Talk:Watseka Wonder/Archive 1
Blogs
editThe sources on this article I think are unreliable. First off, there appears to be personal websites and a wiki that focuses on fringe theories that is open for editing by the public. I question that wiki and believe it to be fan-based and unreliable. Phearson (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I concur. --Strikerforce (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Edwards, Frank. Strange People, London, Pan Books Ltd, 1966. pp126-133.
- Myers, F.W.H. Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death, New York, University Books, 1961 (1903). Pp66-72
- St. Clair, David. Child Possessed. London, Corgi. 1979. (Published in U.S. in 1977 as Watseka)
- Shirley, R. The Problem of Rebirth. London, Rider &Co. 1936, pp90-95.
- Wilson, Colin. Poltergeist! Sevenoaks, Kent, New English Library, 1981, pp71-3.--Navid1366 (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Navid1366: so now use them in citations! Agree with Phearson and Strikerforce. I looked in vain for reliable {{cite web}} references, and rejected every one that is now included in the article as references. It would seem most of them wouldn't be satisfactory as extermal links. There's still a great little article in there - I can see a DYK here with enough work. --Shirt58 (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- you can read the pamphlet of Dr stevenson online and this is on of the mos reliable sources for this articleNavid1366 (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is great, but if it is going to be used as a reference, it needs to be included as an inline citation. Strikerforce (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- you can read the pamphlet of Dr stevenson online and this is on of the mos reliable sources for this articleNavid1366 (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Navid1366: so now use them in citations! Agree with Phearson and Strikerforce. I looked in vain for reliable {{cite web}} references, and rejected every one that is now included in the article as references. It would seem most of them wouldn't be satisfactory as extermal links. There's still a great little article in there - I can see a DYK here with enough work. --Shirt58 (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this article in the AfD lineup, and while the subject may have notability, the article appears to be entirely cited to sources that are uniformly credulous or not independent of the subject. Mysteriouspeople.com, weird-people.com, prairieghosts.com, and redpill.dailygrail.com are not objective or reliable sources for facts. Roffhome.com and urls citing "The Religio-Philosophical Journal" are headlined as pushing "America's first documented case of spiritual possession". The result is Wikipedia's voice treating various spiritualist "investigations" as facts and publishing extraordinary claims such as the individual in question "described distant locations of which she had no previous knowledge and experience". As time permits I'll see if I can find reliable independent sources and clean out the unreliable ones. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- i has mentioned the source of Dr Stevensons and you can call it an independent source.--Navid1366 (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I must be blind today. Can you point out the "Dr Stevensons" source you're referring to? Also...I noticed most of the books you suggested above for sources are either fiction (St. Clair, David. Child Possessed), treat the subject credulously/sensationally (Edwards, Wilson) or are by writers promoting the spiritualist POV of "survival of bodily death" (Myers, Shirley). What I mean by an "independent" reliable sources are, for example, folklorists and sociologists and other academics who are typically not writing books with UFO's and skulls on the cover or trying to persuade the reader that psychic phenomena exist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You made disappointed.for over a day i had discussed about Dr stevensons and his works with Strikerforce and Phearson and my sources made them satisfy and i do not have enough time to detail all of our discussion again for you.if just look at the referencess like archive.org or Further reading sections you will be satisfied too .If you want to get more information about this article you can go to archive.org then download Dr stevenson pamphlet about personality disorder (about 70 pages),read it and then if it was not verifiable and was worthless ,your idea about deletion is true.remember we all try to expand knowledge for domain public and mus not do something else against it.--Navid1366 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind, I moved your response on my Talk page here to keep the discussion centralized. OK, I see the "Dr. Stevens" material you were referring to. I feel that we shouldn't be using sources from the 1880s that are clearly Spiritualist in nature and especially ones that take the POV that the subject is a "Well Authenticated Instance of Angelic Visitation" [1], unless of course we put them in context of "what Spiritualists wrote/claim". Are there any more contemporary reliable sources available? For example, even the local news story about the television feature treats the subject objectively as "claims" rather than fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- You made disappointed.for over a day i had discussed about Dr stevensons and his works with Strikerforce and Phearson and my sources made them satisfy and i do not have enough time to detail all of our discussion again for you.if just look at the referencess like archive.org or Further reading sections you will be satisfied too .If you want to get more information about this article you can go to archive.org then download Dr stevenson pamphlet about personality disorder (about 70 pages),read it and then if it was not verifiable and was worthless ,your idea about deletion is true.remember we all try to expand knowledge for domain public and mus not do something else against it.--Navid1366 (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- The possessed (2009 film)--91.99.36.162 (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)