Talk:James Van Praagh

message: On Nov 19, 2010 Booradley08 stated that he/she "references removed", when in fact the entire criticism section of Van Praagh was removed.  References are NOT entire sections.  SGerbic (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how removing "alleged" makes it more NPOV, since now it says that he IS a psychic & medium, implying that such things are real. How about something like "James Van Praagh claims to be a psychic & medium"? BigFatKnowAll 15:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. "Who claims psychic abilities" is accurate, NPOV and consistent with, for example, the article on Edgar Cayce. LeContexte 11:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. There doesn't seem to be a lot of activity on this page so I'm going to go ahead and add "...who claims to be a psychic and medium". Justinfr (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ArbCom decided that psychic are cultural artefacts.  The Psychic page was re-written accordingly, " The term is also used to refer to theatrical performers who use techniques such as prestidigitation and cold reading to produce the appearance of having such abilities.", and see this.  The Edgar Cayce article just needs to be cleaned up.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I disagree and I think that most people, when they see the word "psychic" do not recognize it as a "cultural artifact" that does not imply veracity. The word psychic, unmodified, implies that psychics exist. Just throwing in my two cents though; if it's been decided elsewhere then I'll abide by that. Thanks for the link, it was informative. Justinfr (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  What the ArbCom seems to have meant is that if you live on Earth, and you don't know about the controversy over whether there are real psychic abilities, then it doesn't help to put doubt words in front of it. In other words, we can talk about psychics just like in normal speech, because we don't have to worry that much about the reader.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Removed 

message: The word "alleged" was removed because it, in my opinion, is not NPOV. 
The validity of "medium-ship" is discussed later in the article, which may be the issue the person who added the "alleged" has.  
Cheers, WIKIPEDIAVI 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how removing "alleged" makes it more NPOV, since now it says that he IS a psychic & medium, implying that such things are real. How about something like "James Van Praagh claims to be a psychic & medium"? BigFatKnowAll 15:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. "Who claims psychic abilities" is accurate, NPOV and consistent with, for example, the article on Edgar Cayce. LeContexte 11:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. There doesn't seem to be a lot of activity on this page so I'm going to go ahead and add "...who claims to be a psychic and medium". Justinfr (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ArbCom decided that psychic are cultural artefacts.  The Psychic page was re-written accordingly, " The term is also used to refer to theatrical performers who use techniques such as prestidigitation and cold reading to produce the appearance of having such abilities.", and see this.  The Edgar Cayce article just needs to be cleaned up.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I disagree and I think that most people, when they see the word "psychic" do not recognize it as a "cultural artifact" that does not imply veracity. The word psychic, unmodified, implies that psychics exist. Just throwing in my two cents though; if it's been decided elsewhere then I'll abide by that. Thanks for the link, it was informative. Justinfr (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  What the ArbCom seems to have meant is that if you live on Earth, and you don't know about the controversy over whether there are real psychic abilities, then it doesn't help to put doubt words in front of it. In other words, we can talk about psychics just like in normal speech, because we don't have to worry that much about the reader.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  alleged medium ??? 

message: Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category change

message: Does anyone have a source for the unsourced and possibly defamatory information about a living person I removed in this edit? PouponOnToast (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats still rather vague. If there is evidence that can be cited then lets get it on the page and correctly cite it.  Just saying that JVP searched a huge railyard for "markings" means little.  What kind of "markings" did the number he gave at first match the one he found?  What about the railway car, did it solve a crime somehow? Sgerbic (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Critics? 

message: The entire skepticism section needs to be cut down to about two sentences.  Some people think psychics are real.  Some people think they are not.  It is NOT the place of Wikipedia to be taking sides.  Which, by the way, constitutes "original research" which Wiki says it prohibits.  "I followed James van Praag around and he didn't convince me!"  That's scientific?  That's a vendetta.  Those who carp will always find a reason to carp, they will never find anything genuine.  They have always done so in the past.  They are ideologues.  Their minds are closed.  There is no reason for Wiki to cater to them.  An article about a prominent person is not an excuse for an attack.  Dave of Maryland (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What "some people" think doesn't matter. What matters is what's valid information and what isn't. The important thing is that there are valid, reliable sources. -- Numbnumb (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of these sources are invalid or not credible, please review. Thanks!Valdeez (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I have replaced the info. It is a perfectly acceptable reference from a reputable, well established, organisation.--Dmol (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skepticism 

message: Please note that many of the sources on this page are invalid and dead. Please re-address, I've searched for links for sources 11 and 12 and found nothing on the web, therefore the highly controversial section was removed. Thank youMarsobeit (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid Dead Links 

message: Obviously James Van Praagh has a huge following of believers to reach his level of fame, shouldn't there be a believers section to make the page appear more netural? I mean it doesn't make much sense to not mention what people see in him  ?
I am new to wikipedia but watched a documentry on James Van Praagh and I am pretty surprised there isn't a believers section, can I start one to build my wiki editor cred?Valdeez (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You've misunderstood what neutrality is. Neutrality doesn't mean treating two positions as equal. See WP:NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Believers section is valid with credible sources, it is important to note how James Van Praagh got to his level of success; with success comes skeptics which is why there should be a section referring to his believers and followers. James Van Praagh skeptics should not define his Wikipedia page, it makes the pages appear more like a hate page more than a credible article. Please verify each source and please state which sources are disputed before simply removing sections. Thanks Marsobeit (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the endorsements would fit better under the Career section where other celebrity endorsements are already listed. I do have a problem with some of the quotes. The Jennifer Love Hewitt quote and the other quotes taken from Eomega.org have a questionable citation. There is no information about the where or when of these quotes, and I suspect they are merely lifted from a press release. Hewitt is already mentioned in the list of celebrity fans, and I'm not really convinced her quote or the questionable Newsweek quote really add anything important to the article. They should probably be removed. I can imagine the Believers section very quickly turning into a string of celebrity quotes which would not add anything meaningful to the article. Quotes from movie stars endorsing Praagh do not belong in a WP:NPOV article, though I would grant that a list of celebrity endorsers is relevant information. Some of the info new to the article in the Believers section is really good. Like the bit about the TV mini-series starring Danson as Praagh.Dustinlull (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it makes sense to have a believer section, I'll restructure some of the page. Thank you for the feedback. Marsobeit (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Believers 

message: Can someone please explain how the JREF challenge is credible and why it has it's own section, doesn't really fit the flow of the page. 65.60.120.205 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? The JREF challenge is a well documented, legally set up (can't think of the right word here), challenge that has been standing for at least 20 years. One of its critics' favourite tricks is to challenge the validity of it, and I'm tempted to think you are doing the same, judging by your edit history. As for having its own section, if you find another challenger willing to offer 1,000,000 dollars, please let us know.--Dmol (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: More than half the article is about skepticism of this person, which makes it lack depth.  The JREF stuff should be in, but I think there is undue weight concerns with how much space is devoted to critics.  The article ought to be either expanded to more fully explain his life/career, or ought to be trimmed in the criticism area (perhaps a bit of both).  For instance, the devotion of a longish paragraph to the JREF zombie stunt is arguably more about his critics' theatrics than it is about Van Praagh.  In a longer article I could understand an argument that it merited a sentence or two, but in one this light on life history it's a bit much. --David Shankbone 03:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  JREF 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on James Van Praagh. 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/20121127222840/http://www.bestpsychicdirectory.com/news/Medium-James-Van-Praagh-Ghost-Whisperer-Shares-His-n29.html to http://www.bestpsychicdirectory.com/news/Medium-James-Van-Praagh-Ghost-Whisperer-Shares-His-n29.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022212614/http://www.vanpraagh.com//Ghost_CBS.cfm to http://www.vanpraagh.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For the longest time, I've always wondered what is wrong with his face, particularly his jawline. It looks like some sort of injury. Then, there is the subject of his vague "partner" mentioned in the article, with no name or gender. No description at all. Legendofdilda (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  His facial disfigurement and his homosexual partner.