Talk:Exorcism of Roland Doe/Archive 1

Unreliable Sources

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. 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:

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." (source)

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. 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, Anupam^Talk 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, Psychokinesis and other such paranormal phenomena have never been credibly demonstrated.

The sources for this "levitation" claim are:

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."

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."

These sources fall well short of meeting wiki standards for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

This whole article presents information from dubious sources as facts.

The section for "Psychiatric considerations" is sourced mainly from

"Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology" and "Casting out the Devil!" which is a website claiming to be "The largest library about Nostradamus for free !"

These again do not qualify as Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

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.

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.

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.

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. Vespine (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

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'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" (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 medical and pastoral conclusions, the content reflects the reports of the minister's claims; it does not present it as total fact. Similarly, the poltergeist activity section attributes those occurrences to forty-eight witnesses, which is sourced thrice. The 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, Anupam^Talk 03:45, 19 April 2010 (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.

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 something makes it 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. 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:

Robbie Mannheim (also known as Roland) is the name given by 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 1973 film of the same name, as well as Thomas B. Allen's own 1993 book Possessed and the following 2000 television film by the same name. The real identity of Mannheim has never been revealed.

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. 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. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Note on sources: iUniverse is an alarm-bell for me, as is 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. 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 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 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, Anupam^Talk 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. 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. 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] is a Lutheran Christian 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 1973 film of the same name, as well as Thomas B. Allen's own 1993 book Possessed and the following 2000 television film by the same name. this IS what he is most notably known for The real identity of Mannheim has never been revealed. . 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] <> 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.

==Relationship with aunt== 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. 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, Anupam^Talk 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 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. 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. :)) 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, Anupam^Talk 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. 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, Anupam^Talk 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? -Craig Pemberton 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. 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 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 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, Anupam^Talk 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? Vespine (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please list the exact sources used in the article that you dispute? Thanks, Anupam^Talk 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:

1. "Paranormal Experiences"
2. "A Faraway Ancient Country"
3. "Good Spirits, Bad Spirits: How to Distinguish Between Them"
4. "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.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!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?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. 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?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! ;) 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.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.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.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. 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.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.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!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.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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.119.37 (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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. 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.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, Anupam^Talk 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. 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. --Anupam^Talk 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. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.100.121 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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, Anupam^Talk 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!75.21.146.222 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The "scriptural admonitions" statement is important, especially when considering the Christian perspective because according to that point of view, the failure to heed Scriptural admonitions resulted in diabolic possession. I hope you will see why I feel that line is important. However, I am open to discussing it further. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I will simply quote myself from an earlier post that you did not read: "If you 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." Do you understand? You cannot have it all your way only, Anupam! And Vespine agreed with my point about this. You are crossing the conflict of interest line, perhaps you should read the Wikipedia rules about that!76.195.82.134 (talk) 12:38, 23 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]

24.180.173.157 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I second this. 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.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.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. 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. 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. 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.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.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?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. 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.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.75.21.149.122 (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, the autobot reverted my unintended damage. I just hope we can get something done without the reversions!76.195.82.134 (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than taking anything at present, I have added section 1, POPULAR UNVERIFIED ANECDOTAL REPORTS and in it state that the entry is anecdotal and ultimately unverified. The one citation will suffice, I hope. This way we can clean up the article, but no need to remove the other's hard work. Just to be up-front and state it is based from unverified urban legends and false reports. I have changed nothing else.76.195.82.134 (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The addition of that new section is not needed because it is explained in the "Origin of Claims" section. I also reversed the removal of the "scriptural admonitions" statement and explained why here. I have also restored the removal of the "See also" section and have restored the references for the "Literature and film" section. Vespine, it seems that you have issues with the "Psychiatric considerations" section. I will not touch that section for now. If you would like to rewrite it, I would be more than happy to see your proposed version of the section. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, if you've helped restore what I accidentally deleted, I thank you. Secondly: your Origin Claims does NOT cover what it is we are trying to convey! People need to know what is hard fact that was documented versus mere anecdotal reports. Vespine is right, you do not seem to want to move away from stories as opposed to the few facts we have about this case. I insist we do something more clear about identifying the STORIES in that article versus what little fact there is. And it needs restructuring. Also, you cannot keep insisting on the Scriptural Christian line you reverted back. That is a conflict of interest and is pushing someone else's point of view. I suggest you read the rules on this Anupam. Vespine and I agreed that the line should GO. It is unnecessary and you are burdening this article to the point of destruction. We do not need a "See Also" section unless it is directly related to this person of interest--but you reverted that too. This is not only your project Anupam!76.195.82.134 (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Origin of Claims" section states that "Most of the information regarding him and the events surrounding his alleged possession and exorcism comes from secondary and tertiary sources." I think this is sufficient. I still believe it is important to keep the "Scriptural Admonitions" line because from that point of view, it is a major factor that contributed to the supposed diabolic possession. The "Scriptural Admonitions" statement is definitely balanced by Mark Opsasnick and Joe Nickell's statements in the article. To only present the latter position would be advocated a skeptical point of view. This is why we must present both. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 14:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, you are forcing a point of view here with this issue and others. You are in a conflict of interest. I will record this here in order to show that you are trying to own this article.75.21.154.247 (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits, or disagreements with Anupam?

Your alerting of an admin, Anupam, was a dirty move. We are trying to help here, and doing our best not to fall apart. Vespine has had headaches from this work also. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR VESPINE. All I say is you had better stop accusing and getting everything reverted that you do not like. Vespine: sorry, but I'm starting new threads every time from now on. I'm not going to have posts reverted because I had to go back to an old thread. Vespine, I think you have lost sight of the need for new threads to be started...they are new topics of importance. I don't start new topics for fun, you know.

And you, Anupam, be notified that I have invited the admin to come examine what is going on here. We need help, and a lot of help that we need is to save us from your meddling. You are the unconstructive editor here.76.195.82.134 (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I never alerted anyone about anything. I am not sure where you are deriving your claims from. Posting such a message on my talk page was also inappropriate. It is also advised that you create a Wikipedia account. Before creating threads such as these, please read WP:CIVIL. Anyone is allowed to post in a talk page. I politely did so in order to continue discussion here. --Anupam^Talk 14:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if that is true--I was alerted by the admin Torchwood Who, that is who. And in any case, you even now are presuming to tell me what I may and may not post! I did not ever post anything "inappropriate" on your page. I was warning you about editing protocol which you seem to ignore. You also don't seem to know what you yourself have posted or when. Do not lecture me. I have been trying to work on this page as much as you, and all you do is block progress.75.21.152.167 (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding. I was accused of attacking you by a busybody admin Torchwood Who. Apparently he thought this post was from an article. I still do not know why he thought I would post personal notes in an article. He made the error and I see it was not you.

You now must recall one thing: criticism is NOT an attack. My editing is not destructive if I am only trying to make a point. What I have said to you about your involvement here still stands. This article is for all editors, not only you.75.21.152.167 (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ANUPAM!--You need to also do some re-structuring at Robbie Mannheim. That is one long run-on paragraph and Vespine has no time to edit at all. I have very little time. You need to make that article structure easier to read. AND easier to edit. What you have done over there is a mess. I suggest you start reading and posting at the talk page. I am copying this post there.75.21.154.247 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anupam"

I have placed this here for any admin/editor to read. We need help here and we need it NOW. This article is a mess made by Anupam, and he needs to structure it more clearly. Also stop placing his mere POV here and work with the consensus that exists right now about the weaknesses in this article.75.21.154.247 (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Return to Unreliable sources

Since no one has objected with me and I have raised this point now three times, I am now going to start removing any references linked back to these sources:

1. "Paranormal Experiences"

2. "A Faraway Ancient Country"

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

I don't really care if it leaves the article without much to say, that's not a good enough reason to use unreliable sources. If someone wants to read a story book, they can go read it in a story book, not an encyclopedia. If someone wants to add section that describes some of the stories that have been made up about Robbie, then fine, present it at that, in a section called that, don't intersperse made up information under headings where otherwise factual information should go. Vespine (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that's a start.. I think still more needs to be done. Looking back on it, I really still have an issue with the Evil: satan, sin and psychology book. The more I read about this book the more it seems like it is NOT A RELIABLE source of information about this case or Robbie Mannheim. What insight do the authors have that halloran, allan and ospsasnick didn't have? These authors were not writing a book about a historical account, they were writing a "thought experiment" as to what might explain these kinds of alleged events, you can't then go and use that as a source FOR those alleged events... But I'm going to leave it for now. I'm interested to see what reaction my cull will have. If you revert my edits, i expect an explanation here, if my edits are reverted without discussion, i'm just going to revert them back. Vespine (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are totally right and in line with what this article ought to be, Vespine. I hope I have helped thus far...since you are taking the initiative, I'm leaving the citation removal to you. I'm scared I'll get accused of vandalism if I try that. However, I will also back you up on grammar and format checking, if you'll have me. I think I know how an article should be written and presented also. Please drop me a line right here to let me know. Why did the disputation of the article get put back, and why is my RfC gone here? Do you know?75.21.105.150 (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind if you help, I'd really appreciate it actually. The article doesn't "belong" to me as much as it doesn't belong to anyone. As for the npov flag, I think we have different ideas what the NPOV flag is for. In my opinion the flag is there preliminarily as a caution to anyone new or unfamiliar who comes and reads the article. The article still has unreliable sources and even though you and I have come to an agreement about how to resolve it, someone new coming to read the article will still be reading sections of fairy tales. So in my opinion that banner stays until the article is brought up to a better standard, not just until the editors agree how to fix it.

Here's a section of the NPOV article that might help:

Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it probably is not neutral—or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with.

As for the RfC, I swear I saw yesterday in the edit history some sort of "bot" or something with an edit called "remove expired RfC tag" but I'm searching through the same log today and I can't see it.. Not sure what happened, maybe i saw it somewhere else..Vespine (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, I'm 100% with you so far. I've studied the same passage you cited above...so I agree, however: what do you think about approaching an admin about the deletion of this article? Hear me out now: sources that we know to be sound and true tell us only that a teenaged boy circa 1949 was the subject of an exorcism officially sanctioned/performed by the Catholic Church. We know what Fr. Walt has told us about it. THAT IS IT. Does THAT constitute a person of interest, i.e., though he's a real person, what good does that do? I want you to think about this. Perhaps all the urban legends and crap belongs under another heading or as a mere footnote elsewhere. This allegedly possessed kid is no more than a vague nameless memory. I propose that does not meet any biographical or other standard for a person of interest.75.21.105.150 (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dimension Desconocida

With all my years in this field, I have not seen anything called Dimension Desconocida ("Unknown Dimension"). We do NOT need a silly ref like that, in a foreign language and probably unattainable in this country. I move we strike that too, and anything culled from it.75.21.105.150 (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone makes and edit and discusses it on the talk page, it is inappropriate to undo the edit without giving a reason. I agree with the above reason and I am going to revert the edit which put the reference back. If you want to get into an edit war without any discussion please go ahead. Otherwise give us one good reason why you need to use a Spanish source linking the movie to the story of Mannheim? In fact, i'm pretty sure ospsasnick also states it in his article so why not use a source already present in the article?Vespine (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, I welcome the support. Tell me, please be more clear: did someone sneak in and revert the removal of my work? Do you mean to say someone came in and reverted my edit, and that now you are reverting the reversion? I like to know for sure. By the way, have you thought about merging or deleting this article? We just don't have enough of anything except urban legend.

Also, when you get to my final paragraph I think you may see why we should either merge this article or just delete it. I actually hate deleting it, but it is NOT worthwhile....

....One more thing: I don't know who did this, but I am re-reading Possessed by Allen and I just realized this article is just a blow-by-blow copying of Allen's layout. Not exactly plagiarism in its severest form, but close enough to make a case.75.21.105.150 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's exactly what happened. I didn't want to name the person, but obviously it was Anupam, he reverted your edit where you removed the Spanish source. You can see it in revision history , 00:09, 2 September 2010 Anupam (talk | contribs) (46,543 bytes) (Undid revision 382364319 by 75.21.105.150 (talk)) (undo).. Vespine (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, all else aside, thanks for that sharp eye. You know what? That's VANDALISM. And he's been in the crap for that before.75.21.105.150 (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of this article

My preliminary proposal for deletion of this article is based on the guidelines of notability WP:N/N--"Robbie Mannheim" does not meet the standard, even for merging. He is an essentially undocumented memory and no more.

His existence as a person is not questioned, and he is the acknowledged inspiration for "The Exorcist" novel and film, but this is insufficient reason to keep an article that is even titled inappropriately.

There are no further trustworthy sources on the subject, and all there is in plenty is unverified, false or anecdotal.

I will take no action here, per regulations as WP:PRODSUM because I already know someone will object. I am only asking the idea be discussed here, though I would like to propose it for deletion.75.21.105.150 (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As for deletion, i'm not convinced. I see your point, but the fact is, it's hard to argue the subject is not notable when there are at least 2 or 3 movies and may books written about this! However I DO agree that it is mostly urban legend and fantasy rather then a real article about a REAL person.. SO! I have an idea, maybe a bit of a compromise is to rename this article to something like "The Case of Robbie Mannheim" ? What do you think? This changes the focus of the article AWAY from the biographical and more towards an analysis of the folklore surrounding it. I wonder if there is a precedent for this kind of thing. Vespine (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's what I love about you, Vespine, always thinking. It's not bad at all and it keeps the basic integrity of it. As Fr. Bowdern always said, some good can come of this thing. That would probably work. You take an example like this...there are precedents because people of interest began something vital and important. But there's simply nothing about them. I couldn't locate an example, but I do know that makes the notability only footnoteworthy. Here, you're right and I think you just established precedent. Maybe Bowdern knew you in another life?75.21.105.150 (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OOPS, forgot, Vespine, what about Satan, Sin and Psychology? You really had it in for that as a lousy ref, so does it go and everything with it? Because I agree, and was going to seriously start bulldozing this thing if we decided to keep at it...75.21.105.150 (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This Evil book is a little more complicated to discuss. I don't think it's fair to say either yes or no to it. It entirely depends on what information you are actually sourcing from that book. To make the decision, you have to analyse the purpose and intent of this book. The authors are undeniably credible and they give credible accounts of psychological analysis of CLAIMED phenomena, they are NOT historians giving a critical and unbiased opinion of WHAT actually happened. They do not provide THEIR sources of what they recount, because that's NOT the purpose of their book. To give an analogy which might make it clear, for example imagine a book written explaining in psychological terms the exploits of Marco Polo, or King Arthur? Both of those books could be written by completely rational and competent psychologists and they could have very thorough and valid conclusions, HOWEVER that does not mean that the subject of their enquiry is 100% factual and accurate. Given that, I would say the book is NOT a valid source of any factual claims about this case, but can be used about alleged claims, or their interpretations. Vespine (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You make a good explanation for the record and I agree with this explanation. However, if there is not a direct addressing of psychological opinions about what occurs with "possession" and "exorcism", we may as well strike the ref.

I'll state my example: Georges Gilles de la Tourette was fascinated by the history of demonic possession--even wrote a play about it, the event at Loudon--because he found that in ALL cases it was the disease he worked on, NOT possession. Now that direct quote would be good here as an illustration of the view science takes ina broad way. Info like that is not bad and it is not a "commentary" on "anecdotes about" possession, because Tourette witnessed them for himself and saw they were really sick.

On any road, I agree and defer to your judgment. I will review the section once more but I think, other than getting some paragraphs in order and legible, it's good as-is.75.21.105.150 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your use of capitalization and the repeated use of "alleged" in all the headings is highly unnecessary. Please read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style before making such edits. I am reverting your back to Vespine's version. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, you have no right to simply dictate and then make revesions without discussion here first. Changes have been made for the better, and there is nothing wrong with using "alleged". Can you prove what is written there? You are going to be reported for vandalization. That work was sanctioned by Vespine.75.21.105.150 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because they do not follow the Manual of Style. The word "alleged" is mentioned multiple times in the articles. It does not need to be mentioned in the headings. Also, please do not remove sources without discussing it first. Before removing the source, at least consult User:Vespine to see if it is necessary. You are whimsically removing different parts of the article without discussion. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, do not wave that flag in my face: Vespine and I decided on most all the changes and we are working on them. I apologized to Vespine for not letting her know about the section headings changes, I should not have tried it. But do not accuse me of doing what you are doing! You are behaving like a vandal on a regular basis. If you bothered to read here, you'd know I am not "whimsically" doing anything. We are trying to rework YOUR mess. Your sources have been rightly criticized by Vespine and we are removing them. Like it or not. I hope this helps. With regards, 76.195.83.144 (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

....And by the way, we are going to decide whether or not to report you for vandalism together, Vespine and I. I am only waiting to hear back on whether she wishes to report you for starting an edit war. You are not going to have it only your way, Anupam. I hope this helps, with regards,76.195.83.144 (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen please.. No offense 76, please don't take this personally, but I think you are sarting to take this a little too seriously. It's good to be passionate, but you also have to try to remain civil and "professional," we are all here only because we want to be here, we're not paid or even thanked for doing this. I think you are starting to cross the line a little with your threats of reporting Anupam for vandalism. From what I can see, what Anupam has been doing does not amount to vandalism and I tend to agree with Anupam's call about the section headings. I think from now if anyone is going to make a big change, like a change to a heading, or a major change that involves a source which is NOT in question that they should post your argument here first. Like I have being trying to, then if someone else does not agree, they should NOT just revert the edit, but should go to the talk page first and give their side of the argument. I actually agree with some of the edits you made 76 which Anupam reverted in one go, so I would redo them if i knew how, but I can't see there is a way to do that, so I think Anupam was a bit heavy handed for reverting all 13 edits at once too. I really have to go now, i'll try to come back later and comment some more, including how we can proceed in a civil manner. Vespine (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A few solutions, if one may...

1. Vespine, agreed. I erred and should be gracious about it.

2. At this stage I cannot be sure what source you are worrying about that I took out...but it had to have been an accident. I would not have done that to a legitimate source, but then again, Vespine, weren't YOU supposed to be doing some cleaning up too? It was getting hot and steamy for me and not in a good way.

3. Vespine, Anupam does not have the right to just always come in and do whatever. I really think you should at least read about editing wars, then decide you'll defend Anupam so expertly. And excuse me please, but his changes, because they are deliberate, persistent reversions that we've asked him not to do, DO constitute a form of vandalism. And he's been in trouble before.

4. You seem to be advocating that we back away and cool off, and I'm all for it as I told you on your talk page. I wanted to respond to you because you do deserve that and for me to apologize again for my errors.

But other than perhaps some responses, and an ocassional look, I'm on vacation!! And Vespine darling, please, don't automatically stand up for Anupam so much. Anupam is the worst party here, and I don't care who sees me make the statement. He knows what he's doing. Manipulating. Breaking at least the RRR Rule. Edit warring by reverting like there's no tomorrow. Thinking this is his page. And now I'm getting called out of line by YOU because I'm too passionate! I'm tired of it.76.195.83.144 (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to re-read my post and calm down a bit. My main criticism is that you are taking things too personally, my last post PLEADS for you not to take it personally, and what do you go do? You go and take it all personally, lol..

1, I wasn't asking for an apology, I was just saying "check yourself" that's all.

2, I have no idea what you are talking about, I wasn't worrying about any source you took out. In the above thread there is a discussion between you and anupam discussing the word "alleged" in a subject heading, it is only on THIS point that I said I agree with Anupam, especially since the heading in question is "origin of claims".. See, in that single case, the word alleged is not necessary, the claims them selves aren't alleged, the fact those claims were made is not in dispute, what those claims SAY might be in dispute, but the claims them selves are not alleged. So in that case I agree with Anupam, that DOES NOT mean I'm siding with Anupam, or stabbing you in the back, don't take it personally, it has to be a combined effort. If any one of us was a brilliant writer and knew all the facts and never made a grammatical error or anything then we wouldn't be having this discussion, the article would be perfect and we could move on to something else;)..

3, Yes I know! If you read my previous post, I did say I disagreed with the way Anupam reverted all 13 of your edits at once, but I can't see how to re do them one by one. There is only ONE discussion above between you and anupam and that's about the heading, which as I said I agree with Anupam, but I'll review the other 12 edits you made and if the vast majority of those are valid then I think Anupam's revert should be un done. Happy?

4. No I'm not advocating that at all. I have no idea where you read that in my message. I said that going forward we should ALL discuss major changes here on the talk page and NOT undo people's edits until we discuss them here. That includes Anupam.

"Don't automatically stand up for Anupam so much".. I find that bordering on offensive. Firstly, there was NOTHING automatic about it, it was VERY carefully considered. Secondly, I wasn't standing up for Anupam per se, just for Anupam's argument in your discussion above, there IS a difference, you need to learn this, people can agree or disagree on various subjects independently of what they think of each other as "people". Thirdly, there was no "so much" about it, I said I agreed with ONE point, on the whole, the article was in desperate need of a clean up primarily because of the unsuitable sources Anupam used to begin with. Anyway, whatever, maybe you should take a break. It's no problem, like I said, no one is here by force. Chill out, take it easy, forget about Robbie and Anupam for a while. I don't really see this as a "war", it's just an article, sure it would be nice if it was a really good article, but if it's going to drive you crazy, maybe you should take a break for a while.. Thanks heaps for your help so far, much appreciated. :) Vespine (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So I've had a better look at the edits in question and I have to say that apart from one or two which I'm not clear about, there's about 7 which I can see could be brought into question, mainly the ones which edit the headings. So it's pretty much a 50/50 of those 13 that Anupam undid. I still think it is heavy handed to just undo ALL of them, just because you found half objectionable, however I don't believe it's as clear cut as to label it as vandalism. From Anupam's argument I don't think undoing his reversion is the correct solution, I think the better way to go would be to just redo some of the edits 76 made. In future, if you are going to revert edits, and there are 7, or 13, it would be nice if they could be reverted one by one while checking that they are in fact in dispute, not just en masse because you think they're all unsuitable. Vespine (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to move this page

I mentioned this above and there was no objection, but to keep everything above board I will raise the issue officially here.

I propose this article is moved to "The Case of Robbie Mannheim" effectively renaming the article. The article "Robbie Mannheim" would be redirected to the new page.

I have done a search for wiki pages starting "The Case of" and there are quite a few, however the vast majority seem to refer to novels and movies, and legal "cases". So I am not sure whether this fits with wiki style or policy.

My main argument for moving this article is that this is NOT a "biographical" article, which is what people coming to an article named after a person would expect.

Robbie Mannheim is not a real name and the majority of the information here is not verifiably sourced about a real person. The real person allegedly doesn't even remember what this article is mostly about. Half of this article is sourced from unverifiable claims made by biased observers and the other half is built up "urban legend" and conjecture by people that had nothing to do with the case mostly made decades after the original claims to begin with.

Since I am not sure if there is a "proper" way of approaching this, or if "the case of" is reserved for "legal cases" other then proper nouns like "titles" of books and movies, or something like that. I think even if we reach a consensus here, maybe we should get a RfC from some more senior editors whether there is a "wiki correct" way to approach this. Vespine (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added a move notice template to the article, this will hopefully draw some attention to it. Vespine (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the move is necessary. People merit biographies on Wikipedia because they are famous for something (as Robbie is for his supposed demonic possession and consequent exorcism). If we find other information available on other parts of his life, there would not be a problem including it. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unwelcome though I may be, I SECOND Vespine's proposal.76.195.86.155 (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Does this article really constitute a "Biography"? Vespine (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the arguments above. With so few interested parties, we're pretty much at a stalemate at the moment. I don't disagree that the case of Robbie is notable enough to warrant a page, but I believe "The Case of Robbie Mannheim" is far more notable and appropriate for a title then an article purely about "Robbie Mannheim" the person. Vespine (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just done a little more reading and I think i have some more information which might clear this up. Technically, Robbie Mannheim is a living person, so have a look at Wikipedia:BLP. Even just reading the article's introduction, I think it is very clear this article does NOT fit the description of Biographies of living persons which is what you would expect coming to an article named after a person. I don't believe Anupam's argument of People merit biographies on Wikipedia because they are famous for something really addresses the issue at all. Vespine (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to weigh in, contritely and humbly. This article does not consist of a biography of any kind. (By the way, doesn't that banner belong at the TOP of this page?) Subject of article must remain anonymous due to Church Law, the Code of Canon Law: the identity has to be kept secret by all administrative means possible. That's why I tried to shunt this over to "religion" and "philosophy".76.195.86.155 (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. In regards to the banner, I had looked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment and other examples of RfC on other pages and I believe I have used the tag correctly. I don't believe it belongs at the top of the page, it belongs in the topic for which you are requesting comments. Vespine (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So it does, so it does.76.195.86.155 (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I OBJECT to this move. Article titles containing "The case of" refer to subjects with that in their titles specifically, for example: The Case of Thomas N.. The turn of phrase has a decidedly archaic and legalistic connotation and is used almost exclusively as a literary device in fiction. Generally unless there is a strong reason to move an article it should not be moved. Compare the titles of other articles for which a critical examination of original sources strongly indicate that the individual described does not exist: Homer, Jesus, Moses, John Frum. Legendary individuals that do exist also have normal titles: Johnny Appleseed, Purple Aki. I feel this move is unnecessarily verging on violating NPOV, even if the the views being threatened may not be well-founded or encyclopaedic. -Craig Pemberton 23:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Craig's comment clears up the issue, i had a hunch that might be the case. I don't think any more input is required. I'll remove the tags. Thanks very much Craig, appreciate your explanation. Back to the drawing board. Vespine (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd like to at least say I concur.76.195.86.155 (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ouija board

Someone has removed a large chunk of information regarding Robbie's dabbling with an Oujia board which was very important for the article. The article now has no reason as to why Robbie would have become possessed (this is not to say I accept the reason of the claims of possession). I am therefore restoring the content. If you have a problem with the sourcing, you are welcome to remove the sources, but the article really doesn't make any sense without this piece of information. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, let me explain something to you: part of that was MY error, I think I removed excessively. As you sometimes do. But mine was an error.

As to the board, it need only be mentioned in a single, simple sentence and the reason why it is mentioned. No need to write so heavily about it. It is understood that someone claimed at one point that the Ouija was responsible for the allegations. That is all: just another stupid claim someone heard and printed years later. Does it deserve so much attention? I say not. Thank you Anupam for your noticing the errors I made, though, because I'd hoped they could be fixed.

I want everyone here to know I am calm about this, but I'm getting tired as I said before of everyone experimenting with ideas instead of action and correction. vespine, I'm sorry as a whole and sorry you think less of me now. I am a theologian, a published author and have 200 articles/scientific papers under my belt. I find it offensive that there should be lecturing going here about who is a "great writer" and who is not.

Let's stop that kind of talk and get this thing done properly. And again, after the initial mention of CLAIMS about the ouija board, let us drop it because it adds nothing. It is NOT the claimed reason Robbie was possessed. No one knows why he was allegedly possessed.76.195.86.155 (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way 76. I don't think less of you at all but I still think you are taking things too personally. I certinally did not intend to insult your writing ability, I was certinally not trying to "lecture" anyone, I was just trying to making a light hearted comment, I'm sorry if it didn't come across that way. I'm sure you are capable of very good writing, even profesionally as you say, as a lot of people on wikipedia are I'm sure.

As for the ouija comment, I completely agree with you. Anupam's claim that the whole article doesn't make sense otherwise is completely erroneous. There is NOTHING mysterious or supernatural about a oiuija board and there is absolutely NO reason to suggest that it has anything to do with the claimed events. Any "connection" made between the CLAIMS of playing with a Oujia board and the CLAIMS of Robbie's possesion are entirely spurious and speculative. I especially object to the line "saw the Ouija board as a means of contacting those who had passed on the next world " and the next line. It's PURE speculation and conjecture.

I'm not sure what you mean by "lets get this done properly", i thought that's what we've been trying to do... Vespine (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well according to the claims about the events that occurred, it was through the Ouija board that Robbie became possessed. I am not saying that I believe this. I am saying that this what many of the tertiary sources about the event state. It is for this reason that I added the clause "According to claims presented in a tertiary source" in another paragraph. I could do the same with the sentence pertaining to the Ouija board. I want to let you know that I am not inventing the concept of Ouija boards being used for occult purposes. This is a very well attested concept in the United States that has permeated literature and film. Maybe if you are not an American, you may be unaware of this fact. Without mentioning the Ouija board, the reader has no idea as to the reason Christian priests believed Robbie became possessed. Even though you may not recognize the sources as valid, at least three of them mention the Ouija board being the cause of Robbie's possession (1, 2, 3). This critical part of the story can not be exscinded. I hope you are understanding what I am trying to say. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that sources make this claim, that's not the argument. The argument is that there is no proof for this claim, it's purely metaphysical conjecture. Those sources are NOT presenting 'facts', they are just making an unfounded claim about a subject they have a biased opinion on. This does not qualify as encyclopedic content, it's pure speculation. Yes I agree that the claims were made and the conclusions drawn and that it makes part of the Robbie Mannheim "story", but it's not enough to just say "some tertiary sources make this claim," because this still sounds like it is a legitimate claim regarding FACTS when it is no such thing. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to state that "some sources have come to the conclusion" I think this would be a more clear way to present the facts. Having said that, I think this is just more support for the argument that this does NOT fit with what you would expect of a "biography of a living person".. Vespine (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Vespine on the above post. Now please, listen and hear me out: Vespine, what I mean is let us not argue any more about writing abilities or lack thereof, unless article-related. It is badly enough written that our work is cut out for us. It was not my intention either to insult you or impugn your work so far.

Secondly: when I say get it "done properly", well, what do you think I mean? You, Anupam and I are the only souls on earth even looking at this mess; you and I agree on basics. I say let us rewrite, revisit and take it from there. Vespine, do you not read what I write to you on your talk page? Don't you even read my remarks HERE?

We cannot do anything with Anupam messing about--I am sorry Anupam, but you are messing about, when we make good, clean edits to this article and you come along to revert it all. I have made errors, and I am going to cease editing the article completely. I'll only post here, and not often.

THE OUIJA BOARD: Anupam, Fr. Walt has said he never believed the boy was possessed and he saw no supernatural events. If you do not know this is a fact, you shouldn't be editing here at all. And the belaboring of the use of this board does not belong on this page. It belongs on the Ouija Board page if there is one--I have never looked but good God, I can imagine what THAT looks like....

As I said, this is Vespine's now. Do as you will.76.195.86.155 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I suggest you both read Ouija--hope that link is right. It's the page here about the board. Anupam! I don't see it says anyone believes the Ouija Board causes demonic infestations, obsessions or possession!76.195.86.155 (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, I would not mind if you added the clause "some sources have come to the conclusion." If you wish to do so, you can go ahead and add it in the article. 76.195.86.155, read the introductory paragraph of that article again - it's clearly stated there (along with a reference). I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a mention in the intro and one mention elsewhere would be more than enough. Thanks Anupam.76.195.86.155 (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

QUOTE: "Like other Spiritualists, she ["Harriet"] did not heed the Biblical admonitions against consorting with spirits.[14]" I move that this idiotic passage be stricken. It does nothing to help anything, and is so silly I cannot believe it keeps finding its way back in here. No one said until decades later anything about the planchette being the instrument of this boy's possession. No one today takes this kind of reasoning seriously and it detracts from the account.

I also move that some separation be introduced in between paragraphs. This badly written section is an eyesore, and Anupam is basically lifting Allen's textxs among others and pasting them here. This needs to be freshly, correctly written.75.21.106.189 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've been really flat out recently. I don't disagree that this article could do with a rewrite but that's not something i would have the time to do any time soon.. I think if we keep plugging at the "main issues", we can still get it to a reasonable standard. At the moment, I still think the sources are the main problem, if we keep removing the shoddy sourced info it will be much better.Vespine (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the quote, it is sourced back to "good spirits, bad spirits" which as has been discussed, is an inappropriate source, therefore I'm removing it. You didn't even need to ask as far as I'm concerned, this is not in dispute anymore. Vespine (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've chopped a bit more out and honestly, if i keep going, there's not going to be much article left! lol... And what is left is going to need to be rewritten to make any sense. I don't see any other way to proceed, unless someone feels like writing a new article from scratch, which I certainly don't. Vespine (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We're going to have to archive this page soon, it's getting as out of control as the article;).. As for the article... I've tried something a little different and I'm not sure if I like it myself..

When Robbie was thirteen his aunt died in St. Louis. Part of the mythological account presented in several books supposes that Robbie tried to contact his deceased aunt via an Ouija board, [14][15] and it is this which led to his demonic possession.[14]

What do you think? I'm not sure "mythology" is the right word, but I couldn't think of anything better, it's not really "urban legend", I don't know what else might fit meter. I'm definitely not calling it any kind of "account" from any kind of "source"... Vespine (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is for ease of viewing, everyone: OK, Vespine...perhaps I can be of assistance about this item. NO ONE mentioned the planchette in any capacity, as far as would have been done by the Church.

Fr. Halloran has made no statements about this ever. If Fr. Bowdern knew of the kid fooling around with a Ouija, it's a secret as I have told you before. NO hint of any kind can be leaked of the subject's ID.

This nonsense about the Ouija board was introduced by radical-type Catholics back in the day. Yet many Catholics and I ought to know had Ouija boards in the house as a game. One thing I can state is there was some record of the kid being fond of board games, and in the 1940s and 1950s the planchette was very parlour-popular.75.21.106.189 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, in regards, to your comment here, I will support your suggestion to include the clause "some sources have come to the conclusion" in regards to the Ouija board. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• SIGH*--Anupam, it is gallant of you to support Vespine but you still don't get it. The Ouija board is A STORY about a story!! It does not belong anywhere except in a section about false and weird claims! What is it with you and that Ouija? The Church at this point doesn't even care about the thing in itself and it has NO BEARING on this case! Jeez!75.21.106.189 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

yeah look this is getting confusing again, we're having three slightly different but "the same" conversations in three separate places at once... Anupam, my comment about the "some claim" was just one of the 1st things that came to my head. As discussed below somewhere, i now don't think it's appropriate to call them "sources" at all. The way it stands right now in early life section I feel comfortable with, but as i will mention below, I will work out how to insert the disclaimer into the appropriate section too. Vespine (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Vespine, thanks for your academic revision of the disclaimer. From what I can tell, it looks good. All the best, Anupam^Talk 16:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in the Early life section, I inserted a source for the line about the Ouija board that you retained in the paragraph. The source I used was from Thomas B. Allen's "Possessed." If you object to this insertion, we can discuss it here and compromise. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes that looks fine. I don't really get how those quotes work yet sorry, i break them more often then I fix them... The only thing is, I would really like to see that reference section look a bit neater, i don't think it's necessary to include superfluous text within the body of the "quote". For example, does the last sentence "She taught him to place his fingers lightly on the planchette, a wooden platform that moved on" really need to be there? Other then that, i think the 1st two sections look pretty good. I'm going to start another talk section at the bottom with my next suggestion. Vespine (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, sure, I can remove the redundant part of the quote in my next edit. I'm glad the first two sections are set to go. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Article's sources and claims disclaimer

Anupam, since I know it is you, PLEASE stop removing the sentence that this story due to tertiary sources is a bunch of unverified anecdotal reporting. That should be clearly stated at the top, next to your inclusion of secondary and tertiary source definitions. That is not enough to make people understand that most of this article is made up of STORIES and MYTHS. Vespine will agree with my wording, I'm sure.76.195.86.155 (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, excellent, this achieves pretty much the same thing as I was trying to do when I suggesting the article move. Vespine (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me be much more clear: "Robbie Mannheim" is a pseudonym that will be recognized only by Thomas Allen's readers. Now, as far as I can tell without getting too heavy, Allen enjoys 30 customer reviews on Amazon (including my review). That must tell you something. "Avatar", while not a book, enjoys close to 900 reviews. Allen's book in present form was published in 1999. See? No one has read it.

No one knows the name "Robbie Mannheim". Few people know about the Exorcist kid even being a real person, but those who know always ask about "the real exorcist kid". No one knows that he always went by Roland Doe, son of John and Jane Doe--which is standard for the Church to keep identities secret.

Point? How the hell can this be a biography of a living person of interest when we BARELY have proof he's real?? How can we discuss in such scholarly ways how to fix the article when the whole thing is urban legend and two or three tiny facts?

We ought to re-think this thing. I don't care how many books Anupam finds relating to this; as Vespine always said, a repeated lie doesn't make it true, and the rest is ghost stories. We need an article that reflects all that.

I move that the article be slashed and burned. Then we start over with a clean article, and anything Anupam wishes to add should be in a section called "COMMON MISBELIEFS, URBAN LEGENDS AND FABRICATIONS". As for me, that move is the only thing that will satisfy me at this point.

If no one agrees, I drop it here and now. But this whole article as it stands now is a half-baked mistake.76.195.86.155 (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

FROM "EARLY LIFE" SECTION: "Some of the more generally accepted claims about Mannheim are that he was an only child born into a German Lutheran Christian family and that during the 1940s they lived in the American city of Cottage City, Maryland.[10] Pseudonyms given to Robbie's parents in literature regarding this subject are "Mr. and Mrs. Doe" as well as "Karl and Phyllis Mannheim née Wagner."[1]

Since Robbie was an only child, it is claimed that he depended upon adults in his household for playmates, namely his Aunt Harriet. His aunt, a Spiritualist, who also professed Christianity, saw the Ouija board as a means of contacting those who had died.

When Robbie was thirteen his aunt died in St. Louis. Part of the mythological account presented in several books supposes that Robbie tried to contact his deceased aunt via an Ouija board, [11][12] and it is this which led to his demonic possession.[11]"

I've managed to trim the "Early life" section down to here, though it may need some type of filling in--but I think not. There should be no more than this content in this section. If Vespine agrees, then Anupam, leave this section alone unless you know how to streamline it...which I doubt.75.21.106.189 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's good... Going just for a minute back to your "disclaimer", I actually think I would go further then that. My thinking is that even "secondary and tertiary sources" is still a "research" term, it still doesn't apply to most of the sources used in this article, they are not "scholarly" by any definition, they are "story books".. I think your disclaimer is good, but it doesn't really sound like something you'd want to see in a "good" article. I think maybe something like this sounds more "positive": "Over time, quite a rich mythology has built up around the original accounts, with many sources contributing their own embellishments and interpretations to the story." What do you think?Vespine (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I support Vespine's disclaimer. However, why do we need such a disclaimer when the supposed "story-book" sources were removed? If we are going to give a disclaimer of that sort then why can't we restore all the sources that were deleted? With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, disclaimers are really superfluous if the superfluous materials are removed. However, we need to be much clearer on one thing:

This is a SHADOW of a person. He cannot ever be identified. We have next to nothing from the Church about him, and that is the only true authority. Everything else has to be listed as commonly held views/beliefs about the legend. YES, urban legend. That is all it is.

"Over time, quite a rich mythology has built up around the original accounts, with many sources contributing their own embellishments and interpretations to the story." Vespine, that is GREAT. If we can continue cleaning this up, your well-worded sentence which is frankly making me envious will have earned its place.

Now Anupam, do not try to turn this into a way to get all your flotsam and jetsam back in there. Vespine's sentence is really the true heart of this problem.

One more thing, Vespine: I'm sorry we did not get to do this as "The Case of" because this has no precedent and personally I'm starting to think the editor who contributed the opinion was a show-off without justification. This is a "case" and nothing more. 75.21.106.189 (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok it's getting really late here so i might not make much sense, i just want to comment before leaving it for the night. I actually asked Craig to come and make the comment about the article move, he is the admin that originally asked me to come and work on the article. I respect his opinion and I think his point is valid. In particular the examples he gave of other "fictional" or "mythical" characters who do not have "case of" in front of their article. I think as long as we can get the tone of the article right, it should be ok. ALSO, directly related to "can't we put back the sources we've removed if we have a good disclaimer", I would say definitely not. I agree that the main THEMES of the stories can and probably should be represented, but NOT a blow for blow account of every detail in the entire tale pieced together from all the multiple sources. That just makes a Frankenstein's monster out of the article, that was a big part of the main problem to begin with. Vespine (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Get some rest! CAPITALS are for ease of reference/definitions. I will jump in here--this is the last time I'm leaping into these topics I created--Vespine, my point is THERE IS NO PRECEDENCE for this person.

He is not "fictional" nor is he "mythical". Both of those words denote a made-up entity. This person IS NOT MADE UP, but of course stuff is invented about him because next to nothing is known of him. It is the very heart of the matter.

Your respect does you credit, but why just follow the admin's lead automatically? It is a logic challenge I propose. This subject outwits your admin's opinion because he does not really know what he's talking about with myths and fictional people. He's alluding to literary conventions, that's all. "Legally" this article deals with THE CASE OF an unidentified person who will always remain unidentified. No one will ever come forward, no one will ever say who it is.

Finally, this IS A CASE: a case of exorcism. The Church refers to exorcisms as "cases". Exorcism itself is referred to: "celebration". In other words, celebration of the deliverance that the Church can surely give. Am I making some respectable sense?75.21.106.189 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, mythical does not mean fictional, and not all the characters craig linked are fictional either, Johnny Appleseed and Homer to give two examples. But yes this article is as much about "the exorcism of Robbie Mannheim" as it is about Robbie Mannheim, if not more. But there would be heaps of people who are only known for ONE thing and they still have an article. I believe we CAN make it clear in the article that most of the stuff about the exorcism is made up after the fact and the article can still be called robbie mannheim. Vespine (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So what's the word then? If it's not "myth", it's not folklore.. I didn't think it fit "urban legend" but having a second look, maybe it does? Actually reading the wiki article, it pretty much fits exactly. An urban legend, urban myth, urban tale, or contemporary legend, is a form of modern folklore consisting of apocryphal stories believed by their tellers to be true. As with all folklore and mythology, the designation suggests nothing about the story's truth or falsehood, but merely that it is in circulation, exhibits variation over time, and carries some significance that motivates the community in preserving and propagating it. Emphasis added is mine.. So how about:

"Over time, quite a rich urban legend has built up around the original accounts, with many sources contributing their own embellishments and interpretations to the story."

I think I like it.. Vespine (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

God, I try to help and even with this trifling matter you are arguing with yourself, Vespine! Now you see why I have given up.75.21.106.189 (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your impatience and temper aren't helping anything either you know! I wasn't arguing with my self, I'm trying to have a discussion, I'm throwing ideas around, that's how people collaborate, make some suggestions, listen to some feedback, decide what the best option is. What's wrong with that? Vespine (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Improvements and can we please resume all discussion from here

Happy day! Vespine, you and I have made this article start to look like it should. Now, I have a statement to make here, and I have made it before: if Anupam begins reverting without checking in here first, or edits/reverts especially in defiance of the 3R rule, then I say we give him the what-for. Agreed?75.21.106.189 (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely getting there... still needs a lot of work, but we are definitely on the right track. Vespine (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

75.21.106.189, I saw that you recently removed some information in the "Early Life" section. Could you explain your rationale for doing so? I thought we agreed that a disclaimer was the best way to go here. Vespine, I would also appreciate your input on the recent removal as well so that we may come to a consensus of what is to occur. So far, I have not objected to your other suggestions and I hope we can have some more amicable discussion here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't quite understand what your issue is? I actually like 75's edit much better. I personally don't see the point of including 5 paragraphs of QUOTED source to support 2 sentences. Also, saying "passed to the afterlife" is not appropriate, I agree with using "died". Vespine (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly I will explain, now that I am editing here again a little: I removed the references to "Aunt Harriet", the Ouija board and everything else that was superfluous. Vespine and I have agreed on this clean-up for a long time. You know all that already, but I am kindly answering you here for clarity's sake.75.21.106.189 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop disruption/edit war/conflict/reverts without discussion

Anupam, will you please stop reverting the edits we've made!! We do not need comments about Harriet and her rejection of the Bible!! We do not need tons of garbage about Ouija boards! This is not only your article! I warned you once and I am warning you again. What you are doing is violating three reverts and you are also adding conflict of interest here. I consider what you are doing to be vandalism because it fits the definition. Vespine can disagree, but you'd better stop messing up our work. We are doing you a favor redressing errors you've PACKED into this. Stop it! I keep seeing the crap you keep putting back in the article. You cannot keep doing that without discussion! You know that very well Anupam.75.21.106.189 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Following a request at WP:EAR#Seeking arbitration for disruptive editing / edit war on article Robbie Mannheim I popped in here. If edit warring is going on, then please report offenders at WP:3RR (after warning then of course). Jezhotwells (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

75, look, you really have to believe me that I'm not siding with anyone or stabbing you in the back or whatever but have a look at the edit history of the article, you can see how many times the article has been edited and reverted by Anupam. He did it once yesterday, Sep 11, I disagree with that reversion and I'll probably undo it. Before then, he did it on the 8th, have a look what he reverted? I don't think that was a bad edit. Before then he did it on the 6th, that was really neither here nor there, i don't think it was a bad edit. Before then he reverted those 13 edits of yours, the ones we had a discussion about and I said I agreed with about half of them. But everyone of those cases in the last week or two was 1 count of revesion in a unique section, that does not count as RRR rule. So if you don't like his revision, PRESS UNDO ON IT! That's what the undo button is for. Then if Anupam undoes your "undo", that's 2R, if he does it one more time, that's 3R and will count as a strike against him. Until then, Anupam has been coming to the table as far as I'm concerned. Sure he's undone some edits he didn't like and maybe we did, but I really don't think his edits amount to vandalism. So let's undo some of his "reverts" and then when he starts reverting more then 3 times, that's we'll have reason to report it. Until then, I really can't see why your cracking it so bad. Vespine (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, do you ever actually read what I write? There is no offense intended here, but this is exactly why you are so frustrating to me sometimes. 1st, why the hell would you think I am in any way riding you on this subject? I know the depth of your commitment and work. 2nd, the frustration also is you defend Anupam unnecessarily. Why?? You think his actions are correct?

You really think the abuses of his constitute "coming to the table"? He preens and minces here at the talk page but then does what he wishes to the article. And please, stop advising me to cool down or whatever. Do you not think it is sheer stupidity to be working so hard here for nothing? Yet we work, and someone like Anupam comes along and look what he does. Finish it with him then. I'm done with the pair of you.75.21.106.189 (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be on the record about this. I read very carefully what you write 75, but I can't seem to reply in any way that doesn't cause you to have a hissy fit. "why the hell would you think I am in any way riding you on this subject?" I honestly have no idea what you're even talking about, I was trying to be as reasonable and objective as I possibly could, and you still find something to take personally and crack the shits. "you defend Anupam unnecessarily. Why?? You think his actions are correct?" How am I defending him? By trying to show you the edit history? By showing you empirical evidence of his edits? If you think that's being unreasonable, then I'm afraid you are just wrong. "stop advising me to cool down" Well you really should! This is at least the third time you've thrown a tantrum and threatened to leave. "like Anupam comes along and look what he does." What exactly does he do? This is what my post above was asking, SHOW ME what Anupam has been doing? The evidence is ALL THERE in the edit history. I'm not defending him, I'm asking for what you're talking about? Am I not allowed to ask? Is it unreasonable? Maybe I'm missing something that you can see, so show me. I'm not just going to go around accusing people of vandalism unless I see some evidence for it, if you have the evidence, then please show me. Just getting angry or upset and stormin off doesn't help anything. Vespine (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Archived

I have archived the older discussions to make this page a bit shorter. The link to the archive is at the top of the page. Vespine (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you brilliant thing you!! Good job. You could not have paid me to try it!75.21.106.189 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Article layout, section headings.

Having another look at the "broader" picture, I really don't see why there should be ten headings in this article, it really doesn't warrant it. I think sections "1 Origin of claims" and "2 Early life" look pretty good for now, they can be left, but I can't see a reason why "3 Poltergeist activity", "4 Medical and pastoral conclusions" and "5 Exorcism" need to be three separate sections. I think they could very easily come under one heading. I propose the heading be called "Possession and Exorcism", I believe all the information under the current 3 sections would fit under this heading. If no one objects, I'll try to make a draft of the 3 sections combined and paste it in. Vespine (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Vespine, I personally think it is alright if you wish to lessen the amount of section headings. However, if you wish to do so, please do not remove any of the present content (and corresponding sources) in the article without discussing it here. All the best, Anupam^Talk 15:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes Anupam, don’t worry, I won't use it as an opportunity sneak in other edits without discussing it.. Vespine (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)