Talk:Ed and Lorraine Warren

Controversial

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

Untitled

• • • OPINION

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

Fixing this and other notes

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

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

Note

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

An online source

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

Reader's Warning: This article has been planted.

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

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

Multiple Issues

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

The not-so-neutral talk here

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

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

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

Grammar error on introduction

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

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

10,000 cases

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ed and Lorraine Warren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mmdnewswire.com/brors-sue-world-fmous-psychic-lorrine-wrren-for-flse-ccustis-in-devil-book-2347-2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070507112948/http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-62312.html to http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-62312.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

"Skeptics"

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

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

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