Talk:Daniel Dunglas Home

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV 2011

message: 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)
thread_title: Family

message: 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)
replies: text: Thankyou for your stirling contribution. Redxela Sinnak 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Hob, you really are too fond of ad hominem arguments. Anthon.Eff 18:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Crookes 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have also up-graded it to a B. --andreasegde (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: 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)
thread_title: Fake or genuine?

message: 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)
replies: text: OK, will do. Thanks for the review. --andreasegde (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Gone. --andreasegde (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you need a description about the river.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry. Missed "However" (Wikipedia:Words to avoid). Reword eliminating however.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: However gone. --andreasegde (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Changed them.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  I suggest that they include years. Something like "Early Life (1234-1267)". Just a suggestion. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen that used before. See FA William Shakespeare as example. --andreasegde (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Changed it.--andreasegde (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  She is not clear who?? Replace she with Crookes. (hope i am right)--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Please explain Google maps as refs, after which i will be glad to pass the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Google references have gone. I only put them in to show where Home lived. --andreasegde (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Passed. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you. --andreasegde (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: 'Nuff said.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs are not reliable sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate - and inaccurate - caption 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  How Can Randi Claim He Was Caught Cheating? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It does here attributed to Lord Adare. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "The Ashley Place Levitation" 

message: 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 . 
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 . 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 . 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)
thread_title: Alleged confession

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified