detail with Keith Hearne, his history in the field, how he got involved in researching dreams, his methods (elaborate on the polysomnograph) • Elaborate on Stephen LaBerge’s work, what was his technique? • When you talk about eye movement signals and how researchers identified when people were lucidly dreaming, it might be beneficial to go into more detail on how the researchers designed parameters for identifying lucid dreams. What specific eye movements were they looking for? • I think the readers need more detail than just saying 'researchers developed techniques that were proven to enhance the likelihood of achieving a lucid dream.' • I would caution using the word proven because nothing in research is ever proven, it's simply repeated and shown that a certain outcome is highly valid among the scientific community. Nothing is ever scientific law per say. • Overall I think there should be a clarification of language throughout the page to help the readers understand the content and assist with the flow of the subject as the audience reads it. • As an extension to the points of skepticism it might be helpful to include a section with regards to future research in the field of lucid dreaming. Answering some questions like what work is being done to learn more about this phenomenon? What methods do these current researchers use? What are some hypotheses that current researchers are making about this phenomenon?

I enjoyed reading this article and think it's very informative. I hope these suggestions make sense and can be of some use on your page. Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestions!

Garrettschwindt (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest proposed addition
At issue is the following proposed addition:

To give other editors the opportunity to comment, I am copying the following discussion from 's talk in quotation marks. My new reply is at the bottom, outside the quotation marks:

" Actually I provided a reliable source if you did read the beginning of the edit summary. Is that a violation? --David Hedlund (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My new edit-summary explains that a non-peer reviewed work such as a book is not a reliable source for these claims. The book by LaBerge is not peer-reviewed and therefore it is not a reliable source. In any case, this discussion should take place at the article talkpage so that we can have other editors participate and comment. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 23:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The quoted text from http://www.lucidity.com/SleepAndCognition.html referred to LaBerge, S., Greenleaf, W., & Kedzierski, B. (1983). Physiological responses to dreamed sexual activity during lucid REM sleep. Psychophysiology, 20, 454-455. that you can review. If its valid I suggest you revert the edit back and add it as a reliable source. Thanks. --David Hedlund (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)"
 * Even so, this study is 31-years old and noone else appears to have cited it or reproduced it. In other words, it is very doubtful that this experiment represents the current consensus of the scientific community on the subject. As such it would be WP:UNDUE to include it in the article, at least in its present form with the separate section and lengthy quotes. Also it is not clear who the publisher of the Psychophysiology journal is. There are a couple of journals with that title, "Journal of Psychophysiology", published by Hogrefe Publishing, with an impact factor of 1 and the "International Journal of Psychophysiology", published by Elsevier, with impact factor of 2.66. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 00:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * LaBerge is cited in a 2009 article in the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality. ("Investigating Sexual Dream Imagery in Relation to Daytime Sexual Behaviours and Fantasies among Canadian University Students", King, David B.; DeCicco, Teresa L.; Humphreys, Terry P., The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol. 18, No. 3, Fall 2009).- MrX 00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you MrX. This cite acknowledges the work, although it mentions 1985 as the year of publication, not 1983. In any case, the King paper does not go into any detail examining or attempting to reproduce the findings of the 1983 Laberge paper. What concerns me is statements from the LaBerge paper, such as: She reported a lucid dream in which she carried out the experimental task exactly as agreed upon.,, which have not been reproduced or verified by other researchers, at least as far as I have seen. I am not a lucid dream expert, but I am not sure about the acceptance by the scientific community of experiments where people perform pre-agreed tasks while sleeping in a lucid state. Having said that, a modified and shorter mention of the LaBerge paper may be ok for inclusion, given that it is cited by others. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  01:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice to the members of the educational assignment
You may be a group project but you are not allowed to change the comments of fellow group members or add to them. In short, any announcements must be made individually for proper accountability. Therefore, please sign your comments individually. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for bringing this to the attention of my students. We will all be grateful if you follow up with their efforts on improving both the article and following the standards of using talk pages. They are trying to get up to speed with editing Wikipedia pages and talk pages quickly so any advice you give them is much appreciated! LeshedInstructor (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind comments. Don't mention it. It was my pleasure. I will try to help your project as much as I can. In fact, I have already given one of the students their first assignment. :) Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cornell University Assignment
My group in my class at Cornell will be working to improve the contents of this article. Specifically, we are looking to do a few things. First, we plan to edit the writing of the article to make it clearer and more understandable. We are also looking to restructure the article so the categories are manageable and it is simple to navigate the page. We are also looking to add to the article, especially in the cultural history section, where we intend to discuss the role of lucid dreaming and dreaming in not just western but also eastern cultures. Finally, we are looking to add and improve upon the information in the article that regards the induction of lucid dreaming and the history of literature on such induction.

Our final product will include revised section headings, more information about culture and lucid dreaming, improvements to the skepticism section, and more on inducing lucid dreams.

This is the link to our class page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:Cornell_University/Online_Communities_(Fall_2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylerd23 (talk • contribs)

List of initial sources
http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=27567 Price, R. F., and D. B. Cohen. 1988. Lucid dream induction: An empirical evaluation. In Conscious Mind, Sleeping Brain, 105-134, ed. J. Gackenbach and S. LaBerge. New York: Plenum. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/27/mysteries-lucid-dreaming-brain-consciousness-research http://www.bhcc.mass.edu/media/03-documents/Lucid-Dreams-Hobson.pdf

Skylerd23 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please make sure that every time you open a new section you sign the previous sections you opened, like the one above. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 15:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that the International Journal of Dream Research has no impact factor in this online resource of the Technical university of Eindhoven. We also have to be careful when using non-specialist sources like newspapers. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am unfamiliar with impact factors, but I have two concerns regarding your assessment of this source. 1. Is it standard wikipedia practice to not include sources that do not have impact factors? and 2. How does this journal compare to others? If other highly specific journals also lack impact factors, is this really a problem? Skylerd23 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Impact factor of a journal measures its relative impact on a given research field. If it is low, or as in this case non-existent, it may indicate problems regarding its acceptance within the academic community. As such we have to examine any findings with a critical eye and be careful when we add any controversial findings from such publications to the article. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Lucid Dreams
Currently Lucid dreams (logically) redirects here. However, there is also a song by the name, "Lucid Dreams", the only difference being the capitalization. When searching, both terms redirect to "Lucid dream." I'm not sure if that should be handled with the  markup or what. I see this used to be a Good article so I'll leave that to the discretion of those who want to improve the article. talking birds  20:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr Bobby
On January 16, the following three changes were reverted.
 * Change 1: Lucid dreaming has been researched scientifically, with participants asked to perform pre-determined physical responses while experiencing a dream.
 * Reverted to: Lucid dreaming has been researched scientifically, with participants performing pre-determined physical responses while experiencing a lucid dream
 * Reason: "the participants DID perform a lucid dream. you're oversophisticated"


 * Change 2: Lucid dreaming is similar to the ancient practice of Yoga nidra.
 * Reverted to: Lucid dreaming is the Western term used to denote a practice similar to Yoga nidra.
 * Reason: "you change too much. the original sentence was right."


 * Change 3: [Deleted sentence]
 * Reverted to: Even though it has only come to the attention of the general public in the last few decades, lucid dreaming is not a modern discovery
 * Reason: do not share your OPINION

Regarding change 1, the exact words of the text are "...unqualified REM in 12 (86%) of the cases; of the remaining two cases, one was "ambiguous" REM and the other appeared to be wakefulness." So they have physiological data which suggests that at least one and possibly two of the twelve cases was awake while signaling. The report goes on to say "However, demonstrations that signaling of lucid dreams occurs during REM sleep raises another kind of question: What exactly do we mean by the assertion that lucid dreamers are 'asleep?' Perhaps these 'dreamers' are not really dreamers, as some argued in the last century; or perhaps this 'sleep' is not really sleep, as some have argued in this century. How do we know that lucid dreamers are 'really asleep' when they signal? " raising its own doubts about the ambiguity of the results. So rather than erroneously stating their conclusion, the change to this sentence instead states their method, which is undeniably fact. The reverted sentence is inaccurate of the test and contains a logical fallacy (see begging the question). I'm not sure how simplifying the sentence qualifies as 'oversophisticated' but I think that would be an opinion and not grounds to revert.

Regarding change 2, surely we can agree that there's a difference between two things being similar and two things being equivalent to each other. For example, 'tea' is the Western term for 'chai'. They are two different terms, but the exact same beverage made from camelia sinensis. Yoga nidra, on the other hand, is not the same thing as lucid dreaming, nor is 'lucid dreaming' the equivalent term. Please find a reliable source that claims that lucid dreaming is the Western term for Yoga nidra or it will be removed.

Regarding change 3, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was sharing my opinion by removing a sentence, but find a reliable source claiming that it's only come to the attention of the general public in the last few decades, or it will be removed.

In the checklist above you'll find that the first item to do is "Remove the needless verbosity from the article" and unsourced claims will be the first to go. Now the burden of proof rests on you to explain why these reverts were absolutely necessary. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Todo List
I have offered a streamlined version of the article as a framework to which excised material may be reintroduced should that seem appropriate. In particular:

1. There was a significant amount of repetition, and so I removed all duplicate occurences of the same content. 2. Whilst the content could be grouped thematically, material pertaining to each theme was distributed through the article, so I have grouped content under its thematic heading. 3. Some of the content made unsourced claims or was based upon citations that did not actually support the assertion in the article. In addition, the content that made an appeal to science was distributed throughout the article. I have addressed this by moving and removing. 3. There was a significant problem with the section that compared lucid dreaming to Yoga Nidra. Firstly, it was an incredible long section, and very difficult to understand. In addition, it inferred that Yoga Nidra is the Buddhist practice that is most widely cited in comparison to lucid dreaming. In fact, Dream yoga holds that position. Therefore, Yoga Nidra and dream yoga should be given even equal weight. For now I have simply pinpointed why they are both relevant, pending expansion of the section. Furthermore, the article referred to 'Milam' as equivalent to 'Dream yoga', but actually 'Zhine' is most frequently cited, and the relationship between the two needs to be explained. I have removed reference to Milam and referred just to dream yoga for now, otherwise readers will find a major discrepancy between the weight given in the article and elsewhere. 4. I have removed some sections entirley, such as the one on sleep paralysis and out of body experiences. I can find no link between those phenomena and lucid dreaming in any reputable literature. There is voluminous anecdotal material generated by those who pursue lucid dreaming that connects it out of body experiences. So any section on it should make clear that it is documenting that. 5. The section on induction is incomplete, as there are more than 2 ways by which lucid dreaming is alleged to be induced.

I confess that I found this a lot more difficult than total the rewrites or new articles I have done up to now

I will come back and do some more if nobody else contributes by editing and/or re-introducing excised material, or writing fresh sourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolumbo (talk • contribs) 11:38, February 6, 2016‎ (UTC)
 * I think it's a good start toward improving the article, but please use edit summaries and sign your talk page posts.- MrX 12:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Lucid Dreaming
Lucid dreaming is a vast and broad subject, but this article seems quite short. I believe this article could use more discussion of the modern takes on lucid dreaming, as well as the psychology and science behind lucid dreams. Explaining how they can be achieved could be touched upon in a greater detail as well.

There are a lot of sub-topics in this article. The topic of Induction of Lucid Dreams is only two sentences and they do not explain very much about DILD or WILD at all. This sub-topic needs to be edited with greater details about DILD and WILD, or it should be deleted altogether to help clean up the article.

The Creative Application sub-topic, in my opinion, does not need to be included in this article. It should and can, however, be included in the "See Also" section of this article. It seems to be more of an example of the discussion of lucid dreaming in media and does not need a sub-topic of its own.

134.210.209.109 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Skeptic section
I'm going to go ahead and delete philosopher Malcolm M.'s argument for several reasons. First of all, it's from 1959, and grossly outdated at that. Multiple studies since then (that he is no longer able to challenge) argue very strongly against him. Second of all, this article is full of studies in medicinal fields that he has no experience in as a philosopher. Third, his argument is just poor. Saying lucid dreaming is "absurd and impossible" and that everyone who claimed to have done so is either wrong or lies has no place here. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Quality of citations.
This article is filled with how-to-lucid-dream.com and other such single purpose blog style websites as sources and some very spurious pseudoscientific claims. I was going to excise the most bollocks-laden portion I encountered and then I continued reading. And realised I'm going to have to pretty much cut out the vast majority of content. Can we get editors who aren't part of some pot smoking drum circle and actually have empirical data and primary sources on this subject to weigh in and dismantle this mound of bunkum before I have an aneurysm please? &lt;!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 19:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The majority of the sources given are reliable scientific sources. If you see any blogs, feel free to remove them. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Norman Malcolm
In May, the sourced material related to Norman Malcolm's skepticism was removed. Reasons for exclusion were as follows: It was written in 1959 and is outdated, there have been counter studies which disagree with him, and it's a poor argument. Regarding the first point, the science of dreaming is rather primitive and doesn't move very fast. It's entirely possible that information from 1959 could be outdated, but you must provide proof of this. To my mind, no research has yet disproven that dreaming is subjective and impossible to measure objectively. A previous NOVA source from the 90s even corroborated that point, though its inclusion was probably SYNTH. Regarding the second point, we would need to see what counterstudies have been made in order to evaluate what they said specifically and how it should be included in the article. Generally counter evidence is included alongside older evidence, but until we see it we can't decide how to proceed. The LaBerge study does not disprove what Malcolm said, nor does it make any direct mention of his points. Drawing that conclusion would be OR. Finally, I admit that the phrasing was a bit rough, so I've cleaned it up to only include his most relevant points. If there is still room for improvement, please let me know what you think. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Decision Making vs Memory
I “woke up” during my dream and remembered that I can exert some control – so I decided to think of some things I could potentially do – but this caused another area of my brain to wake up which caused me to be ejected from my dream and actually wake up. This article does not elaborate on the options of “lucidity exercises” spoken of in the article. In the “creative application” section it says that the dreamer must memorise their desire before entering their dream (kind of agrees with my experience). I had the ability to decide, so there some form of free will, but there is not much to do if I cannot remember anything to decide from! Charlieb000 (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2017
Requesting edit to add references of "Sleep paralysis" and "Astral projection" pages to "See Also" column. All three wikis reference similar sources but do not contain direct reference to each other. 69.166.47.162 (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  02:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)