Ghughesarch (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
{{od}}People such as yourselves who believe in the reality of poltergeists are not [[WP:CIR|competent enough]] to be editing Wikipedia. If you cannot answer a straightforward question about whether or not it has been showed that this hoax is a hoax, then I'm afraid you do not have the cognitive skills to be contributing to a reference site such as this. [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) |
{{od}}People such as yourselves who believe in the reality of poltergeists are not [[WP:CIR|competent enough]] to be editing Wikipedia. If you cannot answer a straightforward question about whether or not it has been showed that this hoax is a hoax, then I'm afraid you do not have the cognitive skills to be contributing to a reference site such as this. [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) |
||
: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.[[User:Ghughesarch|Ghughesarch]] ([[User talk:Ghughesarch|talk]]) 19:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
: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.[[User:Ghughesarch|Ghughesarch]] ([[User talk:Ghughesarch|talk]]) 19:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
::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. [[User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|jps]] ([[User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc|talk]]) 20:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:21, 3 August 2015
Paranormal Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
London Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Marbles
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)
Anita Gregory
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)
Concluded, claimed, revealed or showed
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
"Interviewed by the London Daily Mail (Brennan 2011), Janet at age forty-five (living in Essex with her husband, a retired milkman) admitted that she and her sister had faked some of the phenomena. “I’d say 2 percent,” she admitted. The evidence suggests that this figure is closer to 100 percent". Is that clear enough for you? jps (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- ETA: Also note that Ghughesarch has explicitly supported my edit.- MrX 18:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid my support won't count for much with jps. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- The source clearly shows that the case is a hoax. Does anyone deny this? jps (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The source clearly shows that the case is a hoax. Does anyone deny this? jps (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid my support won't count for much with jps. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- ETA: Also note that Ghughesarch has explicitly supported my edit.- MrX 18:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
People such as yourselves who believe in the reality of poltergeists are not competent enough to be editing Wikipedia. If you cannot answer a straightforward question about whether or not it has been showed that this hoax is a hoax, then I'm afraid you do not have the cognitive skills to be contributing to a reference site such as this. jps (talk)
- 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)