# Talk:Borley Rectory

I have great respect for John Randall and his work in Psychic Research. His remarks about Richard Morris's biography, and his dyspeptic remarks about my friend Trevor Hall speak more of his anger that we should attempt to explore the truth behind an icon of Psychic research in the twentieth century, than any glaring errors in Richard Morris's book. My own interest is purely in the Borley Rectory affair, and it is clear to anyone prepared to look at the evidence that even HP's colleagues knew at the time that he was untrustworthy, even if gifted, charming and charismatic. We must, I fear, grasp the nettle that Harry Price's books are misleading, if we are to make sense of what happened at Borley Rectory. I very much regret if the phrase "The final blow to Harry Price's credibility" is upsetting to some, but we cannot afford to take what Price writes on trust. Everything needs to be checked. I think that M H Coleman's excellent work cited in the bibliography, read in sequence, makes a robust case for this. As before, either Richard or I be happy to supply as much primary evidence as you require if you contact either of us. Andrew Clarke 10 June 2008

Sorry to disappoint Sumex but much of the material in my biography is based on Price's papers at the University of London, or the British College of Psychic Science formerly the London Spiritualist Alliance in London. Before writing semi-malicious content you should have made a trip to UCL or the BCPS and studied the documentation. If you had you would have reached the conclusion that I was right about Price. I'm always willing to discuss areas of Price's life with readers so please feel free to drop me a line at harry-price@hotmail.co.uk 217.44.57.36 (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.57.36 (talk) 
I'm sorry to say that this material that Sumex objected to had nothing to do with Richard Morris. I provided most of it, and I have a great deal of primary material to back up what Richard Morris says. I've spent a ridiculous amount of time researching Borley Rectory, because I live nearby and love Harry Price's books. Nobody wants to destroy a man's reputation without being absolutely certain, but both Richard and I can justify everything we've written.  It is, sadly, objective fact, and we have reported the facts with great reluctance. Harry Price was a childhood hero of mine.
If 'Sumex' would like to become more familiar with all the research and material that underlies the case, which is far too detailed for this forum, either Richard or I would be pleased to go through it with him. He will find that the case is even stronger than the book states as some material (e.g. Dingwall's confidential file) cannot me used for some time.I agree with Sumex that Wikipedia is definitely about truth, not prejudice. Andrew Clarke 10 June 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.8.152 (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Vince O'Neil, who owns and runs the http://www.borleyrectory.com site, objects to any publicity being given to it other than the index page. We must respect his views. Andrew Clarke 8th Jun 2008

Whilst it may appear that the official Borley Rectory website at http://www.borleyrectory.com is offline, it seems that's not entirely true - http://www.borleyrectory.com/misc/masterindex.htm reveals that a fair amount of the site is very much online and working, but for some reason the main index page has been replaced with a photograph of Marianne Foyster and the words "Requiescat in pace". The site can be navigated quite well from the master index page though quite a few links return "404" errors, which is why I haven't changed the link on the main article. The main page was updated to the current "offline" appearance on 14/02/06 at 23:41:59. Arkady Rose 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
That masterindex link no longer works and redirects to a complete different, unrelated website. --71.220.208.58 (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to remove this link now? The site isn't archived and a large portion of the content is no longer accessible. If Vincent O'Neil reopens the site we can always put the link back. --Tascio 19:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is sad not to have Vince's invaluable contributions. His intentions are that the materials on www.borleyRectory.com should not be accessible. Therefore the link should not be on Wikipedia until his site is once more operational and he gives his consent. Other people who contributed to his site have mostly been able to make their material available elsewhere. References to this material are given in the entry. Andrew Clarke 8 Dec 2007  —Preceding comment was added at 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The rectory is on the opposite side of the road to the church. The garden was sold off and now has bungalows in it. The former coach house, which is older than the Bull rectory, has been enlarged and is now a private house. The site of the rectory is now a garden. The current residents have never experienced anything unusual other than tourists. Andrew Clarke 8th Jun 2008

Which garden? there are numerous gardens in this area. Would love the coordinates for the exact spot -- these would also be a good addition to the article. The coordinates for the coach house would be good, too.. --71.220.208.58 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The compound is visible on Google Earth, just type in 'Borley, UK'. Where exactly on the site was the rectory? According to the article its ruins are still there. I can't see them, though, and I can't find a footprint that resembles the house. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing at all left of the rectory. an article with maps on this subject is in my book, 'The Bones of Borley' Where was borley Rectory Andrew Clarke 26th Feb 2008
Its helpful but some of the maps are confusing. Umm.. can you mark on them where it is the rectories were? It sounds like in all there have been three on the Borley site, or very very near it. --71.220.208.58 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Where was THEE brick house shown in the B&W photos? We ought to post longitude/latitude for it if it is known. It sounds like it was to the south, across the street from the church, near the curve in the road. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There are too many links to different pages on the same website. Does anybody have any other suggestions?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.161.182 (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 

My original entry that the rectory was built to a design that was inspired by Pugin (the fireplaces and staircase in particular) has been edited incorrectly to say it was designed by Pugin. This would indeeed be a supernatural event since Pugin died over a decade earlier. In fact the architect, a Bury man, went on to design Pentlow Rectory. He was an enthusiast for Pugin style and there are many local buildings that are Very similar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewRMClarke (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 

I'm thinking of nominating this article at WP:GAN. Any thoughts?  Eric Corbett 15:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Borley Rectory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 20:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


### Initial comments
Sorry for the delay, my main computer crashed Sunday, so its taken the best part of two whole days to get most of the software up and running (emails are still down), so working on wikipeidia articles was low down on my list of "things to do". Pyrotec (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to work my way through the article, starting with the History and finishing with the Lede.
History -
This generally looks OK, but perhaps the second paragraph is a bit "thin" on citations. Note: the link with the Waldegrave family, has a somewhat "better" citation via this source [1] .
Interestingly, that nice photograph has a copyright licence granted by a Spanish wikipedia editor [2] who was permanently banned back in Nov 2009 (see [3]). The associated metadata has the "look and feel" of a scanner, so I suspect that the licence is more likely to be Public Domain due to copyright has expired.
Image licensing is a bloody nightmare, but as the lead image is also of the rear of the house I don't think we need this one anyway, so I've deleted it.  Eric Corbett 13:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hauntings -
This section look OK.
Price investigation -
Untitled first subsection -
I've not yet found that reputed advert in the Times on 25 May 1937. After several search strategies and widening the dates, I came up with a fire walker getting burnt 8 & 10 April 1937 and again in 1938; and Ghost club revived and reformed ghost club in March and April 1938, respectively. Since the Times' digital index is based on an OCR capture of the scanned images, not finding is not "define proof" that it's not there.
The first subsection doesn't need to be titled. I've checked, and that's definitely the date that Price says in his The End of Borley Rectory that he placed the advert. I'll have a look through Newsquest and see if I can find it.  Eric Corbett 13:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Price's advert is right on the front page, column 4, headed "Haunted House". I'll maybe add that as a link.  Eric Corbett 13:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm merely using "Untitled first subsection" as a location aid, its not a statement of non-compliance with WP:WIAGA. My county-based public library, more precisely its a consortium of the library authorities in a county, three districts and a city, gives access (using the library card as id) to Infotrac and then The Times digital library, so I checked the claim without success on 16th Aug.. I've now rechecked, and yes it's there as you state. Note: the web gives the citation as:- Source Citation:  "Business Offers." Times [London, England] 25 May 1937: 1. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 20 Aug. 2013. Pyrotec (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Destroyed by fire -
...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This subsection looks OK.
Society for Psychical Research investigation -
This section look OK.
WP:Lead -
This section looks OK.


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative article.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting another article up to GA. Pyrotec (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In order to quell the recent edit war, it appears as though there should be some discussion on how the article presents claims of paranormal experiences. Thoughts? - Location (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: whatever the outcome, can we please avoid the use of "allegedly"? It reads so horribly and isn't really what is meant. Thanks DBaK (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea to me. And it probably might not be a bad idea to if possible get some sort of real guideline for this matter, because there are a lot of mystical/paranormal experiences that have been documented in sufficient RS to be covered somewhere around here.
One more or less grammatical point I might make is that I don't think we necessarily need qualifiers for terms like "haunting," or "expulsion of demons," or anything of that sort. Most of our editors would know that there is little if any scientific support for the events even being possible, so referring to them as "alleged" hauntings, for instance, is kind of overkill. Unless someone finds evidence of hauntings which are actually regarded as such by the scientific community, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen.
There is also the matter of whether any of these experiences have any sort of hard, "scientific," results of manifestations. If for instance a person had stigmata which weren't clearly artificially made, qualifiers probably shouldn't be added about them being "alleged" or anything of that type. Also, I suppose, if someone "experienced" something which could, sometimes reasonably, be seen and maybe even described in well regarded independent journals, as being more likely a manifestation of psychological aberration than supernatural input, it would probably make sense to describe those "experiences" by that term, and maybe add the discussion/controversy about their possible causes later. Obvious or well-documented or scientifically discredited frauds wouldn't, I think, qualify for inclusion here.
Just a few ideas, anyway. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree. This edit appears to be the dispute. Regarding A) "Alleged hauntings" vs. B) "Hauntings", consider C) "Reported hauntings". Regarding A) "The first paranormal events allegedly occurred in about 1863. A few locals claimed to remember hearing footsteps within the house at about this time." vs. B) "The first paranormal events apparently occurred in about 1863, since a few locals later remembered hearing unexplained footsteps within the house at about this time.", consider C) "The first reports of paranormal events occurred around 1863 when a few locals said they heard unexplained footsteps within the house at about this time." If this is moving in the right direction, some of the other issues can be addressed. - Location (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
A big part of the problem is the unencyclopedic style of the prose. I'm not sure how this article passed GA with tabloid-isms like "one occasion, Adelaide was attacked by "something horrible" and text peppered with adjectives like "mysterious" and "unexplained". Most serious academic sources opt for general descriptions when covering paranormal topics. Our article insists on using abundant and detailed sensationalistic claims, so in order to satisfy NPOV we have to use "alleged" and "claimed". Of course, the other solution is simply to cut back the amount of WP:UNDUE sensationalistic claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
While you refer to abundant and detailed sensationalist claims, you only point out two. I could, reasonably, see "unexplained" being a non-sensationalist term, provided the subject being discussed actually hasn't been "explained" or scientifically accounted for. That isn't necessarily a "sensationalist" term. "Mysterious" in this sort of context should probably only be used in cases where, in some way, sacred mysteries is being discussed. In that sort of context, I could reasonably see the term being used, preferably with a direct link to that article. I acknowledge that it can be a bit of a pain to determine what does and doesn't deserve such a link, but if this is to help but together basic guidelines of a kind, we would be dealing with generalities and allowing the specifics to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. And, also, I think the last comment above seems to be taking a bit of a "2 wrongs make a right" approach, which I don't think is one we generally take here. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The essential problem here is due to some editors who mistakenly think that it is acceptable in an encyclopaedia article to make assertions or claims about the reports of paranormal phenomena as being factual and objective truth. I happen to believe that such phenomena is possible. But my belief in this possibility doesn't permit me to edit articles with my bias and point of view. No editor is permitted to make truth assertions about such things. This includes making truth claims for religious doctrines and beliefs. In order to be neutral, which is a required principle of editing on Wikipedia, we can only refer to such things as beliefs and not realities. Therefore we can only refer to "reports of hauntings" or "reputed hauntings" and so on. Afterwriting (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I am personally a religious believer and a fairly serious opponent of fringe and paranormal. As someone who offers no particular credibility to a lot of Islam, which is not my faith of choice, I can still see that an article with a title like Miracles of Muhammad is reasonable. In cases like that, and like a lot of hauntings or whatever, it is so far as I can see considered standard to not demand scientific qualifiers when their is a generally implicit understanding that the topic is not given scientific regard. And I honestly do not see any clear evidence that their are "assertions or claims about the reports of paranormal phenomena as being factual and objective truth." It is, so far as I can see, generally just a matter of common usage of the English language to not demand such qualifiers on all such topics. If you can point out a clear indication of where in the article there is a clear assertion or claim of something being factual and objective, of course, as per WP:BURDEN, I would love to see it, but I don't myself see any such in the article right now. John Carter (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
All articles are expected to only assert objective facts to be true and not subjective opinions. This article is riddled with opinions being asserted as true. See WP:ASSERT and WP:YESPOV. Afterwriting (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You do realize this sort of discussion really only makes sense if you actively produce a few specific examples rather than engaging in broad, and generally fairly unverifiable, or at least unverified, assertions, right? John Carter (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
All anyone needs to do is read the article. It contains a number of assertions that the reputed hauntings are objective facts ~ not just "reports of hauntings" or "alleged hauntings" but actual hauntings. It is hardly necessary to have to quote them when they are so obvious. Afterwriting (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
It should be very easy for you to provide examples then. So why haven't you?  Eric Corbett 16:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Location posted a link (above) containing the edits under discussion. You must have missed these. Here are links again for you: [4], [5]. In addition, Location offered suggestions for copyedits. You may have missed those also. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
And, apparently, the individuals you are critiquing would include you in their number, and possibly Afterwriting, because neither of you referred to those links before, but, so far as I can tell, were engaging in general criticism, of a generally less than productive type. Regarding the one Location offered in this thread, the option he proposed as "C" seems to me to be reasonable, and I would be interested to know what @Eric Corbett:, who has done a lot of work on this article, would say about that option. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Option "C" seems to me to change the sense of what's being said, insofar as the locals didn't report the paranormal activity in 1863 but recalled it at some unspecified time later.  Eric Corbett 17:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I missed that earlier. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The article currently states: "The first paranormal events reportedly occurred in about 1863, since a few locals later remembered having heard unexplained footsteps within the house at about that time." There are a few issues with this sentence. First, it states as fact that there was, in fact, a first paranormal event. A report of a paranormal event is certainly different than an honest to goodness paranormal event. Secondly, changing "apparently" to "reportedly" doesn't address the first point as these are both adverbs modifying the verb "occurred". In this context, "reportedly" only expresses doubt as to when the first paranormal event occurred, but it should be used to express doubt to the veracity of the locals' report (i.e. "Local residents reportedly heard unexplained footsteps in the house around 1863."). I prefer dropping "reportedly" where it appears weasel-ly and using in-text attribution: "According to local residents, paranormal activity in the house occurred around 1863." "According to Price, local residents told him that they heard footsteps in the house around 1863." "According to Price, local residents told him that the first paranormal events occurred around 1863." Thirdly, the correct paraphrasing of the source depends on what the source actually said. I don't have access to Price, so I'm curious as to whether he used the term "paranormal" and whether or not it was his research (vs. ours) that described the "unexplained footsteps" as the first report. - Location (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand what the sentence is actually saying, and none of your suggested alterations make any sense to me.  Eric Corbett 21:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? "According to Price, local residents told him that they heard footsteps in the house around 1863." What doesn't make sense to you? - Location (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a substantial article on this topic in the 1984 The Encyclopedia of Ghosts by Daniel Cohen. It runs to around five pages of text, which I could, I guess, e-mail to anyone who sent me an e-mail. There is also a substantial article in the Guiley Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits which I might be able to get by the weekend. Or, if anyone were interested, it might be possible to get those articles, and maybe more, from WP:RX. Anyway, if anyone wants at least the first article, drop me an e-mail. Alternately, if anyone wants me to contact RX, or chooses to contact them themselves, it would probably be a good idea to let others know the documents are available. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Really? The preferred reliable sources are a parapsychology advocate a fringe paranormal promoter? How about some WP:FRIND sources? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I am becoming regularly amused at your conduct in this matter, particularly your apparent difficulty in reading what others say. If you had bothered to read the entirety of the statement I had posted, I think you will see that I indicated that those were the ones I could find quickly which had substantive content on this subject. I also indicated that you could contact WP:RX, which is a source at which other sources could be found. Although it is interesting to see how quickly some people jump to conclusions about sources which they apparently haven't even bothered to look at yet. I mentioned the works I did mention because the article includes a link to the Guiley book on one of the project library pages I have already created, and today I have a copy of the Cohen book in front of me, because I was thinking about maybe adding it to the article list. Perhaps, instead of asking rather obnoxious and more than somewhat judgemental questions about what others can find, you make some effort to maybe do something more constructive than asking such completely rhetorical and basically completely non-productive, if not actually counterproductive, questions? ;) John Carter (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
We can but hope. But this is a group organised at the  fringe theories noticeboard, so we'll have a long wait I think. I wonder what "fringe theory" it's being suggested that this article is proposing anyway?  Eric Corbett 22:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the Cohen article is actually more than a little dismissive of the whole thing. And there are a rather large number of reference books referring to the subject as per here. If certain individuals actually wanted to do something constructive, they could always look at them, or request access to some of their content. I'm guessing from the early comments that "hauntings" being even potentially real is the fringe theory that is being argued against. Personally, I actually tend to agree that hauntings as spectral hauntings are probably impossible, but hey, that's just my opinion. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
P. S.: FWIW, I came here because of the FTN discussion too. Some of the editors who used to haunt that page a few months ago, when I was last active, are generally reasonable people. I would love to see some of them show up here. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: Yes, the idea that there was an actual paranormal event is the relevant fringe theory. We appear to agree on this, so I'm not sure where I have been unreasonable. I saw the FTN notice, saw the edit war, avoided entering the edit war, then proposed a solution to end it.  - Location (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure you have been particularly unreasonable. I agree that the evidence I can gather from the little research I have done, the Cohen book, makes it fairly clear that Price had committed witnessed fraud, which raises significant questions about pretty much everything he did. And, according to that article, a lot of the "nun" story is little more than hearsay. I do have some reservations about the material at the end of that article which indicates most of the standard indicators, like temperature variations and unexplained sounds, smells, and lights were seen in the Robertson work after it burned down. There is also in this a question I guess as to whether Mrs. Foyster's "experiences" are duly verifiable, particularly considering she is said to have hated the place and wanted to move, and that she seems to have not been able to keep her story straight in Canada some years later. When I was talking about experiences earlier, I guess I was thinking more of things like ecstatic visions and the like. There is some question, apparently, whether she ever "experienced" anything there at all, or just maybe said whatever she could think of to get away from it for whatever reason. But, again, at this point, all I've really looked at is the Cohen book. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
And, just for clarification, I was referring above to the lack of inclusion of any material regarding the research done at the site by A. J. B. Robertson starting shortly after the rectory burned down, and how it apparently found some of the "standard indicators" of something weird. Granted, that might not directly relate to the rectory itself, but I think there is a not unreasonable argument that something about it might be worth mentioning. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
This balanced well-written article had been stable for over two years until a tag team arrived from the Moberley-Jourdain incident GAR via some additional canvassing on the fringe noticeboard. I have restored the previous wording of the first paragraph of the Hauntings section as I do not feel the change was an improvement and it detracted from the stylistic flow of writing. As for the points raised above, there are several sound references that dispute the validity and question the motivation behind the Dingwall, Goldney, Hall report - these are even alluded to in the ODNB entry for Harry Price. I respectively suggest that the Hastings 1969 piece in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research be checked and Randall's July 2000 article in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
You've reintroduced prose that argues that hearsay is fact. Perhaps you can get away with that on other pages, but it is important that reported claims are identified specifically as reported claims and that sources inclined to credulity aren't given the prominence of form that the article currently gives them. That believers in psychic powers such as the majority of members of SPR accepted at face value the hearsay of ghost stories is understandable, but using Wikipedia's voice to indicate that this is possible fact is a problematic flaunting of WP:GEVAL. This is a poor article and the fact that attempts to improve it are being reverted just speak to the fact that it is not good. I will be asking for a community review and, if the group of supposed "content creators" who are assiduously guarding the shitty work represented in this article don't back down, will ultimately ask for delisting. jps (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I support a community review of the article as it is currently far from being either balanced or well-written. It contains numerous style and policy problems which transgress Wikipedia principles and needs considerable rewriting, especially in order to be appropriately neutral regarding the reputed paranormal events. Afterwriting (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Have any of you spent any time checking the references in the article or those I mentioned above? If so, it was fast work; or are you just pushing a POV? I can see John Carter has previously been trying to find refs, so I don't include him in this question. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
If anyone is "pushing a POV" it is those who don't understand why a neutral attitude about paranormal claims is required to be expressed in this and all other articles. Afterwriting (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
In general, the best way to determine POV matters is to review as many "reference"-type works as possible. In this instance, that includes the Cohen encyclopedia already mentioned, the Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult, which has a very short piece, the Guiley Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits, and, I have no doubt, several others. Reviewing the content of the most highly-regarded recent reference works regarding this topic is probably the best way to determine what to include here and to what proportion to include it, taking into account our own sometimes different policies and guidelines of course. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Which is precisely why I asked the question above, which I note has not been answered. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The question is irrelevant and a red herring. Regardless of what such publications say this does not alter our requirement to write this article in neutral phrasing regarding reputed paranormal events. Afterwriting (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I somewhat resent the insinuation that I didn't read the references. In fact, I spent quite a bit of time yesterday doing so. To be sure, the references being used I find to be problematically relied upon in the sense that the sources themselves are questionable. That they offer a kind of forteana skepticism with regards to the fabulist claims is notable, but it has led the prose in the article about the "hauntings" to read like a poorly curated tourist brochure dealing in rumormongering rather than an encyclopedic retelling of the context of these claims. jps (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I mentioned above having a copy of the Cohen Encyclopedia of Ghosts and how a version of it I transcribed is available to anyone who drops me an e-mail. Well, I now also have a similar transcribed edition of the article from William F. Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Maybe the most interesting in it is the material it includes about R. J. Hastings' 1969 study which concluded that "while Price may have drawn unwarranted conclusions, he had shown no dishonesty in his research and writings." So the encyclopedia of ghosts is wildly critical of him, and the encyclopedia of pseudoscience seems to comparatively defend him against some of the allegations made against him. Maybe, given the degree of attention this particular subject has received, maybe both were thinking that the article on this subject in particular is one of those most likely to be looked at by reviewers, and maybe tried to almost bend over backwards so that they can't be accused of being too wildly partisan. Maybe, I dunno. Anyway, if you want either or both, drop me an e-mail. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Williams' book often leaves something to be lacking, in my opinion. His editorial approach tends to be of the sort that wants to allow for credulity even if he never seems to fall into it per se. The fact that paranormal enthusiasts dislike this particular haunting case is curious to me. I'm not sure why it should be so. My guess is that there may be some politics we're missing. jps (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes there is politics and a deep internal war between psychic believers. Basically many paranormal proponents and most members from the Society for Psychical Research hate Harry Price, even to this very day. Price set up the National Laboratory of Psychical Research in opposition to the SPR. He also paid mediums to sit in his laboratory for test séances, this is something the SPR strongly opposed. Price exposed many of the spiritualist mediums as fraudulent (some of which the SPR supported as genuine such as Rudi Schneider). So the SPR members disliked Price for many reasons and accused him of faking his data or fabricating events. There was Eric Dingwall who fell out with Price for personal reasons, he issued a paper in the SPR highly skeptical of Price's take on Borley with the late Trevor Hall, another Price critic. I don't think we need to get too worked up on all of this but the article should be fixed with better sources. Basically any alleged paranormal activity at Borley has been discredited and this should be made clear in the lead.
For example psychologists Leonard Zusne and Warren H. Jones write "In modern times, many ghost stories have had English locales. Of the innumerable tales of haunting one of the more famous has been the story of the haunting of the Borley Rectory. It turned out to be a combination of natural causes, fraud, lying, cover-up for more mundane activities of the occupants, and even attempts to alleviate boredom." Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. p. 227. ISBN 978-0-805-80507-9 A little angry (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The dispute and ill feeling against Price by Dingwall, Hall etc is well documented. The Zusne/Jones quote given is based on a report by Hall. John, I emailed you (via Wikipedia email) the other day to ask if you would send me copies of the transcripts you have - could you let me know if you received it, please? I appreciate you may just have been too busy. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Internecine warfare between woo-woo spiritualists of the early part of the twentieth century makes for some spicy reading, but basing our prose on this kind of stuff as we're doing right now in the article is not good practice. jps (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Sagaciousphil: e-mail sent. I would however disgree with the comment "any alleged paranormal activity at Borley has been discredited". "Discredited" is a rather big word, and, honestly, the hearsay paranormal activity of earlier times probably at this point can be neither credited not discredited, their being insufficient evidence about it. It could well be said that the paranormal activity which has been investigated has not been found to have sufficient evidence for any claim of paranormal activity to be substantiated. Also, as the Williams book indicates, which is I think reasonable, Price left his papers and artefacts to the University of London, including those relevant to this matter, and it is kind of a stretch to think that a fraud would leave evidence of his fraud to a university. Admittedly, however, he could have "lost" the most damning evidence of any misconduct by him before his death. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, John, now received. Your comment above ties in with the various articles/reports I've been reading, which all seem to state some acts may have been falsified/exaggerated or could be attributable to natural causes. It will be interesting to read the articles/books etc that jps suggests should be used; hopefully he or she will list them here shortly. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, I think this source is actually better than most of the ones in the current article. jps (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, We Faked the Ghosts of Borley Rectory available here should be a source for the article, but isn't. You can read a review of this book in the Guardian here. jps (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I had the impression we were looking for somewhat more academic sources; I have managed to find some on Taylor & Francis/Routledge, JSTOR, Questia etc and, as I mentioned elsewhere, together with the transcripts I now have from John, will look over them, time permitting, over the next few days. If you have any other suggestions, please share them. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I am a bit surprised that you have found "academic" sources. In areas such as this, it is important that we don't get hoodwinked by fringe journals which occasionally show up on certain indexing services. Can you give the citations so I can see what you're talking about? My normal searches through the academic literature that I know about turned up next to nothing (there were some oblique mentions in a few history and humanities discussions, but nothing that rose to the level of honest appraisal of the situation). jps (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)