Talk:Rosemary Brown (spiritualist)

message: This page seems impossibly biased to me... given that communicating with the dead is and never has been a provable/proven experience, not to mention that it defies all logic of any kind, the page as written certainly seems to operate under the assumption that it's just another day at the park for an average person.  I am, alas, not an expert on Rosemary Brown though so I won't edit the page directly.
:Thank you for not editing the article in a way that reflects your own personal belief about the subject.  We don't do that at Wikipedia since that is not NPOV and, because it borders on original research, another Wiki-no-no.  The article tries very hard to be neutral.  For example it states that she claims to have had these experiences, not that she actually did. Belief in Channelling and/or spirit mediums goes back to the 1840s ( see Spiritualism) and is nothing new.  For most people who believe in this kind of thing, it is part of their spirituality/religion and therefore, we as editors must be careful to tread lightly upon articles such as these.  A believer in God should not trash an article on Atheism just because they KNOW God is real. Likewise, just because an editor has a strong personal belief that some phenomenon is not possible doesn't make it their duty to disavow believers of their faith in it.  We have to do our best to describe the events, person or phenomenon in question in as neutral a way as possible.  This doesn't mean, however,  we have to provide point and counterpoint arguments.  if the person, event or phenomenon has had specific attention from Skeptical researchers, it's appropriate to include a mention or reference to that.  it is not, however, necessary to the general objections of skeptics to any and all religious or spiritual issues.  So, if you want to add a source specifically debunking Rosemary Brown, feel free so long as you incvlude the proper source info.LiPollis 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your basic premise regarding neutrality, but (1) the burden of proof is on the believer, not the non-believer, as you seem to indicate; and (2) I'm sorry, but this article is NOT neutral. Words like 'claim' are frequently used, but the Criticism section is about 90% supportive and only about 10% skeptic with regards to the paranormal. --75.137.255.86 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

text: That would be a problem. Anyone? 194.144.19.207 15:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be if we could prove it but I don't have access to the text that user is referring to and not having written the article, it's not something I care to jump into.  To prove something violates a copyright, you have to do a lot more than simply assert that it does.LiPollis 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed "lifted almost entirely from the Reader's Digest [publication] Strange Stories, Amazing Facts (1975) therefore probably breaching copyright" (I have a copy in my personal library). At the very least, the article should be rewritten. -- Jmc (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

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) 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category change

message: I think she actually could compose in the style of f.ex. Liszt, despite what she herself claimed; just combine depersonalization (and thus rejection that "the self" did this) with the natural low level skill of manipulation, f.ex. how many of you are deliberately considering: "now I have to lift my long finger, and then I have to press the Enter key in order to make a new line". Not many I wager. Most of you, like me, just presses the key Enter without much deliberation. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thoroughly agree, and find this to be the only logical explanation; I would love to see the article developed to that end, particularly in the Criticism section. Even if Mrs. Brown was not a skilled pianist, considerable knowledge of music theory and engraving conventions would be required purely to notate the compositions. I believe she was very likely a more knowledgeable figure than she let on; another aspect of the story that has always bothered me is: why did only famous, household-name composers dictate works to her? There are a plethora of minor composers who were famous in their own day but are not well-known now, none of whom seem to have troubled Mrs. Brown. More research into skeptical viewpoints seems appropriate. --Cantseetheforest (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosemary Brown the composer

message: MLK Halifax a single purpose accounts heavily edited the article with parapsychology sources in an attempt to claim Rosemary Brown was a genuine medium. I have reverted this users edits which had NPOV problems. 2001:1B60:3:239:1003:106:0:1 (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This user's edits are unreliable and some of them bogus/fraudulent. I have removed them. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: MLK Halifax fringe POV edits