Talk:Arthur Ford (psychic)

message: This sentence stands out: "Ford was exposed as a fraud shortly after his death (Alcock 1991:182)." Is there more to substantiate this? Canuckle 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraud?

message: After Arthur Ford's death, Ford's close friend and supporter William V. Rauscher and author Allen Spraggrett discovered Ford's collection of obituaries, newspaper clippings, Who's Who articles, etc. that Ford had hidden away. If I understand it correctly, they were disguised as being bound poetry books. Ford read his poetry before giving a reading. There was enough information to indicate that much of the famous Pike messages and others were fraudulent. There were many other things that Ford ordered his secretary to burn (after his death?) that are lost. Ford and his secretary parted company due to a falling out. Ford's secretary claimed Ford had no psychic abilities. The book Arthur Ford: The Man Who Talked with the Dead by Allen Spraggett with William V. Rauscher, New American Library, Inc.,1973 gives the whole story. This is the primary source used in Alcock's book. James Randi claimed Arthur Ford used to call his clients "suckers". My study of Ford (taking a break) strongly indicates he was a master "hot" and "cold reader" who took advantage of the bereaved. Some magicians who are readers say this, as is done by John Edward, (like to see him without the edited camera tricks), and others, is not morally wrong because their readings give the living hope. It also makes the "psychic reader" a lot of money, sometimes with gifts and certainly with mind expanding courses that increase the students irrationality and dependence. You can sell a lot of books, tapes, etc. User:Kazuba 15 May 2007
:Are you supposed to be giving your own opinion, or should we be relying on published sources? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ford's Hidden Archives

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) 22:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category change

message: Bess Houdini told reporters her husband planned to send messages to Arthur Conan Doyle and Remigius Weiss (Weiss had worked with Houdini to expose psychic fraud.) Both men denied this was true.
What does "this" refer to (I bolded it above). That Bess's husband planned to send messages, or that they had received any? Or something else? Did Bess claim that Harry had informed the two men of this, which might explain what the "this" is about? As an aside I found the preceeding section confusing - the three messages are not introduced in any comprehensible way. Could someone copyedit or improve it please? -84.223.120.228 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rest of the messages - confusing 

message: The article sounds to me as if the author (or authors) disbelieve either in Arthur Ford's abilities, or in psychic phenomena in general. Does Wikipedia take a stand on whether psychic phenomena can or do occur? That is, does Wikipedia assert that only the physical world exists, and that there is no spirit world (spiritualism)?
If Wikipedia is determined to remain neutral on this, then perhaps we can work together to rewrite the article. It should balance the assertions of those sources who accept Ford's claims against those who question or reject those claims. 
Is there a Wikipedia:Supernatural guideline page, which tells us contributors how to treat these matters? 
I may as well make a WP:COI statement: I believe in Arthur Ford's abilities, and also in Rev. Moon's 'stature' as testified to by Fletcher. Nonetheless, I shall do my best not to advance my own POV in the article, and not to argue against those who disagree with Moon's ideas or practices or with spiritualism in general. I'm sure my old friends Jayjg and SLR will help to keep me honest, and I promise not to edit war with them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and also this article is a mess. Shii (tock) 06:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We treat claims that people can contact the dead like any other extraordinary claims according to our neutral point of view policy. That doesn't mean we need to "balance" the supernatural view and make it sound plausible (see "giving equal validity") especially when sources that support Ford's claims appear to be WP:FRINGE sources that would not be considered reliable by our reliable sources policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a number of WP:RS references, cleaned out some original research and dubious material and edited the article accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: POV of the article