Talk:Ed and Lorraine Warren/Archive 1

Archive 1

Personal Life

I am thinking of adding a personal life section. Some of the information in the introduction seems like it could go in a personal life section instead. Joleeb (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Early Life

Lorraine and Ed Warren met in 1943, when Lorraine was 16 and Ed was 17. They met when Lorraine went to see a James Cagney movie with friends. Ed was an usher at the movie theatre, and soon deployed to the Navy. In 1945, Ed and Lorraine married while he was home on leave. Ed was a police officer until he began to do paranormal investigations with Lorraine full time.

<ref>https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=nysl_me_pml&id=GALE%7CA583124799&v=2.1&it=r&sid=ebsco/ref>

<ref> https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0912814/ /ref>

Controversial

I note with interest that the term 'controversial' was removed from the description of the Warren's and their activities. How anyone can not see the Warrens as controversial is in itself controversial. The Warren's entire career is built upon a subject that is itself highly controversial.94.9.27.43 (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

• • • OPINION

This article needs a good impartial edit. The writer was obviously biased against the subjects.

Fixing this and other notes

The page mentions that with regards to the Amity ville Horror case... "Though the case has never truly been proved false, these alleged events would become the basis for the 1977 best-selling book The Amity ville Horror and a 1979 movie of the same name."

The onus on proof is on that of the people making the claim that the Amity ville case is a real case of demonic possession. I'm changing this and other entries to reflect this.

Note

Although Ed and Lorraine did accept money from their many books and lectures, they never accepted money from the people, organizations or institutions who sought them out, not even for travel or other expenses incurred in order to get to help. Yes, they absolutely helped people dealing with paranormal activity for free. They made this their life's work. They are pioneers in paranormal research thus, experts in the field. As with other experts who lecture or sell books, they were able to support themselves from their hard work however, Ed and Lorraine lived a modest lifestyle in their humble home in Connecticut.--Oilda 20:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

An online source

I concur that there's neutrality issues. I found this http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/articles/demonology/wannabeademonologist.html, and wonder if there is some material there that is worth investigating further, specifically "He was the only layman recognized as a demonology by the Catholic Church and was respected for that title" This should be easily verifiable, or disproved 66.93.203.199 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reader's Warning: This article has been planted.

This is not an objective biography of the Warrens. The writer of this article (going by the name Lovecraft) has a personal antipathy to the Ed and Lorraine Warren which goes back over a decade. Both the language and the references are skewed to vilify the subjects. It is simply written in a pseudo-objective style which has fooled the censors at Wikipedia.Time rover (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Could you please sight specific issues with this article in a constructive manner in such a way that the article can be corrected. If you would like to make a formal WP:NPOV complaint, please add a message to the main article and sight here your evidence so that we can make this article correctly NPOV. Hampton (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • After a closer read, its pretty clear that this article does have WP:NPOV problems. I will investigate ways to correct this. Hampton (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It appears that this article still has the remnants of the POV issue from before: It seems to be in need of some proper reference material to balance it out. bwmcmaste (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

• I have added a multiple issues tag to this article. There are only two reference sources, the content is rather paltry, and it could use some updating and grammatical correction. It would be great if someone could get some biographical information on the Warrens and add it to the article (with citations). bwmcmaste (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The not-so-neutral talk here

This article is an amazing example of neutrality. If anything, it lacks critical analysis, that would be needed with a subject as controversial as this. There's not even reference to psychological explanations or fraud and con-artist tricks. The fact, that despite the amazing lack of critic, you still find this kind of "oh this is all biased"-complains in the talk section pretty much tells me: They may very well be frauds, since thats the way to market: Attack instead of defend.

Just look at stuff like this: "The writer of this article (going by the name Lovecraft) has a personal antipathy to the Ed and Lorraine Warren which goes back over a decade." It's impossible to provide a better proof of you're lack of neutrality, than blurting out an accusation, without any proof or even refrence. Even ignoring the fact that Wikipedia articles always have multiple Authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.12.109 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• The MOST recent discussion on this page is two years old. The particular post you quote is from 2009. In reading the article, I would say that the complaints (another editor agreed with the one you quoted) have most likely been addressed by now, and no more recent complaints of bias have been posted since. Further, your complaint consists of almost exactly the tactic you complain about: "Attack instead of defend." You conclude that "[t]hey may very well be frauds" with no citations or evidence, based on four-year-old complaints that the former version of this article was biased. I believe you are flogging a dead horse, and with a thin whip at that. Jororo05 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Grammar error on introduction

This line contains very poor grammar: Paranormal researchers Joe Nickell and Ben Radford cast doubt that the more famous hauntings, Amityville and the Snedeker's did not happen and were "invented".

I shouldn't have to explain why, it's probably clearly apparent to most. However the writer has used "cast doubt" over whether incidents "did not happen" which makes no sense grammatically. It should be "cast doubt over whether incidents HAPPENED".

10,000 cases

I restored "claimed to" to "They claimed to have investigated over 10,000 cases during their career." after it was removed as a typo. Clearly it is not a typo, but I considered leaving it out under WP:CLAIM. I left it in based on the several sourced mentions of concerns over the couple's investigations. Meters (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ed and Lorraine Warren. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mmdnewswire.com/brors-sue-world-fmous-psychic-lorrine-wrren-for-flse-ccustis-in-devil-book-2347-2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070507112948/http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-62312.html to http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-62312.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"Skeptics"

Skeptics Perry DeAngelis and Steven Novella have investigated the Warrens' evidence and described it as "blarney". Skeptical investigators Joe Nickell and Ben Radford concluded that the more famous hauntings, Amityville and the Snedeker family haunting, did not happen and had been invented.

Why is this view attributed to specific people? The vast majority of people writing about this (and readers, and editors) do not believe in ghosts. If there's more to say about them, like "they found out X was faked" then fine, but just saying that some people were skeptical is redundant. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

what would be needed was looking at the citations for these skeptics and digging deeper on why they feel the way they do on the Warrens' claims 104.169.19.227 (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, we're obligated to "affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea", and WP:INTEXT attribution of commentary by DeAngelis, Novella and Radford is appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2019

I would like to fix grammar and organize the Warren's cases and elaborate on their involvement with them Tiasocci (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

​With your last edit you automatically became autoconfirmed and you can now edit the page. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tiasocci, Joleeb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

December 2019

We really can't have the article text state in WPs voice that demons attacked people, "children got sick and were raped by a spirit" etc. It really needs an NPOV tone and attribution ("According to so-and-so...") when describing such over-the-top extraordinary claims. I reverted to an earlier version [1]so the student editor can start fresh. Apologies to whoever was making spelling and grammar corrections, I hope they can sort things out. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely, and while I have restored all my spelling, grammar, and structuring corrections throughout the article – which I'm shocked were even there to begin with – I have removed said "were raped by a spirit" bit. Also, does the actual Smurl haunting article have the same problems? If not, perhaps we can pull minor details from there. More than willing to work to make this better; I'd just appreciate if all my work correcting aforementiond material was not removed with the revert. – Cartoon Boy (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You did a lot more then that, putting into Wikipedias voice their claims.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

OK I just noticed what was being cited. "theonematrix.com" is not a WP:RS, and this is a fanciful promotion, it's not a WP:FRIND source. Sorry, this wasn't "making the article better". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Basically there is a lot wrong with your massive text change. I suggest you make a case by case, case, here. Explain why each addition or subtraction is an improvement. Then waiting for wp:consensus before making the change.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It may be the problematic edits were mostly made by the student editor who posted the malformed Edit Request above, and Cartoon Boy inadvertently reinstated them. I left a Talk page message for the student editor here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

paranormal

does annabelle exist or not?😕 Vvaneee (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The doll itself does exist.--Chuka Chief (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a Raggedy Ann doll that the Warrens claim was involved in a haunting/possession, but there is no supporting evidence for this claim. The doll from the movies is inspired by this story, but the design and all the details were made up for the movie.

See wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)