# Talk:Daniel Dunglas Home

The article is still heavily biased in tone and content in favour of Home. I am undergoing to change this.--Farrtj (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Go away with your nihilism  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.20.194 (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC) 

Do we really need such copious background on his family life? It must be remembered that he's a relatively minor Victorian character --Farrtj (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This article needs a complete rewrite - if no-one objects, I will go ahead and do this (at some point in the near future).

Starting on the rewrite - I will draw from the original article, web and print sources. Pointers would be helpful, so feel free to chime in! NOTE: All of what will become this article is as unbiased as possible, however hard to believe it is - the current skeptical bent of the article does not do Home justice. Redxela Sinnak 14:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is not skeptical in tone, just informed and fact-based.  It is not necessary
to mutilate factual entries to make airheads feel better about being credulous.
Rory Coker

Thankyou for your stirling contribution. Redxela Sinnak 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree Redxela Sinnak, this article is full of original research. I think you should be bold and begin hacking out the stuff that doesn't tell us something about D.D. Home's life. Anthon.Eff 19:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed "who had been expecting a thorough refutation of Home's claims" because I don't believe they expected that. Maybe Doyle thinks they did, but - didn't everybody already know by then that Crookes was easy to fool? He already had been into spiritualism for four years. --Hob Gadling 15:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Hob, I challenge you. Find one reputable source that says "everybody already knew by then that Crookes was easy to fool." It seems rather that the shock and dismay at Crookes' report was due to the fact that everyone had thought him to be a hard-headed scientist. I'm looking forward to your procurement of the source... Anthon.Eff 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one who is claiming anything. At the moment we don't know one way or the other. The article reflects that by not claiming one or the other. So that's okay. If you want the claim back in, find a source (other than Conan "I believe in fairies because of obviously fake photographs" Doyle). --Hob Gadling 17:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hob, you really are too fond of ad hominem arguments. Anthon.Eff 18:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Come on! You want Wikipedia to just copy Doyle's opinion? That's not NPOV. I'm sorry, but there are people who are easy to fool but don't know they are, and we shouldn't take at face value what people say. Would you please give a real reason why "who had been expecting a thorough refutation of Home's claims" should be in the article, instead of going off on tangents? Do you even want "who had been expecting a thorough refutation of Home's claims" in the article? --Hob Gadling 14:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of putting them in? --andreasegde (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have started work on this article, with the aim of taking it to GA status. Anybody willing to add references or work with me on this (but no edit wars, please) is totally welcome. --andreasegde (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

More is going in, and it is going well. Time to find more references from the web, as well as Lamont's book and the others. --andreasegde (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I have also up-graded it to a B. --andreasegde (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is open on this one, because if he was a fake, he was a very good one. --andreasegde (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is my first GA review so it will take me a little longer to review.

Better caption needed for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle pic. how is he related to Home?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, will do. Thanks for the review. --andreasegde (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
"too many long sentences".
B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Refs 5,11,47 is link to Google maps??? why? remove this ref as not a ref. Ref 46 says Cox owned the hotel, not that he was related to Home.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Though for a FAC in future, more should be returned about his wives, CHILDREN AND PERSONAL LIFE.
B. Focused: 
See cases of WP:UNDUE, listed below. Resolved
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
The article states the visions (like of Edwin and Elizabeth) as facts. Something like "is believed to have had visions" would be more suitable.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
"The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles." The image of the "Shetucket Street in Norwich, Connecticut, in 1909" seems to be out of context as 1. Shetucket Street not mentioned 2. In 1909, Home was long dead.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Can "(pronounced "Hume")" be incorporated in the text, instead of just a img caption.
 Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"Scotchy" links to list of ethnic slurs, where it is not mentioned. Is it an ethnic slur??
 Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"Home's mother, Elizabeth Home (née McNeill) was known as a seer in Scotland, as were many of her predecessors—like her great uncle Colin Uruqhart, and her uncle Mr. McKenzie—although the gift of second sight was often seen as a curse, as it foretold instances of tragedy and death." can be split into 2 sentences.: Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"Evidence supports the elder Home's illegitimacy, as various payments meant for William were made by the 10th Earl to a Mr. Alexander Philip. William served an apprenticeship as House Carpenter under Mr. Philip between 1820 to 1827." Too much detail about the father.
 Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the whole thing be removed. As now the Question rises who is Mr. Alexander Philip.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 Done Gone. --andreasegde (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
"Elizabeth and William were married when he was 19-years-old, and found employment at the Balerno paper mill, which had a number of small houses built for its workforce." IMO split 
 Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"Although once having contained a number of trout, the river became polluted by the chloride of lime and other chemicals used in the mill and then flushed into the river." WP:UNDUE detail.
 Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you need a description about the river.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 Done Because the river ran behind the house and it was polluted. It was detailing the conditions Home grew up with and not portraying it as beautiful Scotland... The river has now gone. --andreasegde (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The first 12 lines in "Early life" do not mention the subject Daniel Home. Maybe the section should be split into Family and Early life.
 Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
*"As the one-year-old Home was deemed a delicate child, having a "nervous temperament", he was passed to Elizabeth's childless sister, Mary Cook, who lived with her husband in the coastal town of Portobello, 3 miles east of Edinburgh, although the cost of raising so many children may have contributed to the move." split: Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"seen to be rocked by invisible hands," Paradox intended???? reword.
 Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"At 13-years-old Home did not join in sports games with other boys, preferring to take walks in the local woods with a friend called Edwin, reading the Bible to each other and telling stories, and made a pact stating that if one or the other were to die, they would try and make contact after death" split: Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"Home and his mother's reunion was short-lived however, as Elizabeth foretold her own death in 1850, which was also later confirmed by Home, after he saw the head of his mother in a vision saying, "Dan, twelve o'clock", which was the time of her death at the age of forty-two.[" split: Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Missed "However" (Wikipedia:Words to avoid). Reword eliminating however.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 Done However gone. --andreasegde (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Use named refs when using the same ref n times e.g. 59,60,61 and 70, 73.
 Done Changed them.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"Home never directly asked for money, although he lived very well on gifts, donations and lodging from wealthy admirers, as he felt he was on a "mission to demonstrate immortality", and wished to interact with his clients as one gentleman to another, rather than as an employee" split: Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
'He resided at the Theological Institute, but took no part in any of the theological discussions held there, as he wanted to take a course in medicine with the funding of one Dr. Hull, who offered to pay Home five dollars a day for his séances, but Home refused, as always.'SPLIT
 Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Use TB directly instead of old-fashioned consumption, to be crystal clear.
 Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
IMO, section headings should be according stages of life like "Years 1234-1267" or places, not Both.
I don't quite understand what you mean by this. The sections are named and none are in years.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that they include years. Something like "Early Life (1234-1267)". Just a suggestion. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen that used before. See FA William Shakespeare as example. --andreasegde (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle "became involved with spiritualism after the deaths of his son and his brother," UNDUE. remove segment.
 Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"She merely slipped her foot out and in of her sturdy shoe." Who she? Euspapia or Crookes??? In what context. REword.: Done Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
She is not clear who?? Replace she with Crookes. (hope i am right)--[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It now reads: "Crooke's method of foot control later proved inadequate when used with Eusapia Palladino, as she merely slipped her foot out and in of her sturdy shoe." --andreasegde (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Img caption of infobox should be where and when was pic taken.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No idea when and where, as the photo was taken from Commons. Uploader is from Dutch Wiki. --andreasegde (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Please explain Google maps as refs, after which i will be glad to pass the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Google references have gone. I only put them in to show where Home lived. --andreasegde (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Passed. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I thank you. --andreasegde (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

'Nuff said.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no (definite) opinion on the subject, but I have a strong distaste for bias masquerading as "objectivity", let alone encyclopaedic writing.
Nowheere is the biased slant of this article more evident than in the caption to the photograph on the left:
"Home was known for his love of fanfare and show, as evidenced in this staged photograph in which he ponders a skull."
Firstly, by WHOM was he "known" to be that? 
And where is the reference to support this assertion?
Secondly, the "staged photograph" is absolutely TYPICAL of mid- to late 19th century studio photography - as anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the visual culture in the 19th century would know. It was the vogue of the time, especially when portraying celebrities. (There are literally hundreds of examples floating around the internet, in case books are no longer the preferred source of information here.)
Of course, pointing to the "staged" nature of the portrait while omitting the highly relevant facts above tells us more about the person who wrote that caption than about Home or his photographer; but this is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry, where personal ignorance and irrational fears - or indeed the inability to write a simple according to the standards of encyclopaedic writing and intellectual honesty - should have no place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.189.180 (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 

No evidence is adduced for this claim. William Crooks tested the accordion phenomenon by buying a new accordion and making Home change into clothes Crooks had bought for the occasion in front of him. To say further that the discovery was "private" and can't be given sounds like the weakest "evidence" of those Randi intends to discount (forgetting his own standards). I intend to add philosopher, tenured professor, and investigator Stephen Braude's claim that Home was "never caught cheating, "phenomena are beyond today's technology," and contemporary experiments made by major figures in the history of science were "very well controlled." In the video at about 32:00
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/
50.81.38.82 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As it happens, Home was caught cheating, and very blatantly, only it always was covered up. I have related just one of these stories as an example. My guess is that the coverup took place because there were some very prominent people involved and they didn't want the whole world to know they'd been taken in by clever fakes. Stephen Braude is a very intelligent and thoughtful writer but he is a philosopher and possibly not well-read enough on the technology used by fraudulent mediums of those times to get their effects. Heck, you could buy all the accoutrements out of a catalogue. --Bluejay Young (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Stephen E. Braude is not a reliable source. His books have been negatively reviewed by scientific journals for containing credulous claims and incorrect information. You need to read the accounts given by Frederick Merrifield and other séance sitters who observed Home to have used tricks. Home was observed to have cheated but these exposures were kept mostly secret and not widely reported. Fodor Fan (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention of the "The Ashley Place," a key event in his Spiritualist career and his most extreme levitation: floating (or giving the impression of floating) out of the window and into the adjacent window some feet apart in the presence of witnesses, two of whom gave written accounts.
The event, which took place in about 1868, is still considered an important spiritualist/magical illusion event. For example, the event is discussed in depth in Eugine Burger's book Spirit Theater, I understand, and is discussed in the BBC series "History of Magic" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4946H0VHjY).
I propose that "The Ashley Place" at least receive a mention.
75.32.138.141 (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It does here attributed to Lord Adare. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The 'Ashley Place' incident was examined closely by a man in the 1980s who visited the actual house where it took place. He pointed out that Home insisted the two gentlemen witnesses go into another room, while he stayed alone in the next door room. Home a few moments later appeared at the window of the gentlmens room and let himself in. The room was two floors off the ground. The story of Home 'floating out of one window and into another' is pure 'Urban Myth' no one present at the House ever said that. They simply said 'Home was at the window'. On closely examining the outside of the building and the possibility for fraud, the conclusion was Home could easily have faked the levitation simply by swinging from one window to another by means of a rope which could be later pulled away by an acomplice. The problem with fraud was that no one in the houses neareby saw anything suspicious, and, tho not very high up, the windows were non the less intimidating in their hight. The final conclusion was that the Ashley Place incident could have been easy for Home to fake, but there is no evidence at all he did fake the incident.Johnwrd (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide good sources for this, then I would support giving this event more prominence in the article.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Author and psychical researcher Peter Lamont has stated to me the methods used with the accordion by Slade and Home must be different. It is difficult to tell what exactly went on with the flying self playing acccordions associated to both men. Documentation of seances is  poor. I suggest the popular use of laudanum may have something to do with extraordinary seance stories. Kazuba (talk)
18 April 2013

Thanks Kazuba, I have also spoken to Lamont. His opinion is not even needed on this issue, because it's clear from reading Crookes reports that the accordion layout was very different than that of Henry Slade. If you read the skeptical material and books by magicians, there's two views on the accordion trick. Home either used a hidden music-box or a secret accomplice was playing another accordion. Fodor Fan (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding this to the article but I don't think it is needed. In brief the psychologist Joseph Jastrow in 1889 for an article in a science magazine (Popular Science Monthly) published a supposed confession from Home admitting fraud. You can read it here [1]. 
Unfortunately Jastrow had made an error. The confession was not written by Home and was nothing to do with himself. The confession was of another fraudulent medium who Home quoted in his book Lights and Shadows of Spiritualism [2]. Home did not like other mediums, he saw them as rivals, and he would occasionally quote confessions from them. 
Jastrow realized the mistake he made and corrected it. In his book Fact and Fable in Psychology published in 1900, the confession was re-published but Home's name was removed. You can see that here online on page 164 [3]. The problem is that spiritualists (who are very desperate to try and find any holes in any critical material of Home) had picked up on his mistake (even though he had corrected it) and have invoked some kind of conspiracy theory to try and degenerate Jastrow that he "deliberately" made a false confession of Home. 
What is dishonest about some of these spiritualist texts is that they don't mention that Jastrow corrected his mistake in his book Fact and Fable in Psychology published in 1900, instead they lie and claim that Jastrow never corrected his mistake. Fodor Fan (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel Dunglas Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421201555/http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/books/crookes/researches/notes.htm to http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/books/crookes/researches/notes.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel Dunglas Home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160404052916/http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Empress_Eugenie_and_Her_Circle_1000538519/189 to http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Empress_Eugenie_and_Her_Circle_1000538519/189
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)