Talk:Bell Witch

message: Are there any know references to the Bell Witch phenomenon from the actual time they allegedly occurred (1817-1820) or immediately thereafter?  Or is all such documentation from much later in the century? 98.221.137.91 (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: At the time...

message: The hauntings took place between 1817 and 1820, yet the first documentation of the event came in 1887, 70 years afterward, when nearly every possible witness was dead?  Who's to say this wasn't just some story made up by a random author which snow-balled into a classic folktale?
: Well that's the fun of folktales, is it not? nut-meg 06:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will want to sign your comments. Consider creating a new section at the bottom of the talk page for any edit consideration. Dunning's article meets reliable source criteria. Our opinions as editors are immaterial. As far as Darden's memory, Lafayette was in Clarksvile at a different time of year than what she recalled decades later. Fact checking Darden's memory is well beyond the scope of the article.  Kintpuash (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Skeptoid media is a non-profit with a sizable staff.https://skeptoid.org/people The Skeptoid article was written in 2008. The majority of pre-Ingram sources were added in late 2016 through 2017. I was the editor who added them, and consequently cognizant of the Skeptoid article's limitations. In regard to another edit made in the last 24 hours, the introduction needs no citations as it is a summary of the body where there are citations. Removing lede text because it is "unsourced" is not a valid reason. Kintpuash (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I have a clearer head this morning I can start looking though this. Reading through Bhutlah comments I get the feeling that Bhutlah is doing original research and feels that they are an "expert" on the Bell Witch. Wikipedia does not allow us mere editors to insert our own research into an article, we have to cite what the notable experts publish on the subject. We can not dismiss a notable expert just because something new has come to light, or because we do not agree. To counter that you will need another citation from another notable expert. Dunning is quoted and cited as the information coming from Dunning, we don't state it as fact, but that this is what the notable expert is saying based on the research that was done, and Dunning cites his sources. Sgerbic (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Bhutlah - I stopped reading after this first sentence "I am in no way claiming to be an "expert" but I am going back to the original source material." You obviously do not understand how Wikipedia works and you didn't fully understand my post from yesterday. Wikipedia DOES NOT allow original primary sources to be used by us mere editors. Only people who are notable in this area can do that. And then we cite THEM. We do not get to go back to the original source and do research and then cite that. YOU are not a notable expert but are acting like one. This is NOT allowed. If there are issues with Dunning's research then other experts will notice and write about that and then we can cite that in the article. It will look like this "Dunning says this this and this, but expert XYZ writes that Dunning did not take into account YZE or ZEA and based on that Dunning is incorrect with his statement about this". And using words like "slander" as you have here is not okay. "He slanders primary sources without reason". You don't get to make that statement, we don't know who you are, what your motives are and with what authority you feel you can write that. You appear to be a single purpose editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account which is a major red-flag. Since you created this account on August 2nd you have only edited the Bell Witch page. You have not created a talk page for your account which means you don't seem to be interested in discussion and hanging around to better Wikipedia. You do not understand the rules of Wikipedia as has been demonstrated over and over and yet you think it's okay to force your opinion onto Wikipedia because you have a computer and a Internet connection. You obviously have a passion for this, and we need more people like that, BUT I strongly suggest that before you continue down this path, you start at the beginning and learn the rules and nuances of Wikipedia before you just barge in. Start with small edits, start with things you don't have an emotional attachment to. Start by doing a lot of reading of talk pages, listening and asking questions and listening to the answers. I started out in 2008 just like you, believing that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" but not understanding that it might not remain. I managed to pull myself back right before I got banned, and I learned over the years and I'm still learning. I would be writing all this to you on your TALK page and not on the Bell Witch Talk page, but you haven't set up a talk page so I can't. I know I sound annoyed and am a little - but as I said I have been here before. If you find you have questions in the future you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page and I will help. Sgerbic (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  To follow up on Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia certainly allows primary sources and there are a fair number of them in the article. What we can't do as editors is draw conclusions or analyze those primary sources. They must stand alone unless another reliable source has something to say about it. In the Andrew Jackson section for instanve, the text gives a neutral summary of the Yancey letter. There are interpretations from various reliable sources that follow. Interpreting Dunning's article as in contradiction to the primary sources in the article is certainly not something we can do as editors. I agree, in the absence of another argument, that removing the text paraphrasing Dunning's perspective based on primary sources in use in the article, is a violation of that principle. Without that firewall, Wikipedia would be full of nonsense. Kintpuash (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  To follow up on Wikipedia policy - as stated by Kintpuash Wikipedia 100% allows primary sources. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary But moving back to Dunning and his contradiciton of primary sources we as editors are also 100% allowed to question the reliability of a source or else Wikipedia would be filled with whatever anybody wanted. Let's take a few quotes from wikipedias Applying reliability guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Applying_reliability_guidelines and Wikipedia's Reliable source guidelines by subject area -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Advice_by_subject_area When looking at the criteria of the reliability of a source "the first criteria is that there is editorial oversight"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Applying_reliability_guidelines Skeptoid fails this test as there is no indication that the website has editorial oversight. To be considered a reliable source they need provide information on how they go about their review process as is typically given in peer review journals and News organizations. Linking to page that shows the employees of an organization is not the same as showing editorial oversight or showing their process of editorial review. As noted in the second paragraph of reliability "What matters is the fact-checking process."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Applying_reliability_guidelines And we have zero information of this process from Skeptiod ergo making them an unreliable source. OK but A source can still be considered reliable without revealing their process IF "Even if a source reveals nothing about its processes, a track record of issuing corrections is evidence that a fact-checking process exists and functions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Applying_reliability_guidelines Skeptoid does not have a history of issuing corrections. Following upon the same lines and within the same section:  "This is particularly true if a source consistently fails to update or correct breaking news, while others do."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Applying_reliability_guidelines The Dunning article has failed to update itself in the two years that new information has been available. Finally, "The overriding concern however is whether the source engages in effective fact checking."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Applying_reliability_guidelines So, yes! Looking at an article and determining if it has engaged in effective fact checking is within the purview of an editor. Lets continue to the section titled Editorial Discretion: where it clearly states that "editors are meant to interrogate their sources. . .The best way to handle a dubious source is often to highlight contrasting information"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Applying_reliability_guidelines And this is exactly what I did - I highlighted contrasting information. When statements from Dunning in article exist such as: "According to Brian Dunning no one has ever seen this diary, and there is no evidence that it ever existed" such a statement is an example of claims without support. Under conflict between sources (such as the conflict between what Dunning claims and what Ingram wrote) The kind of exceptional claims Dunning makes require exceptional sources (such as Ingram never spoke to anybody with firsthand or secondhand knowledge of the events, that the Bell Diary never existed, Ingram falsified documents, Ingram made up the story about Andrew Jackson, etc.). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources All of this points to Dunning not being a good source. Yes, there needs to criticism and skepticism of the events but such skepticism needs be backed up by facts and sources that meet Wikipedia's definitions of reliabilty. Bhutlah (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Skeptoid media, as currently configured, has an Advisory Council and a Board of Directors. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt they have an editorial process. How Skeptoid was organized in 2008 is unknown to me. As far as retractions, I think Skeptoid is on less sure footing. I'm aware of a couple of occasions Skeptoid has issued a correction, but I think an argument can made a correction is difficult to acquire. Let's say, for the sake of argument, Skeptoid is a dubious aource. Without removing the source, the best way to approach it is contrast. The article already does this, e.g. linking a reprint of a Saturday Evening Post article and providing identities of people alive at the time of the purported events. These sources are not contrasted in immediate proximity within the article, but that is neither a requirement not necessarily desired for narrative flow. Kintpuash (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reading the argument here, I need to interject: as a regular listener of Skeptoid, I must point out that periodically Dunning does a corrections episode. In these he answers email about perceived errors in previous episodes brought to his attention since the episode was released. And when he admits making a mistake, or being unclear, he says that the transcript page has been updated to reflect the new info (though I believe the audio version remains unchanged.) RobP (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the clarification. I don't think it is reasonable to expect correction in the audio portion which would be laborious and expensive. Kintpuash (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

text: And there is no reason to attack me for this being a new account. My old account was through an .edu address I no longer have access to. For several years I have made changes without an account but thought it was time to get a new one. There are other pages I have helped curate over the years but this is where I started with this one. Due to the high level of contention on my replacing factually incorrect statements (such as the the song sung after John Bell's passing) and removing unreliable sources I have not had the chance to move on to those other pages yet. Creating new accounts and editing is a thing.Bhutlah (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are sources that describe the witch as singing songs as in plural. I'll check to see if the text in those sections reflects the source used. If another source can used, we can change the source and text so they match. The Death of John Bell has a longer contrast section in the 1880 Centennial text. I'm not sure it is worthwhile to expand the Synopsis section to repeat the text later. The Synopsis section is the weakest, imo. A random assortment of sources are used to give the general reader a sense of the legend. The nature of a legend is resistant to factual checking as the story is dependent on the teller. Meanwhile, the legend is vast, and the section doesn't cover a fraction of the stories. It does however cover, imo, the main highlights and gives a sense of scale to what the spirit was capable. Kintpuash (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

text:  Made a preliminary edit to add the Brandy song within the Darden paragraoh. The link to "songs" within the Synopsis was dead. While I edited the dead link to replace it, the link is replicated in the external links section. This is bad form, I think, to link twice. Either a new source for that section of the Synopsis text could be found that replicated or expands what is there, or alternatively the external link removed. I think the TN government link is a fine addition as an external link, as it succinctly summarizes the legend and something of an improvement on current Synopsis narratuve with additional detail. Kintpuash (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Agree that Skeptoid is a WP:RS and quite appropriate for this article to cite. On Wikipedia, Skeptoid has generally been considered a WP:RS for articles whose topics fall under the WP:FRINGE guidelines (and claims that a witch with vast supernatural powers existed are definitely fringe). If the OP wishes to continue arguing that Skeptoid is not a WP:RS, then I suggest they bring it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentation

message: What is with the spirit names? Mathematics seems like a retarded name for anyone, let alone a ghost, and Cypocraphy isn't even a word.
: Very nicely said!
Kate Batts was not the only spirit, but there were two others. Their names were "Blackdog" and "Jerusalem"
71.115.244.65 (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spirit Names

message: Yes, and? What were the events you mentioned?DS 17:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete?

message: This page is incredibly frustrating, the most noticeable problem being how many of the statements made in the Legend section are directly re-iterated in the Analysis section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.211.202 (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repitition

message: The Middle Tennessee Skeptics analysis of the Bell Witch legend is based on actual research of the available evidence. Mis-labeling it as a "statement" or "opinion piece" is deliberately misleading POV. --Centauri 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: False.  If you read it, the person did zero research.  They read other peoples books and then made statements about how they didn't like what they read. They have no credibility, they are not published.  Its a personal website nothing more.  Its the work of one single person. This is not a WP:RS. Wjhonson 07:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not remove links that you don't agree with. The site represents a valid analysis of the legend, and shows that the ludicrous claims made by supports are false and almost entirely without foundation. --Centauri 08:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to repeat myself one more time - do not persist in removing valid links from this article as a way of insidiously promoting the witch legend POV. --Centauri 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In keeping with WP:RS please cite where the work of this skeptic (or group) has been published or noted in some previously published, third-party, reliable source unaffiliated with the skeptic themselves.  If it has not, then it's not a valid source for wikipurposes. Wjhonson 02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skeptical analysis

message: At the present this article is little more than a totally uncritical, slack-jawed and rather confused retelling of a well-known ghost story - and I make that statement as the original creator of the article. In order to ensure this article complies with Wikipedia WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V policies a major re-write is called for, and central to that is a proper relation of the legend as it is told by Pat Fitzhugh, who is the leading supporter of the "paranormal" origins theory. I've now started adding this, and invite other thoughts and contributions that will help in this process. --Centauri 01:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And whenever anyone criticizes your style which is completely and totally lacking in citations for one thing, you revert them.  Nice double-standard. Wjhonson 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to persist in attempting to insidiously vandalise the article by removing or adding POV comments designed to suggest that no explanation other than the paranormal is an acceptable inclusion, then you are naturally going to find that people will revert you. Welcome to the real world kiddo. --Centauri 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have no concept of what I was or wasn't doing.  I'm trying to get you to cite your sources and use WP:RS instead of personal websites. Wjhonson 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for a major overhaul

message: According to WP:External Links
3. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.) 
4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article. 
For those reasons, I believe that http://mtskeptics.homestead.com/BellWitch.html is worthwhile keeping in the External Links section. Englishrose 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And those sites should not be cited as sources. Wjhonson 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless they happen to agree with Wjhonson's POV, of course. --Centauri 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a POV.  I'm like a blank slate.  Doesn't change the fact that the skeptic site is a personal webpage and as such not a WP:RS. Wjhonson 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This article tells the story of a legend. Whether or not the events actually happened is not provable and not really relevant. Since it is classified as mythology, legend, and  folklore, most people know to take it with a clear head. Whether or not people choose to believe it is not the concern of this article. A while back, this article was riddled with weasel words. Every other word was "allegedly" and "supposedly" and yada yada yada. It was one "skeptic" attempting to convince everyone to believe as they did. This is not the point of the article. The point is to tell the story. It took some work to get it back to an acceptable quality article. There can certainly be a "criticism" section. However, it cannot be original research. This is not my policy, nor is it the policy of anyone else that edits this article. It is a Wikipedia policy. A skepticism or criticism section should have some point besides just debunking the obvious. Otherwise we'd have to do the same to every other article on mythology and folklore. Are we going to go to the Paul Bunyan article and insert disclaimers and skeptical analysis and "proof" that he never existed? No. That would be stupid. If people believe the legend that is their business. The business of Wikipedia is to inform people of the legend. nut-meg (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: In the Analysis section, one of the sources is Our Family Trouble, written by Richard William Bell.  Later, we are told that this book was written thirty years after the events described, which puts it at 1858 or so.  But we are also told that an 1886 book is the earliest publication of the Bell Witch story.
Now maybe Bell's diary was never published, so that the later book really is the first published account.  But if that's the case, it would be nice to explicitly say so.  As it is, I found the text confusing. Phiwum 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I've researched the Bell Witch for years and I have never heard of the 1887 publication. I'd like to find a copy of it and have a look for myself. The earliest publication I know of is the 1894 M V Ingram book, which I have a copy of. It is curious that the 1887 article calls John Bell "Garry Bell". I have to wonder if it isn't a fake. nut-meg 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit unclear on the publications... 

message: This page is extremely biased, and the worst part is it seems to be biased towards different opinions in different parts of the article. While I agree that the paranormal should not be given as the "true" conclusion, the article actually has bias towards saying that the legend is a fabrication. The tone is more or less that of "a lot of people believe in the bell witch hauntings, but it is simply superstition." It should be given more or less as "Group A believes that the Bell Witch Hauntings actually occurred, while Group B believes it is a fabrication and/or superstitious," with Group A and Group B being defined explicitly, and not simply "some people say this and others say this." Although some science minds might believe that a scientific view of the topic should be viewed as fact the truth is many people believe that the legend is true and therefore we must assume a NPOV. Irregardless, the bulk of the article should be giving information about the legend, and not arguing with itself about whether the events actually occurred. As far as this content is concerned, I do believe that it gives good information but the article should touch on other versions of the legend. Finally I must say that the link in question that has created a sort of edit battle is a valid link, since it is accepted by some people as fact and therefore constitutes a valid opinion, although I wonder whether a website that advocates a NPOV would be better served linking to pages that also hold a NPOV.
*No.  The point of the links are to display what can not be on the page.  Such as original research, or a non NPOV.69.213.70.93 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wiki clearly asks us not to cite original research.
*The problem is that this page should not be about whether or not the hauntings really happened. It should be about the legend itself. There is really no reasonable question that something happened. What caused it is where the debate should be. I've heard a lot of interesting skeptical theories, as well as a lot of wonderful stories about the legend. There is no reason for this article, and this talk page to be so contentious. nut-meg 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: Please Name Specific Person or Group Tags appear several times, even when a person or given or when it makes no sence. I am removing these, as I believe they are vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I've removed a lot of the weaselyness in the "Legend" section. I've also temporarily removed the "Skeptical Analysis" section until I can find better researced articles. nut-meg 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul In Progress 

message: Hmm, my revert note didn't seem to go through to the history page, but I did revert it. There's a series of three edits in a row from the same IP, all vandalism, so the version from before that has been restored. The Nixinator 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: I've read the Bell property is still intact and now owned by a trust, and the Bell home is still standing. Anybody else know more about this? Where does it stand? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The home was a log home and it is not standing. There is a replica of the Bell home near Bell Witch Cave. There is also a house nearby that is a small cabin that was originally on the Bell property, but I can't remember if it is a replica or not. That one is in front of a commercial property. I haven't seen the replica house. I think it has been built since I went there several years ago. I'm pretty sure when I went the property was divided up and owned by several families. I know the cave is now on the National Register of Historic Places. Some of it could be owned by a trust now but I kind of doubt all of it is. nut-meg (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bell home?

message: An IMDb page (not the best source!) says "Andrew Jackson is quoted as saying, "I would rather take on the entire English Fleet than stay one night at the Bell House." He later formed a group of men to test the rumors of the Bell haunting. Their findings are documented in M. V. Ingram's 1894 book, An Authenticated History of The Famous Bell Witch."  This article states "No mention of the Bell Witch was ever made by Jackson in any of his letters, journals or papers, however."  Which is correct? Шизомби (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Jackson? 

message: I have removed the contents of the following box:
 
It is not acceptable in an article in its current form. It is introduced with a citation for a specific work, to wit:
: ...earliest written account is in the Goodspeed History of Tennessee published in 1887 by Goodspeed Publishing. No author is given. Page 833... 
That citation may only be offered by an editor who has seen the work, and for a direct quotation like this, copied it verbatim et literatim (or correspondingly compared someone else's transcription against the work).  The passage as quoted clearly has two voices, the predominant voice and voice of the italicized and parenthesized portion. There are three obvious interpretations of this:
# The quoted passage was corrupted in a WP edit different from the one that introduced the quote into the article (and misrepresents the source). If true, that can be determined from the edit history.
# The passage is not drawn from the stated source, but from a secondary source based on the stated source, which presumably says (of the "main voice" text) that it came from the stated source. In that case we have a false quote, falsely attributed.
# The quote accurately represents part of the stated source's text, which is incoherant (by not explaining what it means by using two voices), or explains the two voices but has been effectively misquoted by omitting context necessary to preserving its meaning.
Each of the three would violate our standards. This needs to be explained, and fixed, before the hole i left can be filled.--Jerzy•t 08:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed quote 

message: I think there is an issue with one of the links. The first link, to the site maintained by the Middle Tennessee Skeptics review of the legend, is a good site to have, in theory.  I think having a good site that can delve into the legend to try and verify it, rather than assuming it is true, is an important asset.  However, after looking through it for several hours, the author/s psychoanalyze and diagnose the people involved in the legend (something which cannot and should not be done by a layperson, and especially not 150 years later), the author/s make hard statements of falsehood based on a variety of erroneous assumptions and "investigation" (for example, it is stated that there is no media reporting of this widely known event, yet the author/s fail to note that the one Tennessee paper, published in the adjoining country, that was publishing at that time rarely reported local events - The history of the Leaf Chronicle), and then, the least significant issue, but still important in a site such as this, is the poor writing, i.e. there is a lot of misspelling.  So, I don't know if it should be deleted (and perhaps a new investigative site found) or if there should be a warning of non-impartiality.  Thoughts??  Kkiely (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: This article is tagged as an article about animal cruelty. Why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorhook.thepirate (talk • contribs) 07:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is original research, and not really suitable for a wikipedia article. However, we've been back and forth with the author for a few years now and it seems to just go round and round. nut-meg (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal Cruelty

message: I remember watching a Travel Channel television show titled "Night Visitors" that included the Bell Witch as their starting story. It talks about a cave near Adams, TN where people say they hear strange noises and feel demonic/evil presences there yet today.  The show calls it the "Bell Cave" currently owned (well the land the cave is on) by a couple that claims they hear growls, screams, and evil noises from the cave.  The show also said that during the time of the "Bell Witch" haunting the Bell family, a little boy accidentally got his head stuck between two rocks in the cave (which was located on the northern end of the farm).  After the boy had yelled for some time, the entire cave lit up and invisible hands tugged at his legs.  His head was freed and he was pulled all the way back to the cave entrance by the witch.  How true this all is I can't say but it was on that Travel Channel show.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.71.195 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cave mentioned in Travel Channel show? 

message: Reading through all the comments here on the talk page, it is obvious that the page needs help.  I've been doing some research and think there are a lot of new good sources that have been published since the talk page comments from 2007-2009. There is a single-source flag from 2010 here also.  
In case someone is going to be adding anything in the next day or so, don't please.  Let me have my way with this page (as my user page) and hopefully everyone will be happy with my revision.  If not you can always discuss the changes here.  Sgerbic (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done with it.  Happy Halloween all, tweak it to your hearts content.  Sgerbic (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a rewrite 

message: There are many references in the special collections library (rare books) at the University of Tennessee that are not included in this article. Among them are the first telling of the story by Harriet Parks Miller in 1859  
	
The Bell witch of Middle Tennessee
Harriet Parks Miller 1852 or 3-1935.
Clarksville, Tenn., Leaf-Chronicle 1930
Available at Special Collections (UT) Rare Books (BF1578.B4 M5 ) 
As well as (and I can not believe it was not included in this article) the book by Charles Bailey Bell, 
A mysterious spirit,
Charles Bailey Bell 1869-
Nashville, Tenn., C. Elder 1972
Available at Hodges Library Stacks (BF1473.B37 B4 1934a ) 
Brent Monahan's recounting:
 	
The Bell witch : an American haunting : being the eye witness account of Richard Powell concerning the Bell witch haunting of Robertson County, Tennessee 1817-1821
Brent Monahan 1948-
and Gladys Barr (1905)
Add to e-Shelf 	
The Bell witch at Adams,
Gladys H. Barr (Gladys Hutchison), 1905-
Nashville, D. Hutchison Pub. Co. 1969 [1st ed.].
Available at Special Collections (UT) Rare Books (BF1578.B4 B3 ) 
This article needs serious updating.
Soswalt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.4.173.229 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is incorrect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bell Witch. 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/20130704095636/http://www.bellwitch.org:80/biographies/johnbell.htm to http://www.bellwitch.org/biographies/johnbell.htm#ftn2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041217031633/http://www.bellwitch.org:80/ to http://www.bellwitch.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bell Witch. 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/20041217031633/http://www.bellwitch.org/ to http://www.bellwitch.org/
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) 12:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified