Jump to content

Talk:Exorcism of Roland Doe: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,007,894 edits
 
(274 intermediate revisions by 53 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{annual readership}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(31d)
|archive = Talk:Exorcism of Roland Doe/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 2
|maxarchivesize = 70K
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 6
}}
{{Notice|{{find}}}}
{{Notice|{{find}}}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Doe, Roland, Exorcism of|
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=start|importance=low|lutheranism=yes|catholicism=yes}}
{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Maryland|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Occult|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{archives|banner=yes}}


== Unreliable Sources ==
== Article protection ==
Simply adding more poor references does not improve the reliability of the existing references. This article is in desperate need of a major slash and burn to remove the completely credulous POV claims. Most of the article is sourced from "Good Spirits, Bad Spirits: How to Distinguish Between Them", "A faraway ancient country", "Paranormal Experiences" and "Possessed: the true story of an exorcism", these are opinion pieces or works of fiction and not suitable at all as sources for a wiki article. please see [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources]] and do not remove the template without discussing your understanding of the subject here. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 00:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
:The article discusses the exorcism from a Christian point of view and has a section on the psychiatric point of view as well. You are more than welcome to search for other sources to improve the article but are by no means entitled to "slash and burn" it. According to the ''[[Washington Post]]'': {{quotation|The Rev. William S. Bowdern was trying to help a 14-year-old boy from Mount Rainier who he believed was possessed by a demon, and he needed a strong man to help control the boy. A third Jesuit, the Rev. William Van Roo, also was there. "The little boy would go into a seizure and get quite violent," Father Halloran told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1988. "So Father Bowdern asked me to hold him. Yes, he did break my nose." Father Halloran said he saw streaks and arrows and such words as "hell" on the boy's skin. Father Halloran told a reporter that the boy went on to lead "a rather ordinary life." ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18767-2005Mar8.html source])}}
:All of the other sources support the information being presented in reputable newspapers. [http://www.strangemag.com/exorcistpage1.html This article], which is a compilation of several reputable newspapers and other media, has been used throughout the article as a reference. Also, there is no need to overload the article with multiple templates which are there because of the same issue. I have left two of them there and removed one. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 01:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
::Hi. Providing "other" sources is not the main issue here, it is the reliability of the current sources and the POV of the whole article. Just because you have found something in print or online does not mean it is a reliable source of facts. They can be a source of "claims" such as the Washington post article you cite, but that does not equal facts. The CLAIM is that Father Holloran SAID he saw streaks and arrows and words on the boys skin, this does not mean streaks and arrows and words did in fact appear on the boy's skin. Most of the claims from these dubious sources are presented in this article as facts. For example, it is one thing to state that people ''claimed'' to have witnessed things levitating and altogether another to actually write ''and ordinary objects, including a vase flew or levitated''. This is inappropriate for a wiki article. Especially since [[Levitation_(paranormal)|levitation]], [[Psychokinesis]] and other such [[paranormal]] phenomena have never been credibly demonstrated.


While I appreciate and understand the need for protection here, given the changes that have been foisted on this article, and needed correction ... '''could someone please begin posting a protection notice''' HERE? I see some grammatical errors and terminology that requires attention, and cannot get to it!
::The sources for this "levitation" claim are:


[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] In other words, '''will whomever it is protecting the page please stop doing that without notification''' at least? We'd like to be notified here at the talk page![[Special:Contributions/76.195.81.212|76.195.81.212]] ([[User talk:76.195.81.212|talk]]) 21:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
::''A Faraway Ancient Country.'' '''"Share one woman's journey into the land of mystics and scholars, and learn Catholicism from a Biblical perspective using the King James 1611 Bible."'''


:The article isn't protected, but I see on your talk page that your IP has been used for vandalism before. It's possible the IP has been given a temporary block from editing as a result. You should consider registering for an account, as IP addresses are shared across multiple users and you may be suffering from a problem caused by another user of your IP address. [[User:TechnoSymbiosis|TechnoSymbiosis]] ([[User talk:TechnoSymbiosis|talk]]) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
::''Possessed: the true story of an exorcism'' '''"Based on the diary of one of the participants, this chilling account describes the harrowing and bizarre events of the real-life 1949 exorcism that inspired William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist."'''


TechSym, I know I have replied to someone about this before. '''I have not committed any vandalism anywhere here, ever'''. It appears a school shares my IP range - but so do a few choice troublemakers such as those who regularly vandalize [[Claddagh ring]], which article I helped compose and research. There is naturally nothing I can do to prove I didn't do it, except to state that I'm fairly well recognized by my work here.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.98.141|75.21.98.141]] ([[User talk:75.21.98.141|talk]]) 04:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
::These sources fall well short of meeting wiki standards for [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources]].
:Jumped back in to say, I ''was'' IP 76.195.81.212 - but no longer. As I have explained, my provider alternates our IP addresses for security reasons. We have no control over that, and it appears the provider has no control over it either since they have exposed my city of residence several times![[Special:Contributions/75.21.98.141|75.21.98.141]] ([[User talk:75.21.98.141|talk]]) 04:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


::This is fairly normal for ISPs, particularly considering the exhausted IPv4 address pool. For the record, I never said you did any vandalising, simply that your IP has been pegged before. As I said above, registering an account here would alleviate some of the problems you've been having as your account is unique and won't be used by other people on the same IP address. [[User:TechnoSymbiosis|TechnoSymbiosis]] ([[User talk:TechnoSymbiosis|talk]]) 04:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
::This whole article presents information from dubious sources as facts.
::The section for "Psychiatric considerations" is sourced mainly from


Techno, it's been a while since I could post. I wanted you to understand, I wasn't upset at you, nor did I believe you accused anyone of anything. I know you were tracking the IP activity, I can understand that.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.149.151|75.21.149.151]] ([[User talk:75.21.149.151|talk]]) 06:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
::"Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology" and "Casting out the Devil!" which is a website claiming to be "The largest library about Nostradamus for free !"


Someone removed two additions to this article which had appropriate citations to back them up. Expect going to arbitration regarding this conduct. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:RugerOneShot|RugerOneShot]] ([[User talk:RugerOneShot#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RugerOneShot|contribs]]) 06:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::These again do not qualify as [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources]].


:All good, I didn't make any assumptions =) Are you still having trouble editing the article? If so, you'll probably want to raise the issue somewhere (probably [[WP:AN]]?) to try to get it resolved. I suspect they'll also recommend you register an account though. [[User:TechnoSymbiosis|TechnoSymbiosis]] ([[User talk:TechnoSymbiosis|talk]]) 01:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
::As for ''All of the other sources support the information being presented in reputable newspapers. This article, which is a compilation of several reputable newspapers and other media, has been used throughout the article as a reference.''


==Copyright problem==
::The article you link clearly states: ''careful reading will reveal many glaring inconsistencies in the basic story-telling, ''.. This is a point blank admission that all the various articles are NOT reliable. This is not reflected at all in this article in question.
I have cleaned this article of a substantial copyright problem with several sources, most particularly [http://www.strangemag.com/exorcistpage1.html the Strange Magazine] article, from which we had taken over 1,200 words. Wikipedia's copyright policies forbid extensive quotations from non-free sources, and this is no question that this source is non-free; it reserves all rights. Please see [[Wikipedia:Copy-paste]], [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] and [[Wikipedia:Non-free content]]. It is permitted to use ''brief'' excerpts of copyright content for [[transformation (law)|transformative]] reasons, but we cannot take substantial content from any source. While there is no precise word count that constitutes infringement, it's worth remembering that in one extreme case, 300 words from a 500 page book were found to infringe. While that was an extreme case, 1,200 words is likely to be substantial from any article. Several of the other sources, too, were far too extensively copied. Wikipedia articles must rely on proper paraphrase to a great extent when the sources are copyrighted. While information is free for reuse, ''expression'' is reserved and must be incorporated conservatively within policy. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 01:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


==Cooper/Epperson source==
::Pretty much all the the ''claims'' from these sources should not be treated as reliable, including pretty much the whole sections ''Poltergeist activity'', ''Medical and pastoral conclusions'' and ''Psychiatric considerations''.
The book "Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology" by Terry D. Cooper and Cindy K. Epperson, published by [[Paulist Press]] is being heavily cited in our article. I just read through the relevant chapter, and the authors are writing from a religious perspective, e.g. "Although they are not frequent, exorcisms are necessary for casting out the demonic" and "Cases of genuine possession cannot be explained by psychiatry" etc. I'm going to remove the extensive narrative passages cited to this source and edit accordingly. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 13:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:Hi User:LuckyLouie, I do not think there is a problem with leaving the reference in the article as long as we [[Wikipedia:Attribution|attribute]] the claim. I am going to reword the quote you excised to state "Terry D. Cooper, a professor of psychology, as well as a Christian by faith, has stated..."; because this article is about an exorcism, it is important to include how Christian clerics and associated individuals, interpreted the case while balancing it with how skeptics interpret it in order to fulfill [[WP:NPOV]]. I hope this helps. With regards, `[[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::Looking through the recent article history, it seems that administrator [[User:Philg88]], as well as [[User:Ian.thomson]] and [[Special:Contributions/70.33.31.11|70.33.31.11]] (the latter of whom I would recommend create an account), have also been involved. Before you make a major change to the article [[User:LuckyLouie]], I hope to have some other users offer their thoughts. As I mentioned above, my preference is that we share the perspectives of both the Church, as well as skeptical perspectives for balance. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 15:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::I've removed the bit "However, this theory is countered..." because the claim that Doe went on to have a normal life, or that he didn't have have had OCD, MPD, schizophrenia, or Tourette's counter the claim that he was pretending is absolutely unrelated to the argument that he was just pretending. While I don't necessarily object to including Cooper and Epperson's claim about Doe's supposed mental health with proper attribution and due weight, they should not be used as a [[red herring]]. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 15:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:Dear [[User:Ian.thomson]], thanks for that. I did not see that statement there when I performed the revert and because it was uncited and unattributed, I agree with your removal of that sentence. Also, thanks for your comment about Cooper and Epperson's claim. I feel the same way. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 15:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::The IP responsible for that bit (70.33.31.11) in the article [[[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unresponsive_POV-pushing_IP|has a clear agenda]], shown through their preaching and censorship in the [[Theistic Satanism]] article and a borderline-attack rant on an admin's page. Honestly, until the IP is blocked or repents, I'm checking on their edits through the undo window, and I invite others to do so. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 16:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


::This whole article does need a rewrite. The focus here should be to present the claims, rather then trying to justify the claims with dubious sources trying to pass them off as facts, which is how the article currently reads. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 02:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
: The book Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology should be removed, it's fringe and unreliable yet is used on the article a number of times. [[User:Goblin Face|Goblin Face]] ([[User talk:Goblin Face|talk]]) 19:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


::I also question the use of these sources:
:::You are unfairly characterizing the many sources used in the article. For example, you neglected to mention that ''A Faraway Ancient Country'' was "the fruition of four years of research, 80 sources, 190 Biblical passages, and the efforts of three theologians, each with an [[M.Div.]]" You similarly fail to mention that [[Thomas B. Allen (author)|Thomas B. Allen]]'s "Possessed" uses "the diary of one of the participants" as a primary source. ''Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology'' has nothing to do with the "largest library about Nostradamus." The book was written by a professor of [[psychology]] who is a graduate of [[Vanderbilt University]] and a holder of two [[doctorates]]; as well as by a doctoral fellow. I understand that the website you speak of may not be of high quality but its claims only serve to buttress those in the aforementioned book. And yes, the "basic storytelling" by laymen may be inconsistent but the sources of those newspapers and other reports "all are important for the raw data they offer" ([http://www.strangemag.com/exorcistpage1.html source]). I understand that the information discussed in the article is contentious and I will try to rewrite the article so it reflects as a claim. As of now, in the section on [[Robbie_Mannheim#Medical_and_pastoral_conclusions|medical and pastoral conclusions]], the content reflects the reports of the minister's claims; it does not present it as total fact. Similarly, the [[Robbie_Mannheim#Poltergeist_activity|poltergeist activity]] section attributes those occurrences to forty-eight witnesses, which is sourced thrice. The [[Robbie_Mannheim#Psychiatric_considerations|psychiatric considerations]] reflects the work of a psychologist holding two doctorates, one from Vanderbilt University. In your opinion, what is the best way to improve these sections? Again, I would encourage you to search for more sources on the topic. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 03:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
::*''A Faraway Ancient Country''. Lulu. (self published)
::*''The dark side of God: a quest for the lost heart of Christianity.'' Element. June 1999. {{ISBN|9781862044586}}. (religious perspective)
::*''Paranormal Experiences.'' Mehra Shrikhande. Unicorn Books. {{ISBN|9788178061665}}. (paranormal perspective)
::Also, ''Possessed: the true story of an exorcism'' by Thomas B Allen is being misused: the author suggested the boy could have fabricated the events or could have been suffering from mental illness [http://bigstory.ap.org/article/exorcism-1949-continues-fascinate-st-louis] but this opinion is conspicuously absent from the article. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 19:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:::My main concern was the IP, and would not have been involved otherwise. I will agree that the Lulu source needs to go, but otherwise have no real desire to get involved. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 01:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Had just flagged the first of these and was about to discuss others before seeing this thread. ''Good Spirits, Bad Spirits: How to Distinguish Between Them'' is also self-published, being printed by [[iUniverse]]. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 10:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}Removed statements sourced only to [[WP:SELFPUB]] sources. [[User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV|jps]] ([[User talk:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV|talk]]) 11:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


== Date of Allen's book ==


The article doesn't mention when Allen wrote ''Possessed'' - although the lede implies that he wrote it prior to 1971 and it was inspiration in part for ''The Exorcist'', it looks like ''Possessed'' was actually written in 1993? Is that right, or am I reading the blurb for a later edition of the book? --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 16:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
::::I don't think I am being unfair at all. Simply stating ''"the fruition of four years of research, 80 sources, 190 Biblical passages, and the efforts of three theologians, each with an M.Div." '' does not make a source credible for the claims you are trying to support. The bible is not a reliable source of factual information, it doesn't matter how many theologians do how much research to cite how many sources.
: First edition was published by Doubleday in 1993. [http://www.worldcat.org/title/possessed-the-true-story-of-an-exorcism/oclc/30088647/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true]. This is one of the most error-riddled articles I've ever seen. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 16:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


== Lutheran Involvement/Source ==
::::I did in fact mention that ''"Possessed" uses "the diary of one of the participants" as a primary source. '' I put it in bold in my above comment, because a diary is not a reliable source of facts either; at best it is a source of claims, at worst it could be total delusion or fiction.
::::''largest library about Nostradamus'' was a reference to "Casting out the Devil!" which is another very dubious article cited. In fact I think any reference to it should be removed, I don't see any reason what so ever why this should be treated as an encyclopaedic source, to me it looks like something some guy wrote on the internet.
::::As for ''Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology '' I don't have the time right now to research into it but I suspect this too is also going to be dubious as a source for the claims made, regardless of the impressive looking credentials of the author. Even the "snippets" you have used clearly show the author is trying to justify post hoc rationalization of the events. No doubt most of the CLAIMS are based on similar articles to the ones referenced in the "haunted boy" article.
::::As for "the haunted boy" article it self, the claim that the news articles are important for the "raw data" they offer is very different from them being factually accurate. Just because [http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/indepth/more-ufo-alien-sightings-revealed/story-e6frewsr-1225844757639 something] makes it [http://www.couriermail.com.au/derek-bridgess-film-shows-aliens-beam-a-buffalo-into-spaceship-claims-ufo-hunter/story-e6frev20-1225793625375 into a newspaper] does not make it fact. Most of the articles are merely the accounts of people involved with the exorcism. Such as the ''"According to the minister involved"'' certain events had happened, or certain professionals had been consulted, or certain people had "witnessed" certain things. Again, this is not a source for verified factual information, it is a source of claims. Writing ''Forty-eight witnesses would came forward to substantiate this case and these unbelievable incidents that occurred'' in the article is presenting that information as a fact, even if you can cite some tertiary sources that were written 50 years after the events. I appreciate you have invested a considerable effort into this article and I don't mean anything personal by my posts, I don't really have time to go through everything in here right now, if I get around to it tonight or in a few days I'll try to rewrite one or two sections NPOV and post them here for review. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 05:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
::Well I've had a look and honestly, I'm going back to my theory that this article needs to be slash and burned. Sorry, I know you've put a lot of effort into it but the sources you cite are just no good. Have a very good read of this article you yourself linked http://www.strangemag.com/exorcistpage5.html it explains how dubious all these claims are. Pretty much ALL your sources trace back to the ''possessed'' book which is based on an old diary and personal testimony which is purely hearsay. Opsasnick's article openly disputes a lot of the claims made in the book. I'll try to put some time aside to make a stub but I really think this whole article needs to be scrapped, you've just started off on the wrong foot. The article should probably start something like this:


I recently wrote an article about [[Louis J. Sieck]], president of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. A graduate student wrote [https://scholar.csl.edu/mdiv/22/ this thesis] on demonic possessions as relates to Lutheran theology and the Doe case; he obtained signed statements from some individuals around at the time who give details about the possession and the attempts of Dr. Sieck and Rev. Alfred Doerffler to cast out the demon. From what I have read about sources, the thesis does not pass muster to use as a source, so I will not add it. But I think it works as an external link, so I will add it there. Please comment here if you think it fit to remove. Thank you. --[[User:DiamondRemley39|DiamondRemley39]] ([[User talk:DiamondRemley39|talk]]) 14:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


== Quotes ==
:::'''Robbie Mannheim''' (also known as '''Roland''') is the name given by Author [[Thomas B. Allen (author)|Thomas B. Allen]] to an anonymous individual most notably known for allegedly being [[possessed]] and later [[exorcised]] during his childhood in the late 1940s early 1950s. The alleged events which were reported in the media of the time and the subsequent claims surrounding those events went on to inspire the 1971 novel [[The Exorcist]] by [[William Peter Blatty]] and the [[The_Exorcist_(film)|1973 film of the same name]], as well as [[Thomas_B._Allen_(author)|Thomas B. Allen's]] own 1993 book ''Possessed'' and the following 2000 television [[Possessed_(2000_film)|film by the same name]]. The real identity of Mannheim has never been revealed.
Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Exorcism_of_Roland_Doe&type=revision&diff=1117614890&oldid=1115849194 this edit]...no, the quotes are not "made up". The quote you are trying to verify is on the 5th page of the cited source [http://www.strangemag.com/exorcistpage5.html], not the 1st page. [[User:LuckyLouie|- LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 19:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

::All that other stuff about Psychiatric considerations and Medical and pastoral conclusions are completely irrelevant to this article, whether you can cite them or not, as they are claims and conjecture based on third hand sources or hearsay to begin with. They don't belong in a wiki article. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 10:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

== Third opinion ==

Anupam requested assistance at this article. I've had a quick scan, and a quick scan of talk above. Anupam, I believe Vespine is being extremely ''helpful'' here. Vespine's proposed lead above is excellent. One thing I noticed when scanning the article was how hard it was to scan it rather than read it. I couldn't easily detect what the main topic was, why it was interesting, what the main sources were, and where opinions might differ.

Having made those sweeping criticisms, I must admit the article is very well written in a lively style, and clearly adapted faithfully from sources. It's a bit rough to say this, but some of the liveliness of the style could do with toning down into boring "encyclopedia speak". If Vespine will forgive me, s/he's given a good example of encyclopedic blandness above. Mind you, Vespine's lead, despite it's neutrality, really grabs attention because the content is interesting, sources are explicit. It builds reader confidence as well as delivering information promptly and concisely.

If I were you, Anupam, I'd listen carefully to Vespine, who strikes me as an experienced editor who is being helpful.
I'll keep this page on my watchlist. Please feel free to ignore my comments, I'm not sufficiently involved for my opinion to carry any weight. I'll just do my own quick check on sources and report back in a bit.
[[User:Alastair Haines|Alastair Haines]] ([[User talk:Alastair Haines|talk]]) 12:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

:Note on sources: [[iUniverse]] is an alarm-bell for me, as is [[Lulu (company)|Lulu]]. People can pay these publisher to print anything. Books like these are sources, but need to be used in proportion to their credibility. [[Paulist Press]] on the other hand is a very reputable publisher, as is [[Associated University Presses]]. [[User:Alastair Haines|Alastair Haines]] ([[User talk:Alastair Haines|talk]]) 12:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

:In addition saying he's known for "Known for Demonic possession" doesn't exactly seem NPOV [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
::[[User:Alastair Haines]], thank you for your comments. I agree that the paragraph that [[User:Vespine]] wrote would make a good lead and have incorporated it into the article. I agree more with your stance of "the liveliness of the style could do with toning down into boring 'encyclopedia speak'" rather than "slashing and burning" the article. Since the claims the sources present are contentious, I will work to present them as claims rather than as fact. I see no reason for removing the information in its entirety as there are several articles on Wikipedia that cover poltergeist activity, such as the [[Rosenheim Poltergeist]], the [[Enfield Poltergeist]], and the [[Borley Rectory]] to name a few. I used Opsasnick's article primarily because it contained excerpts from reputable newspapers, not to present his original research and criticism of other sources. The "psychiatric considerations" is much needed, especially since it balances the article, providing psychiatric explanations to what many understand as a spiritual phenomena. I have added a clause in the [[Robbie_Mannheim#Poltergeist_activity|poltergeist activity]] that should make the section more satisfactory. User:Alastair Haines, could you propose some more re-writes of some of the things in the article that need improvement. Thanks in advance. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 21:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

:::In my opinion you are right Anupam: "slash and burn" is not what the article needs. Rephrasing to be more boringly neutral, some reording of material so the logic and chronology develops more smoothly, and perhaps some tweaking of subsection names: those are the main things now. That's all glorified copyediting, imo, there are enough sources to sustain content for an article of this length. It's interesting enough, to enough people, that although we can't conclude much definitively from the sources, we can at least reliably report what "gossip" has been published.
:::Personally, I think if the Lutheran background is noted in a reliable source, then that should be documented somewhere. It is notable to me, because Lutheran's are not Roman Catholics, who are best known for exorcism work. The information is given in a later section than the lead, however, which is fine by me. It doesn't need to be in ''both'' places. [[User:Alastair Haines|Alastair Haines]] ([[User talk:Alastair Haines|talk]]) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
::::By "not notable" I do not mean it is irrelevant, I mean "not what he is actually KNOWN for". That means it does not need to be in the starting paragraph. I agree the fact he was Lutheran CAN indeed be part of the article, it is relevant, but he's not actually KNOWN for being a Lutheran so it does not deserve to be in the lead paragraph. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 02:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

== Next vespine attempt ==
Sorry Anupam, i think you are still considerably on the wrong track... I'm finding it very difficult to edit this page with all the references you have put in there... I've attempted to take the beginning of the article and make some notes on it to show you what I think. If anyone else wants to chime in, please feel free.

Robbie Mannheim (also known as Roland;born 1 June 1935)[2] <s> is a Lutheran Christian </s> '''NOT NOTABLE, does not need to be in the lead paragraph''' ''is the name given by Author Thomas B. Allen to an anonymous'' '''<this IS important''' individual most notably known for allegedly being possessed and later exorcised during his childhood in the late 1940s. The alleged events which were reported in the media of the time and the subsequent claims surrounding those events went on to inspire the 1971 novel [[The Exorcist]] by [[William Peter Blatty]] and the [[The_Exorcist_(film)|1973 film of the same name]], as well as [[Thomas_B._Allen_(author)|Thomas B. Allen's]] own 1993 book ''Possessed'' and the following 2000 television [[Possessed_(2000_film)|film by the same name]]. '''this IS what he is most notably known for''' The real identity of Mannheim has never been revealed. . <s>Robbie was born to Karl and Phyllis Mannheim née Wagner.[3] <> During the 1940s, the Mannheim family lived in the American city of Cottage City </wiki/Cottage_City,_Maryland> , Maryland </wiki/Maryland> .[4] <> [5] <> </s> '''NOT NOTABLE, does not need to be in the lead paragraph, can go in later if you really want. As far as I can tell these are also ALL pseudonyms, you can't just forget to mention that. '''

<s>==Relationship with aunt==</s> '''This is NOT notable. Does not need its own heading. In my opinion the 1st heading should be something like Origin of claims or something like that. Bio articles typically have a "early life" section first but I do NOT think this is appropriate in this case. '''

I think this section should read something like: ''Before Allen investigated the stories, mannheim existed only as an annonymous "boy" in several newspaper articles reported by some ministers blah blah... These reports inspired Blatty's book and subsequent move, in the 80s when allen did his own investigation, he found the sole surviving priest ivolved who had a diary from the time, it was this diary and tetsimony that inspired Allens 1993 book possessed. It was during this period that Allen assigned the pseudonym "Robbie Manneheim" and this has since become the widely accepted name for the still anonymous individual. ''

'''The second section should be something like "claims of possession and excorcism"'''

in a nutshell: ''According to the testimony of the priest and his diary, stuff flew around the room and the kid was excorcised. ''

'''You are missing the point of ''Medical and pastoral conclusions''. These are CLAIMS of medical and pastoral conclusions, they are not verified by a third party, you can't report them as facts. This does NOT warrant a separate heading. This section could be incorporated under the above "claims" section, you should write that the minister CLAIMED the boy was examined by both medical and psychiatric doctors... blah blah..'''

'' The boy slept nearby to the minister in a twin bed and the minister reported that in the dark he heard vibrating sounds from the bed and scratching sounds on the wall.[30] During the rest of the night he allegedly witnessed some strange events—'' '''THIS is good, this is how the whole article should read.'''

''During the exorcism, the boy inflicted a wound upon the pastor, costing him stitches; '' '''This is back to no good, these again are CLAIMS. You are basically retelling a story, i personally think it could be greatly summarised, it's not necessary to go into so much detail for a unverified story. '''

''During the exorcism, Robbie spat in the eyes of the pastors, despite the fact that his eyes were closed'' '''again no good, stated as fact. '''

as well as ''and words such as "evil" and "hell", along with other various marks, appeared on the teenager's body'' '''pretty much this whole section is POV.

''After the exorcism was over, the Mannheim family was no longer troubled, and moved back to their home'' '''another claim'''

Same as "Psychiatric considerations", I don't think this even warrants a separate heading. This is CONJECTURE based on third hand testimony, there is no credibility to these claims. They ASSUME the claims are actually ALL TRUE which is far from established. If you really want to include it, you could write something like ''At least one author has attempted to explain the alleged events in psychological terms and come to the conclusion that normal psychological explanations can not account for the CLAIMED events. ''

'''The current ''' ''Labeling Robbie's condition as dissociative identity disorder also fails to explain the strange paranormal activity associated with the case to which forty-eight individuals testified'' ''' is completely innapropriate for a wiki article. Completely credulous, the "strange paranormal acticity" is never anything more then a CLAIM and even the 48 witnesses are a CLAIM! There is no credible source for these wintesses where or who are they? Has anyone ever spoken to them? It was the priest who CLAIMED there were witnesses, that's ALL. About a quarter of this article is trying to deconstruct in detail and support some 4th party OPINION of what might or might not explain CLAIMS made by a 3rd party about events that have never credibly been verified. This is too much, I really don't think such a detailed analasys of this work is relevant this is to the article.'''

This could be followed by a section that says another author investigated the claims by interviewing friends and family of the individual and found that most of the claims were discputed by their testimony, including things moving and levitating, the boy speaking in languages he didn't know, and the claim of supernatural strength. blah blah.

Also I don't see how the links you have given provide any weight to your argument. In fact if you read those articles you will notice that they do mostly follow the right convention, that is they state what was claimed or reported, not what happened or didn't happen. i.e. they don't say ''"then things flew around the room"'' they say ''"someone reported that then things flew around the room"''. That is the important difference. If you find somewhere in those articles where this convention is not held, then that also should be fixed up. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
::Thank you for your comments User:Vespine. In the next several days I will closely review your comments and will incorporate your revisions within the article. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
:::You're being very patient and reasonable and that's a credit to you. Thank you. I wasn't sure how you'd take the above, I know I can be fairly abrupt and a bit impatient at times, but it's very good of you not to take it personally. Some people just get upset and angry. I still think a lot needs to be changed in this article, I thought it might be easier to start with a fresh template and take the good information from the current article and put it into the new template, rather then the other way around. I've started something in my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vespine/sandbox sandbox], it's just an idea of how to go forward. You don't have to use it but I thought it might be easier the wading through the current article word by word.. That might still need to be done but honestly I think more needs to go then stay. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 23:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
::::Bravo! Both of you. It's so much harder to communicate in text than face-to-face. In my inexpert opinion, you're both clearing that unfortunate hurdle like champions. :)) [[User:Alastair Haines|Alastair Haines]] ([[User talk:Alastair Haines|talk]]) 08:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thank you User:Vespine and User:Alastair Haines. I have edited the introduction and the "Early life" section. I will continue to do more in the near future. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 08:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
==New section: Origin of claims==

Hi again.. The article is coming along slowly but I still feel it needs a lot of work to meet wiki standard. Rather then try to edit and remove what I think is inappropriate, something that I have unsuccessfully attempted already, I have added a section which I think explains the article sufficiently for a casual reader to then see the rest of the article in a correct light. It needs sourcing but everything there is sourced only from sources that were already present in the article, so it shouldn't be a big deal. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 06:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
:Hello, your section is fine. However, do you think you can insert the citations of the material you added? Tbanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 15:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

== Merge or otherwise synchronise? ==

The article on [[The Exorcist]] has half its intro dedicated to the factuality of Robbie Mannheim's story. It forms a significant portion of that article. Perhaps these two articles should somehow be more closely bound? [[User:Craig Pemberton|-<font style="color:#006400">Craig Pemberton</font>]] 00:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
== Main Problem remaining: Sources ==

I still think a lot of the information in this article, sourced from these dubious sources will need to eventually be removed. Specifically these sources, the quote is an ''example'' of the kind of claims these books make, my gripe is not with just those quotes but the whole source.

"Paranormal Experiences" --''Scratches appeared on his body and a container of holy water kept near him smashed automatically on the ground.'' - thing's don't "automatically" hit the ground.

"A Faraway Ancient Country" -- ''The parents rushed into the room to find the words "St. Louis" written in blood upon the boy's chest. '' --No other source makes this claim

"Good Spirits, Bad Spirits: How to Distinguish Between Them" -- ''he spirits having the use of their own invisible yes, did not need Robbie's in order to have him spit on those standing around his bed in an attempt to prevent their own eviction from his body'' -- completely credulous source.

"Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology" -- ''After the exorcism was finished, the room was shut off and sealed so that no one would reenter it.'' -No it wasn't, the hospital doesn't even have a record of it.

and my fav quote from the above:
''"It's simply implausible that a young man with with Tourette's was able to fool nine Jesuit priests, hospital personnel, and all the family members."''
--Which is literally saying the source believes "a child was possesed by a devil" is more plausible then a young man fooling some people. Obviously they haven't read about [[Cottingley Fairies]] lol.

The above clearly demonstrate these sources are no less then a complete joke. They are credulous embellishments of something that was probably a "story" to begin with! Sorry, but I think there is still more of this article that needs to go. I think the 1st three sections are doing ok, mostly reasonable, the section "exorcism" is about half way there but I still think Psychiatric considerations does not even deserve to have such a big section. It does not need a whole section describing it in such detail, it is implausible and extremely poorly sourced. If you ''really'' want this in this article, you should summarize it in a paragraph at most. At the moment it is the longest section and makes up about a THIRD of this whole article, that's completely inappropriate, it is not the most important thing about Robbie Mannheim. You're also quoting primary sources about Tourette's Syndrome and Schizophrenia? That's practically original research which is also inappropriate for a wiki article. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 04:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:The "Origin of Claims" section states the secondary and tertiary sources contained much of the information available to the public regarding the case of Robbie Mannheim. Nevertheless, you can remove the information about the apparition of the words "St. Louis" if you wish. I would like to add however, that [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18767-2005Mar8.html according to] the ''[[Washington Post]]'', "Father Halloran [also] said he saw streaks and arrows and such words as "hell" on the boy's skin." It is alright that the claim about Tourette's syndrome is mentioned in the article since it mentions that these are the views of two psychologists, not completely factual. The claim about the spitting is not even mentioned in the article. What source do you use in making that claim that the Alexian Brothers Hospital "doesn't even have a record of it"? Also, I feel the quote from the Church and the witch doctor should be restored because it demonstrates its belief that diabolical possession is possible; this belief is not being presented as a fact, but as a particular viewpoint. Similarly, an opposing viewpoint is also presented in the article: "anti-N-Methyl-D-Aspartate receptor encephalitis has been suggested to be the cause for acute devastating behaviour dyscontrol resembling demonic possession (G. Sebire, Annals of Neurology 2010;67:141-142)." In the [[Robbie_Mannheim#Origin_of_claims|Origin of claims]] section, you inserted " Halloran himself admitted he thought Mannheim had simply mimicked Latin words he heard the clergymen speak. In conclusion Opsasnick writes 'Those involved saw what they were trained to see.'" My insertion "According to Rev. Walter H. Halloran, streaks and arrows and words such as "hell" appeared on the boy's skin" served as a good balance for this claim. In light of these facts, I think that this content should be restored. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 07:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
::You're missing my main point. It's not specifically JUST the quotes I mention that are my problem with the sources, it's THE WHOLE SOURCE! The quotes prove THE WHOLE source as unreliable, not just the quote. These books are written by people who are telling STORIES, not providing historically verifiable reference. You can't use STORY books to write an encyclopaedia article.

::''"are the views of two psychologists, not completely factual." '' This is simply NOT appropriate for a encyclopaedia article, This article is about Robbie Mannheim, NOT about what two random psychologists "thought" about him. Sorry, I still think this section needs a BIG chop, this should NOT make up a third of the article, it needs to be condensed into about a paragraph. You can say that psychologists HAVE considered what might explain Robbie's behaviour, but it is NOT appropriate to then go into the minute detail and analysis about their specific findings, I refuse to accept that is noteworthy enough to make up a third of this article.

::''"What source do you use in making that claim "'' Actually, onus is on YOU to find the record, not on me to prove it doesn't exist. The source that claims this is extremely dubious. Opsasnick writes there was no record of ANYTHING unusual about Robbie's hospital visit.

::''demonstrates its belief that diabolical possession is possible'' I disagree, I don't put MY personal opinion because it has NOTHING to do with Robbie Mannheim, I don't care what the Anglican Church thinks or what a former witch doctor thinks, it has NOTHING to do with Robbie Mannheim.

::As to the last point about the "origin of claim section"… ''Those involved saw what they were trained to see'' is very specifically about the origin of the claims which is what the section is about.. ''words such as "hell" appeared on the boy's skin'' is NOT about the origin of the claims, it IS a claim, which is why I moved it to the "poltergeist activity" section, because that IS a section for the actual claims. Does that make sense? [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Could you please list the exact sources used in the article that you dispute? Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 04:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Sorry haven't revisited this article for a while. I know you probably won't like my answer but as far as I am concerned, pretty much all the above sources I would classify as unreliable. That is:

#"Paranormal Experiences"
#"A Faraway Ancient Country"
#"Good Spirits, Bad Spirits: How to Distinguish Between Them"
#"Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology"

::::Obviously that doesn't mean that every single word in those sources is a lie, but the fact is that these sources obviously either invent claims or take other claims at face value. Each one of those is less concerned at presenting facts like a source, rather they "interpret" the selected claims as facts and embellish them only to support their apriori conclusions.
::::Also, if user 24.180.173.157 wants to contribute, which is appreciated, could you please log in or create a user account, that would be great. Thanks.[[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 04:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

== Ya got a heck of a lot more than one 'main problem' remaining ==

This article is the most dreadfully written thing I have ever read. Forget about sources (except Blatty, Allen and Father Halloran) for the time being. First, the thing needs to look like it was written by an ADULT, not a drunken 13-year-old. There may be a few obscure references from newspaper clippings, but the whole thing has to be restructured so the proper citations can be put in place. For example, I think this requires a good double-citation for the diary of the Alexian brothers, which is not even properly described here.

Secondly, this does not have to be so long and involved. Surely anything you have here on exorcism will do fine, this article does not have to deal with the entire subject...and it does so clumsily. C'mon, people, this thing is a moldy plate right now![[Special:Contributions/75.21.98.232|75.21.98.232]] ([[User talk:75.21.98.232|talk]]) 14:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

== Perhaps spitting is a good start ==

OK, I noted above some contention about Father Halloran's claim of the boy's spitting acumen. I have heard Fr. Halloran talk much about this, and he is in several interviews quoted as making that particular claim. It's one of the few things that seemed to impress Halloran, in fact. So, FACT. All we need is to find interviews he's done, because I guarantee you, he's talked about the spitting in every one.

Now, one thing missing and if it's there well, it probably is unprofessionally presented: the Church of Rome and the view of exorcism. This is quite pertinent, because without that, you have no encyclopedic entry. What I mean is, this came to light because the case set the Church gossiping for a while, until the cardinal silneced everyone. I cannot recall the cardinal's name, we can look him up if we need to do so. Probably Spellman...it is Halloran who mentioned that Fr. Bowdern went to the cardinal for 'injunction' to perform exorcism.

(By the way, an exorcism is always "performed". No other verb applies. However, an exorcism Mass is "said". I.e., "They will say a Mass for him" is correct.)

Also, I do not think the subject's great-aunt or whatever she was ought to be ignored; if I'm not in error, many reports went back and forth about her exact relationship with that boy. I do not have the facts about that. It may be spurious stuff.

One thing I must protest is the stupid presentation of Tourette Syndrome. This is a disease, though the term "syndrome" is common usage. It is a neurological or neuro-chemical movement disorder akin to Parkinson's Disease. If you check Taber's Medical Encyclopedia or the DSM-IV, you will find Tourette Syndrome near Parkinson's--right where it belongs.

Yet this article cites a ridiculous book claiming TS is some sort of neurosis. Finally...didn't anyone here know that TS was nearly unknown in Robbie's time? The statistic of Tourette sufferers during the late 1940s was at one in one million! Today we know it is about one in two hundred. So that needs cleaning up...and look at the hundreds of footnoted facts! The citations and sources need a good scouring. By a ''good writer''.

You catch the drift I present here?[[Special:Contributions/75.21.98.232|75.21.98.232]] ([[User talk:75.21.98.232|talk]]) 15:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:: In reply to BOTH additions above. I don't really disagree with any your comments. Unfortunately I also feel it's over my head to fix this article as it stands. From the start I suggested more then once that a better idea was to just scrap most of the article and start from scratch, a "slash and burn" operation i called it:) but I was talked out of it.. I've been trying to slowly whittle away at it, but the person who wrote it has invested so much time in it, it's slow going.. As for spitting acumen? Lol. I don't have a problem including it but it sounds pretty spurious to me. When I was a young boy at school, we used to have spitting competitions too, I don't think a young boy being very good at spitting is out of the ordinary, I'm sure a lot of people would still be surprised and impressed by some of the spitting feats I've performed and witnessed back in the day. ;) . If you read my comments above I also strongly agree that pretty much the whole psychiatric considerations section is unnecessary, at most it should be a short paragraph. Going into detail about the CONTENTS and conclusions of these books is not relevant to this PERSONAL article, it's not what Robbie Mannheim is known for. Perhaps the psychiatric considerations section ''could'' belong more appropriately in the article about exorcisms in general, offering psychological explanations of exorcisms ''would'' be relevant there, but it is NOT specific and relevant to Robbie Mannheim him self, not nearly to warrant a third of the whole article being about those books, even if he was chosen as the subject of those books. They are not biographies, there would be no personal articles which go into such detail about books written about them, it's not relevant. So at this stage, i'm not sure what the best way forward is again, i would still chop out a few sections, mainly psychiatric considerations, sorry Anupam but so far the slow and steady method has not really produced the results of a good article. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::Oh, ''one thing I can't believe'' is with your clear thinking and good ideas that this revision is over your head! It is a matter of clean-up, redacting the excess, and reorganizing...I've helped a bit in one section. Why not just tear at it, see what you end up with?--you can always revert it if it causes toothaches. Don't hold back to spare editors' feelings...didn't this dog-eat-dog site teach you that yet?[[Special:Contributions/75.21.151.34|75.21.151.34]] ([[User talk:75.21.151.34|talk]]) 15:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Lol, I'll take that as a compliment, i think! Yeah, it think I use the editor's feelings as a bit of an excuse. Truth is I've actually attempted it a couple of times but after 20 minutes of digging and then seeing a half butchered article with citation tags everywhere and mess that only half works, I've sighed and given up. I'm just not THAT good of a wiki editor. I might set aside an hour one evening and give it one more go, but I just bought red dead redemption so it might not be VERY soon! ;) [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 04:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I have done a tremendous amount of clean-up writing, while no harm has come to the basic content of the sections I edited. It has nothing to do with me...but I think the sections delineating the history of events is a good place to begin your slash-and-burn approach. I do agree about much of this thing being unnecessarily burdened, and if any psych additions are included, they ought to be directly from old, original sources such as the newspaper articles, Fr. Halloran, or even Allen. As to the spitting, I used that as an example because all Father Walt (Halloran) said was that "this boy could spit a good 8 or 9 feet with his eyes closed and hit his target every time", but then the other investigation revealed that "Robbie" and his friend practised that every day. I can do it too! Fr. Walt reminisced about it because he got it in the eye a lot and it angered him. Fr. Walt did NOT like "Robbie" at all.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.101.124|75.21.101.124]] ([[User talk:75.21.101.124|talk]]) 11:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if I may sort of help out with re-doing this: the boy was known as "the haunted boy" and the original stories as I recall them were about his haunted house. Later they reported the haunting seemed to center on the boy.

My point is we should probably start there. It wouldn't be hard to expand into the Bowdern-Blatty story (Blatty talking to Bowdern and then discovering the Alexian Brothers' diary). All of that can be sourced properly without being 'un-scholastic'. It's the story we are all used to hearing. Plus the interviews and testimonies of Father Walt are extremely good primary sources. Fr. Walt didn't really see much poltergeist activity and he never believed the boy was possessed. He's said these things countless times.

The Opascneck (my spelling is wrong) research, that found fallacy in the earlier Allen research, is worth quoting at length but not making it a 10-page article. But please remember, this story is an ongoing thing since the late 1940s, it does deserve some depth and analysis.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.101.124|75.21.101.124]] ([[User talk:75.21.101.124|talk]]) 11:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

== Neutrality?? ==

One last thing, really, then I'll give this time to rest: what exactly is not neutral about the article? Is the disputation of neutrality a ploy for attention from someone? I don't accuse...it's just, well, there's no neutrality problem here that I can find. Only grammar and relevance.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.151.34|75.21.151.34]] ([[User talk:75.21.151.34|talk]]) 15:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::Have you looked at the sources? A couple of them I'd just about call books of "ghost stories". You could put a Verify source or Verify credibility tag, but apparently it's appropriate to choose just one, so the one we have now is the one that was left, but it encapsulates ALL the issues with the article. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 04:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:Well, yes, I see the problem; just that I still can't see a neutrality problem. There is no un-neutral problem here if I can use that term. A problem with sources, perhaps...but what have we got for sources? We have Blatty who wrote a novel. We have Thomas Allen who allegedly got it all wrong. We have the nearly unobtainable interviews with Fr. Walt because apparently he has no desire to be revisiting this subject. Then there are all the old newspaper stories, and I personally know about those...but if I interjected with a thing like that well then it would not be all neutral. What I was really asking is how best to fix all the issues? Because I do agree with you.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.151.34|75.21.151.34]] ([[User talk:75.21.151.34|talk]]) 12:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

== Ghost Stories ==

This merits a section. Those sources/citations are long-winded and silly. And as you say, there I see about three sources and that is all. But that is all there is, really. You couldn't do without Thomas Allen, wether he's right or wrong. And the work published by the Paulist Press isn't exactly a cheap supernatural-type thing, it needs more input from Church sources because let's face it: the Church is THE source for this. Good luck getting anything more than Fr. Walt's interviews.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.151.34|75.21.151.34]] ([[User talk:75.21.151.34|talk]]) 12:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:Heavens above!--I'm trying to help clean up this thing and it's killing my eyes! Do we need such long-winded quotes in there? And if we do need them--I think 50% should GO--how about setting them in-text for easier reading? A Wikipedia admin can and should do a lot better than this. I do not want to remove the germane, but it is so hard to edit this thing. What a mess. '''Slash and burn'''![[Special:Contributions/75.21.151.34|75.21.151.34]] ([[User talk:75.21.151.34|talk]]) 12:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, I think it might help if I presented to you the bare bones of this boy's story. It would help the outlining of this thing.

First, you will forgive me for not throwing in citations. All of this, unless I indicate it, comes from Father Walt Halloran. I will only paraphrase what he said because he is so terse it's close enough. remember, this is for your reference only.

1. We have "Robbie" and what is commonly alleged about him and his background, all strictly from early newspaper reports in Maryland and from Thomas Allen's research. I do not believe Blatty is reliable as he stands now. The rest is URBAN LEGEND and falsehoods.

2. Fr. Halloran said Father William Bowdern asked him for a ride. This occurred in St. Louis, and I have no clear picture of the boy's family moving or any other such detail. I'm not sure where Halloran and Bowdern went, but it seems they went to a home, so I'd guess Halloran is implying the family had moved to St. Louis.

3. Halloran had no idea what they were doing, and thought he was just dropping off Bowdern. Arriving at the house, Bowdern told Halloran, "You're coming with me...I need you." They went in and saw the boy with the parents. They chatted and had coffee.

4. Halloran says Bowdern stood up suddenly. Bowdern said something like, "Its time", or, "Let's get to it." Halloran was still in the dark. The boy and two clerics went to the boy's room. The boy changed into his pajamas and got in the bed. It was then Bowdern told Halloran it was an exorcism. Halloran was still confused at this point.

5. Halloran never believed the boy was possessed, and never saw or heard anything supernatural. Halloran says somehow the bed moved a little, and he attested to the boy's spitting in their faces, which angered him. He did not like that boy. Halloran said a bottle of holy water flew right past his head and broke against the wall. But he also admits "someone could have thrown it, but I didn't see it."

6. The kid thrashed around, yelled and parroted the priests' Latin prayers. That is IT. Fr. Bowdern proceeded with the Rite of Exorcism.

7. Halloran attests that Bowdern went to the cardinal--maybe Spellman, maybe one other I cannot recall and Halloran doesn't say--Bowdern said the boy was possessed and the cardinal gave permission for a Rite of Exorcism. When Bowdern inquired further the cardinal said Bowdern would be the exorcist.

When he asked the cardinal why, the cardinal said, "Well, you brought it up! You do it!"

The rest of the details, such as the family's movements and other activates, is something like this: they moved from Maryland to St. Louis apparently because Bowdern told them to do it. This was after he was appointed officially as Exorcist. There Halloran met them for the 1st time.

The priests spent much time with Robbie, but mainly due to the fact that Bowdern was attempting to convert first the boy then the parents. Halloran says he succeeded and converted all three to Catholicism. They were Lutherans, very lax and not church people before the ordeal.

That is it. I'm sorry I put this so long, but that is all--aside from further details from Fr. Walt that I don't have in front of me. This is how certain insiders were told the story and Fr. Walt confirms all of it. Anything else is as you said pure ghost stories.

I hope this helps. Of course this is also on the ROBBIE MANNHEIM talk page, because I do not want to be the editor to slash-and-burn that work.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.158.216|75.21.158.216]] ([[User talk:75.21.158.216|talk]]) 13:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

== Problem with Walt ==

"Before the exorcism ritual began, Rev. Walter Halloran was called to the psychiatric wing of the hospital, where he was asked to assist Rev. Bowdern in the deliverance."

This is an odd insertion. Fr. Walt has repeatedly told the story that he first got involved when Fr. Bowdern asked him for a ride I think to the family's home. When Walt asked if he should return to pick up Fr. Bowdern, he was told, "No, I need you to help me in there." He still didn't know it was an exorcism.

I've heard Walt tell this story a dozen times, so what is the above quote--attributed to Walt--doing in this article? However, if this references the events later at the Alexian hospital, it should be more clearly written than that. It's confusing.

It's looking like this thing is being written by only one voice with some opinion in it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.21.119.37|75.21.119.37]] ([[User talk:75.21.119.37|talk]]) 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Psychiatric considerations==

I have chopped this section, i am sick of looking at it, three times I've argued it should go and no one has brought any reasons why it should stay. The contents of this book are NOT relevant to this article, i don't care how many doctorates the authors have. Unless someone finds a citation for the sexual abuse line, and not from a fairytale book, i don't think it should stay either. Please don't revert my edit without discussing it here. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 12:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
:Well, just so you know, I'm not reverting anything--I agree with you. I don't even know how the hell to revert--I just cleaned up some language and bad, VERY bad, grammar. And you know, I think I tried deleting most of that stuff about the aunt and sexual abuse. I hope your above post wasn't cawing at me, because, well, I have nothing to do with what you mention.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.101.171|75.21.101.171]] ([[User talk:75.21.101.171|talk]]) 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
::I am restoring some of the deleted material in this section. Could you please explain why you want to delete certain portions of the section? Perhaps then, we can discuss on which portions need to be removed. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 05:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
:::I've argued my point in the above sections on more then one occasion. The majority of this section is paraphrasing a book someone wrote which is dubious as a source. It's someone's "opinion", it's not stating facts. I don't care how many PhDs the authors have, people with PhDs can still be lousy sources of information. Besides, this is NOT what Mannheim is notable for, in fact, the same book could be written about ANYONE who claims to have been possessed, there is NOTHING in that book particular to Robbie. The part which is notable is that someone wrote a book which explains his condition and concludes psychological factors don't account for what was claimed. That's the notable part, full stop. Going then into DETAIL about what was written in this book is not particular to Robbie and I do not accept it needs to be in this article. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 06:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
::::There are still some things that are particular to Robbie's specific case, however. One example is the "group hysteria" explanation, which according to those authors, is questionable in light of the forty eight witnesses. --[[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 07:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::But even the 40 eye witnesses are a CLAIM. Sigh.. I think you're missing my point, the point is that the contents of these books are the author's opinions based on the events as THE AUTHORS interpret them. These are not ''FACTS'' about events that happened or actually have ANYTHING to do with Robbie Mannheim's life what so ever, for all he knows those books may as well have never existed, they are POST HOC interpretations. As I said, it's notable to mention that such books exist, but I very strongly oppose a dissection of their contents. It is irrelevant to the life of Robbie Mannheim. I think it should go to a vote. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 05:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

== EARLY LIFE ==
Do we have to keep that stupid line about Robbie's aunt not heeding the Scriptural admonishion against communicating with spirits? Honestly, this makes the article look like a junior high school term paper. It is fine to have that in a quoted reference, but need not be in the article. I'm removing it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.21.100.121|75.21.100.121]] ([[User talk:75.21.100.121|talk]]) 13:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Why do you think reference to scriptural admonitions should be deleted? It further delineates the religious background of the family and is an important aspect as believers feel it contributed to Robbie's supposed possession. For now, I am restoring the section. If you feel it should be removed, please discuss it here and we can build consensus on what to do. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]]<sup>[[User talk:Anupam|Talk]]</sup> 05:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
::In light of your refusal to understand the work of other editors here, I'm done "discussing" these issues with you, smart aleck![[Special:Contributions/75.21.146.222|75.21.146.222]] ([[User talk:75.21.146.222|talk]]) 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

== deletion of the other side of the story ==


Anupam, please stop removing this text. You have given no reason why dispute about the traditional story can't be added.

''Certain aspects of this story have come under dispute. Mark Opsasnick claims that he found no evidence that Father Hughes ever attempted to exorcise the boy at Georgetown University Hospital nor that he recevied a slash or injury at that time.[47] In addition, Father Halloran himself allegedly told Opsasnick that he did not hear the boy's voice change[48] and that he didn't check the boys fingernails and see if he made the marks himself.[49] In addition one of the boys friends allegedly told Opsasnick that the "supernatural" events were exaggerated and that the spitting and bed shaking could be explained.[50] Joe Nickell claims that the events reliably reported were not beyond what a teenager can do.[51]''

[[Special:Contributions/24.180.173.157|24.180.173.157]] ([[User talk:24.180.173.157|talk]]) 16:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
::I second this. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 07:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

== OBJECTION ==

Quote: "Spiritualists, however, did not heed the biblical admonitions against consorting with spirits. She therefore, introduced Robbie to the Ouija board when he expressed interest in it.[15]Nonetheless, Robbie was your average boy - he played, read comic books, and listened to the radio.[16]"

Is this quote intelligent, or does it even contribute to the article? NO to each. Spiritualism does not need to be beaten to death here...anyone can look up what a Spiritualist believes...it is a legitimate religion that believes in communication with the dead. As far ignoring Biblical admonitions, how many times do I have to strike this passage before someone agrees with me? It's childish, stupid and adds nothing to the notability of this boy.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.146.222|75.21.146.222]] ([[User talk:75.21.146.222|talk]]) 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

:ADDENDUM: If you people keep the quote that Spiritualists refuse to heed the "Scriptural" prohibition against consorting with spirits, you are not just presenting a point of view, but also crossing the conflict-of-interest line. You cannot make that sort of statement about any religion, that Such-And-So religion refuses to accept the tenets of Such-And-Such. Spiritualism is a far cry from Christian fundamentalism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Protestantism. So stop using POV quotes that seem to disparage Spiritualism. And as I said, what does that silly quote among others really add to the article? It's as Vespine says, some quotes are just stinky, unreliable or POV quotes. They do not belong here. Anupam and maybe others are making this article look really rotten.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.146.222|75.21.146.222]] ([[User talk:75.21.146.222|talk]]) 16:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
:::I completely agree. The article is still full of junk sources. From the very top of this page, back in April for Pete's sake! The MAIN problem with this article "UNRELIABLE SOURCES" has not been addressed. Everyone who tries to make an edit and remove a quote from these ridiculous sources gets reverted by Anupam. It is HIGH time this was addressed, I have raised it on numerous occasions here:

:::1. "Paranormal Experiences"
:::2. "A Faraway Ancient Country"
:::3. "Good Spirits, Bad Spirits: How to Distinguish Between Them"

:::These are not reliable sources, these are essentially story books, using them as sources for a wiki article is a complete joke. This is not the 1st time I'm raising this point and no one has been able to provide an argument against my point. We need to REMOVE information from these sources until there is NONE left. From now on if someone removes information sourced from any of the above sources, the edit should NOT be reverted. I don't care what reason you come up with or how you "think" it unbalances the article, I'm sorry but these sources are just ''not'' acceptable.

:::I would also argue about this source:
:::4. "Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology"
:::I don't care how many PhDs the authors have, I find it amusing that this fact has now been included IN the actual article. Just because someone has a PhD does not in the least mean they can't have a POV opinion on something, the book is still full of credulous opinion and conjecture. I would class it as not credible, but I'd be willing to discuss it. The 1st three are not even up for discussion IMHO. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 23:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
::::Also, one more point, what is with the RIDICULOUSLY long source references? Is there a wiki style guide against this sort of thing? This is the main reason I can't be bothered editing this article: because I just get completely lost in the references and inadvertently end up breaking something, then can't work out how to fix it so just have to revert any edits you just worked ages on. It's just ridiculous, I've never seen an article like it, there is no reason for it as far as I can see. Links to the source are more then enough. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
==Moving this article forward, unreliable sources==

I believe the main hindrance to the progress of this article are the unreliable sources. I think any information sourced from these books needs to be removed. I'm sorry, I know a lot of effort has gone into getting a lot of information and accurately referencing it, but if the source is no good then the information obtained from it can not be used.

The three main offending sources are as I have stated on more then a couple of occasions:

1. "Paranormal Experiences"

2. "A Faraway Ancient Country"

3. "Good Spirits, Bad Spirits: How to Distinguish Between Them"

These are absolutely useless as encyclopedic sources, they are barely more then works of fiction, story books. I put it forward that there should be no information sourced from them in this article. Any information referenced back to those sources should be systematically removed. I'm happy to put it to a discussion or a vote but a decision needs to be made and adhered to.

After those three I would also dispute

4. "Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology"

But we can get to that in time, the 1st 3 in my opinion are more pressing.

Another point I would like to make is to keep edits to a reasonable size. Going through the history of the article, it looks like some editors have made single edits which attack the whole article in many different sections, this makes it very difficult to keep track of. I'm not against making large edits, but split them up at least to individual sections.

If no one responds here in the next few days, I am going to start going through the article and removing any information referenced from those 3 sources. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 09:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, how I wish I could be of more service to you in this. Perhaps I can if I could print the article and run the red pen through it. I could then only note my changes here, because I know exactly what you mean about obliterating things. I have done that also, accidentally, becausew of the confusing look of the editing screen. I would say ask a seasoned admin to help here...but that is nothing except a Pandora's Box. YOU are right, we need to cut the crap that poses for reference material. There is a skinny, essential little story to this boy's documented experiences and I think only Thomas Allen (''Possessed'') and a few newspaper articles can work here. I'll keep breezing through the thing and see what I can do to help. Let's hope Anupam The Great doesn't ruin the whole thing.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.153.99|75.21.153.99]] ([[User talk:75.21.153.99|talk]]) 13:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

== Editing Nightmare...the page is possessed ==

Vespine, you know, with all that vertigo-inducing garbage we see when we edit...how can this be cleaned up unless it's ''totally redone''?! I've cleaned up and am fairly sure I got a lot done, but only in the psychology section. Obviously Anupam has overburdened this article with minutiae that would give J. Edgar Hoover a migraine--and we have to clean it ALL up. ''Well I say make him do it''. Then we can assure him a place to contribute if he stops turning this article into a total Christian POV thing. Because that also crosses the conflict of interest line, I don't know why Wikipedia made this thing a "Christian" article in the 1st place. I can see the logic, but don't do that at this point is what I say! Let it be done right first. Jeez, this reminds me of another nightmare and it took us three years to fix it. Then someone just came in and destroyed 3 years' work. Remember that too, Vespine, they'll do it here, I guarantee it.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.153.99|75.21.153.99]] ([[User talk:75.21.153.99|talk]]) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

== Citation structure ==

OK, one HUGE problem is the bibliography structure. The first time a source is cited, go full steam ahead...but if it is cited again, we usually put:
"Author's Surname, ''ibid.''". That thing is a headache because of the silly, fussy way it is overburdened.

And I second the motion that Vespine's top three undesirable ciation list be deleted from the article. The 4th source (''Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology'') I do NOT agree should be dismissed. It addresses valid points in Robbie's narrative.

WHERE is Thomas Allen in the biblio or even cited in the article? His name and his link is there, but no citation. Has no one read it? Or am I missing something?[[Special:Contributions/75.21.153.99|75.21.153.99]] ([[User talk:75.21.153.99|talk]]) 14:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:LOL dude, i appreciate you're helping out and you definitely have valid points, I very much agree with your post above regarding ''vertigo'', i have had to cancel edits on several occasions because I just haven't been able to decode the mess. BUT, I ''JUST'' replied to your post on my user page, can you refrain from making so many edits at once? If you have written one thread, and no one has replied yet, if you have something to add just keep adding to the same thread, it's really all the same subject, posting 3 different posts in 2 different locations is quite confusing too..

:As for going forward, I feel we're sort of on the same page, I don't agree that Anupam would be able to do what this article needs. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but this article has been flagged since April and it hasn't really moved forward. if no one else except for anupam or 99 weigh in here maybe we should raise a RFC? Also, there's is a page [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard]] we could try run the [[evil]] book past there see what people think, but I imagine it's not easy to judge without a whole background on the story. [[User:Vespine|Vespine]] ([[User talk:Vespine|talk]]) 23:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

::You are correct and I apologize, Vespine--posting all over and making it tough. I'll stick to one thread as you say. It is just that I always saw the structure of this as different: I get several ideas, of course, and I don't see the logic of sticking to the same thread if the subject departs from it. So I tend to start a new thread. At your request I won't do it. Also, again, apologies for overburdening your talk page.

::I think you and I can do this. There is a great deal of slop in the way the article is, but I think basic structure is there. I can see now this will be like rebuilding a house. Luckily we already have all that we want and before our eyes we have all that we don't want in it. With the restructure will come the ease of citations. I'm only nervous about making every other word a g.d. link to something, you know? Why do we have to do that? There's no rule anywhere saying that has to be done the way Anupam did it. Well, I have to leave it there for now. By the way, I am "222" and "99". That means admins may come after me and I may not actually be around long enough to help any. They are scared of me so they hate me.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.153.99|75.21.153.99]] ([[User talk:75.21.153.99|talk]]) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There are citation errors that are new, which I have left because that page is a mess--but I leave them because I think they are good place-markers for our editing procedure. Hopefully that can be fixed for now...the info was to be removed as agreed, I just didn't do it right.[[Special:Contributions/75.21.149.122|75.21.149.122]] ([[User talk:75.21.149.122|talk]]) 14:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:01, 16 November 2024

Article protection

[edit]

While I appreciate and understand the need for protection here, given the changes that have been foisted on this article, and needed correction ... could someone please begin posting a protection notice HERE? I see some grammatical errors and terminology that requires attention, and cannot get to it!

In other words, will whomever it is protecting the page please stop doing that without notification at least? We'd like to be notified here at the talk page!76.195.81.212 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't protected, but I see on your talk page that your IP has been used for vandalism before. It's possible the IP has been given a temporary block from editing as a result. You should consider registering for an account, as IP addresses are shared across multiple users and you may be suffering from a problem caused by another user of your IP address. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TechSym, I know I have replied to someone about this before. I have not committed any vandalism anywhere here, ever. It appears a school shares my IP range - but so do a few choice troublemakers such as those who regularly vandalize Claddagh ring, which article I helped compose and research. There is naturally nothing I can do to prove I didn't do it, except to state that I'm fairly well recognized by my work here.75.21.98.141 (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jumped back in to say, I was IP 76.195.81.212 - but no longer. As I have explained, my provider alternates our IP addresses for security reasons. We have no control over that, and it appears the provider has no control over it either since they have exposed my city of residence several times!75.21.98.141 (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is fairly normal for ISPs, particularly considering the exhausted IPv4 address pool. For the record, I never said you did any vandalising, simply that your IP has been pegged before. As I said above, registering an account here would alleviate some of the problems you've been having as your account is unique and won't be used by other people on the same IP address. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Techno, it's been a while since I could post. I wanted you to understand, I wasn't upset at you, nor did I believe you accused anyone of anything. I know you were tracking the IP activity, I can understand that.75.21.149.151 (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed two additions to this article which had appropriate citations to back them up. Expect going to arbitration regarding this conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RugerOneShot (talk • contribs) 06:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good, I didn't make any assumptions =) Are you still having trouble editing the article? If so, you'll probably want to raise the issue somewhere (probably WP:AN?) to try to get it resolved. I suspect they'll also recommend you register an account though. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have cleaned this article of a substantial copyright problem with several sources, most particularly the Strange Magazine article, from which we had taken over 1,200 words. Wikipedia's copyright policies forbid extensive quotations from non-free sources, and this is no question that this source is non-free; it reserves all rights. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content. It is permitted to use brief excerpts of copyright content for transformative reasons, but we cannot take substantial content from any source. While there is no precise word count that constitutes infringement, it's worth remembering that in one extreme case, 300 words from a 500 page book were found to infringe. While that was an extreme case, 1,200 words is likely to be substantial from any article. Several of the other sources, too, were far too extensively copied. Wikipedia articles must rely on proper paraphrase to a great extent when the sources are copyrighted. While information is free for reuse, expression is reserved and must be incorporated conservatively within policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper/Epperson source

[edit]

The book "Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology" by Terry D. Cooper and Cindy K. Epperson, published by Paulist Press is being heavily cited in our article. I just read through the relevant chapter, and the authors are writing from a religious perspective, e.g. "Although they are not frequent, exorcisms are necessary for casting out the demonic" and "Cases of genuine possession cannot be explained by psychiatry" etc. I'm going to remove the extensive narrative passages cited to this source and edit accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:LuckyLouie, I do not think there is a problem with leaving the reference in the article as long as we attribute the claim. I am going to reword the quote you excised to state "Terry D. Cooper, a professor of psychology, as well as a Christian by faith, has stated..."; because this article is about an exorcism, it is important to include how Christian clerics and associated individuals, interpreted the case while balancing it with how skeptics interpret it in order to fulfill WP:NPOV. I hope this helps. With regards, `AnupamTalk 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the recent article history, it seems that administrator User:Philg88, as well as User:Ian.thomson and 70.33.31.11 (the latter of whom I would recommend create an account), have also been involved. Before you make a major change to the article User:LuckyLouie, I hope to have some other users offer their thoughts. As I mentioned above, my preference is that we share the perspectives of both the Church, as well as skeptical perspectives for balance. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the bit "However, this theory is countered..." because the claim that Doe went on to have a normal life, or that he didn't have have had OCD, MPD, schizophrenia, or Tourette's counter the claim that he was pretending is absolutely unrelated to the argument that he was just pretending. While I don't necessarily object to including Cooper and Epperson's claim about Doe's supposed mental health with proper attribution and due weight, they should not be used as a red herring. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Ian.thomson, thanks for that. I did not see that statement there when I performed the revert and because it was uncited and unattributed, I agree with your removal of that sentence. Also, thanks for your comment about Cooper and Epperson's claim. I feel the same way. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The IP responsible for that bit (70.33.31.11) in the article [[has a clear agenda, shown through their preaching and censorship in the Theistic Satanism article and a borderline-attack rant on an admin's page. Honestly, until the IP is blocked or repents, I'm checking on their edits through the undo window, and I invite others to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The book Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology should be removed, it's fringe and unreliable yet is used on the article a number of times. Goblin Face (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also question the use of these sources:
  • A Faraway Ancient Country. Lulu. (self published)
  • The dark side of God: a quest for the lost heart of Christianity. Element. June 1999. ISBN 9781862044586. (religious perspective)
  • Paranormal Experiences. Mehra Shrikhande. Unicorn Books. ISBN 9788178061665. (paranormal perspective)
Also, Possessed: the true story of an exorcism by Thomas B Allen is being misused: the author suggested the boy could have fabricated the events or could have been suffering from mental illness [1] but this opinion is conspicuously absent from the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern was the IP, and would not have been involved otherwise. I will agree that the Lulu source needs to go, but otherwise have no real desire to get involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Had just flagged the first of these and was about to discuss others before seeing this thread. Good Spirits, Bad Spirits: How to Distinguish Between Them is also self-published, being printed by iUniverse. --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed statements sourced only to WP:SELFPUB sources. jps (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Allen's book

[edit]

The article doesn't mention when Allen wrote Possessed - although the lede implies that he wrote it prior to 1971 and it was inspiration in part for The Exorcist, it looks like Possessed was actually written in 1993? Is that right, or am I reading the blurb for a later edition of the book? --McGeddon (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First edition was published by Doubleday in 1993. [2]. This is one of the most error-riddled articles I've ever seen. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran Involvement/Source

[edit]

I recently wrote an article about Louis J. Sieck, president of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. A graduate student wrote this thesis on demonic possessions as relates to Lutheran theology and the Doe case; he obtained signed statements from some individuals around at the time who give details about the possession and the attempts of Dr. Sieck and Rev. Alfred Doerffler to cast out the demon. From what I have read about sources, the thesis does not pass muster to use as a source, so I will not add it. But I think it works as an external link, so I will add it there. Please comment here if you think it fit to remove. Thank you. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

Re this edit...no, the quotes are not "made up". The quote you are trying to verify is on the 5th page of the cited source [3], not the 1st page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exorcism_of_Roland_Doe&oldid=1257679714"