Talk:Betty Eadie

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Betty Eadie article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Article copyover[edit]

Large swaths of this article are copied verbatim from her book's article (or vice versa). I don't really know the proper thing to do in circumstances like these (if anything) but it seems like it's wrong on some level. Maybe one article should be merged into the other or something. Just my observation. JRDarby 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not sure how merging works, but I added a merge tag to the other page. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "critical analysis" from the blue!?[edit]

The whole section Critical analysis lacks an external source, and so it smells blatantly WP:Original Research. We don't do critical analyses here on Wikipedia, except very short ones, heavily using citations. Aside from that, I would have rejected the current "critical analysis" as qualified nonsense since it essentially claims that undefined measures are immeasurable, and so therefore no truth exist. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section Critical analysis was added by Nonuser:75.153.182.98, so I'll consider simply removing it. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other violations the section may make: WP:BOLP, WP:SYNTHESIS. I considered littering the section with templates, but the usual ones {{fact}}, {{huh}} and {{dubious}} don't explain good enough why the section is very very improper. I'm going to be very very bold here. If dislike, revert. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut for those who wonder what the malformed logic looked like. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the main problem here is WP:Original Research. I believe that a rewrite is called for, utilizing published reviews of the book. Evalpor (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti - bible saying they are christ violates the contradiction and non contradiction.[edit]

Everything about all organized religions is not biblical. Religion was to be spiritual not physical.

The bigger there building and repugnant dogma by indoctraton validates their problems. 63.153.109.112 (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]