Talk:Enfield poltergeist

message: Grosse and Playfair believed that marbles were evidence for poltergeist activity. Actually there is an entirely naturalistic explanation as the magician Bob Couttie has written:
"Among the notable physical events was the dropping of marbles to the floor without bouncing. When picked up, the marbles were hot. It became clear when talking to Maurice that the marbles were rarely seen in motion and never at the start of the motion or, more importantly, at the finish. Reconstructing what happened, the investigators heard a noise behind them, turned and saw the marbles. If the marbles had been held in a warm hand by someone waiting for a suitable moment, then placed on the floor and the sound of them falling been made by some other means, the result would be the same." Forbidden Knowledge: The Paranormal Paradox, 1988. Steve the Skeptic (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Marbles

message: The page is ridiculously biased. It has dismissive skeptical analysis on the top of the page, Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial
and neutral like an encyclopedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Question4477 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased Article

message: I will add this to the article.
SPR member Anita Gregory observed Janet to cheat as researcher Michael Clarkson reports: "Anita Gregory, of the Society for Psychical Research, who had spent just a short time at the Hodgson home, said the mysterious men's voices were simply the result of Janet and Margaret putting bed sheets to their mouths. In addition, Gregory said that a video camera had caught Janet attempting to bend spoons and an iron bar by force and “practicing” levitation by bouncing up and down on her bed." Poltergeists: Examining Mysteries of the Paranormal, 2006. Steve the Skeptic (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Anita Gregory

message: Regarding this edit and the other attempts to find the correct verb, note that the source states "Magicians and ventriloquists came to the conclusion that Janet was cheating."- MrX 12:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: However, that's not what the sentence in the article is describing. The entire episode was showed to be a hoax by subsequent reliable sources who wrote on the matter. What is problematic about making a simple, plain statement of that fact? jps (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please quote the passage in a source that says "showed to be hoax" and explain why it's preferable to "concluded".- MrX 12:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Passage? Read the whole source. It clearly shows that it is a hoax. Do you not think that's the case? jps (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could just tell me the specific words in the source that support your wording. Something like "Beloff and Gregory showed (or revealed) the poltergeist activity to be a hoax in their prime time History Channel documentary Vampires, Ghouls and Vermicious Knids".- MrX 14:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

text: No. The source clearly says "conclusion". There's nothing about showing. Also, please don't misinterpret WP:SILENT.- MrX 18:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ETA: Also note that  has explicitly supported my edit.- MrX 18:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid my support won't count for much with jps. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The source clearly shows that the case is a hoax. Does anyone deny this? jps (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating that that's what the source shows is Original Research. The source states that some people concluded that the case was a hoax. Probably rightly, but there isn't a source which says they showed it was a hoax. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Does anyone deny that the source says "conclusion"? We follow sources; we don't amplify their meaning with original research.- MrX 18:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion has been split off to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Enfield_Poltergeist again as well, in case anyone wants to add comments there too. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Where have I said that I believe in the reality of poltergeists? To answer your straightforward question, however, you have not provided a source which states that the case has been shown to be a hoax.Ghughesarch (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your contention is that the above source does not show this poltergesit to be a hoax. That's amazing. Yep, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. It's basic denialism of straightforwardly identified facts. jps (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @jps "Firstly, if you think the phrase "The evidence suggests that this figure is closer to 100 percent" means someone came to a conclusive conclusion I would suggest (pun intended) that you consult a dictionary on the meaning of the word "suggests". Secondly making accusations such as "People such as yourselves who believe in the reality of poltergeists are not competent enough to be editing Wikipedia" constitutes a number of personal attacks and is likely to lead to a block. Please keep your opinions of other peoples beliefs (or what you assume to be their beliefs) to yourself and try to discuss the issue calmly. Just because someone disagrees with you that doesn't give you the right to call their competence to edit into question. And, for the record, I believe your interpretation of the sources to be completely erroneous and a clear case of confirmation bias. Richerman   (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm generally OK with that edit, but which source did you use for James Randi? - MrX 23:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, wrong poltergeist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!- MrX 00:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I don't see any reliable objective sources for that content. If only WP:SENSATIONal sources cover it, we're not obligated to include it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Daily Telegraph, quoting an interview with BBC Scotland, is not a WP:SENSATIONal source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/06/13/the-conjuring-2-what-really-happened-during-the-enfield-haunting/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.232.9 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  We go by context, no matter the source. The citation is to an obvious non-serious entertainment feature story focused on the most sensational and attention getting quotes, so we treat it accordingly and give such material less weight. And WP is an encyclopedia whose goal is to be a serious reference work, so we write objectively rather than sensationally. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Source cites a BBC interview with WPC Heeps, at the time of the alleged haunting, in which she said, “The chair was by the sofa, and I looked at the chair and I noticed it shook slightly. I can’t explain it any better. It came off the floor, oh, nearly a half inch, I should say, and I saw it slide off to the right about three and a half to four feet before it came to rest. I’m absolutely convinced that no one in that room touched that chair or went anywhere near it when it moved. Absolutely convinced.” The same quotation can be found in earlier souces, eg https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nTsARQd8EyYC&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+chair+was+by+the+sofa,+and+I+looked+at+the+chair+and+I+noticed+it+shook+slightly.+I+can%E2%80%99t+explain+it+any+better.+It+came+off+the+floor,+oh,+nearly+a+half+inch,+I+should+say,+and+I+saw+it+slide+off+to+the+right+about+three+and+a+half+to+four+feet+before+it+came+to+rest.+I%E2%80%99m+absolutely+convinced+that+no+one+in+that+room+touched+that+chair+or+went+anywhere+near+it+when+it+moved.+Absolutely+convinced.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=fV9LaQX03R&sig=XQLtwj94Xptjf7bWCvjpdWbonGU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjk5vPO6vHNAhVMJsAKHUNiBSgQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThe%20chair%20was%20by%20the%20sofa%2C%20and%20I%20looked%20at%20the%20chair%20and%20I%20noticed%20it%20shook%20slightly.%20I%20can%E2%80%99t%20explain%20it%20any%20better.%20It%20came%20off%20the%20floor%2C%20oh%2C%20nearly%20a%20half%20inch%2C%20I%20should%20say%2C%20and%20I%20saw%20it%20slide%20off%20to%20the%20right%20about%20three%20and%20a%20half%20to%20four%20feet%20before%20it%20came%20to%20rest.%20I%E2%80%99m%20absolutely%20convinced%20that%20no%20one%20in%20that%20room%20touched%20that%20chair%20or%20went%20anywhere%20near%20it%20when%20it%20moved.%20Absolutely%20convinced.%E2%80%9D&f=false and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-440048/Suburban-poltergeist-A-30-year-silence-broken.html 79.65.232.9 (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of you to suggest that "The citation is to an obvious non-serious entertainment feature story focused on the most sensational and attention getting quotes" 79.65.232.9 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per WP:FRINGE, we can't definitively state that something supernatural happened - in Wikipedia's voice. "Claim" is appropriate for WP:REDFLAG statements. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy now? "claimed" is not as neutral as "said". 79.65.232.9 (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Claimed" is appropriate for extraordinary claims. WP is not WP:NOTNEUTRAL when it comes to fringe topics. I see you've been blocked for extensive sock puppetry, but I'll leave it to others if they choose to revert your edits here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concluded, claimed, revealed or showed 

message: Did anyone ever tried to look for the death entry or obituary of William Wilkins? Not much is known about him, not even when he died. Gyurika (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilkins 

message: @User:Acampbell70: John Beloff says: "John Beloff (19 April 1920 – 1 June 2006) was a psychology professor at Edinburgh University and parapsychologist."
So where does this edit commentary come from? "Neither Gregory nor Beloff were professors. Gregory was a lecturer in psychology; Beloff was an architect" --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Beloff was definitely in the psychology department at Edinburgh University, according to obits:  Can't tell if Gregory got a degree from Oxford or not:  - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beloff 

message: I've trimmed back some of the recently added WP:UNDUE weight on supernatural claims sourced to WP:SENSATIONAL and unserious coverage, which even reliable sources such as BBC radio can sometimes indulge in. Wikipedia's not neutral regarding WP:FRINGE concepts such as demonic possession, poltergeists, etc. so we really can't give equal validity to claims that believers have made, or label things that are explainable as "unexplained". - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia looks to high quality academic sources for opinions on topics such as child psychology. The worst kind of source for such information would be a BBC radio interview alone, much less one with an unserious WP:SENSATIONAL angle. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Radio program

message: Are the girls 13 and 11, 14 and 11, 14 and 12, or something else. Spiel (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: Regarding this edit, skepticalaboutskeptics.org is not considered a reliable source. There isn't any "controversy" that would require balance in any case. Playfair made extraordinary claims, those claims were criticized. His rebuttal of "well what about X, Y, and Z, you didn't cover those" isn't notable in any 3rd party sources. @Cjore: I understand your intention to "balance" the material, however Wikpedia is WP:NOTNEUTRAL regarding extraordinary claims that supernatural entities can be proven to exist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  skepticalaboutskeptics.org