Talk:Enfield poltergeist/Archive 1

Deletion and bias

I don't know what's happened here, but someone seems to have deleted a large amount of informtaion on this page. Also, it seems quite biased. Using the term "menopausal bint" in an unbiased article? Perhaps someons idea of a joke.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.33.13 (talk)

φφφ

It still seemed rather biased when I found it - although the "menopausal bint" comment had thankfully been edited off. I hope I've restored some sense of balance - and some content (which seemed to still be absent) - to it. It's too easy to take sides on debates about the paranormal and rewrite things to suit one's prejudices. Enfield is an interesting case, and its a shame to dismiss it. I've heard Maurice Grosse's tapes of the false chords being used for sustained periods, and they are genuinely mystifying - you're not supposed to be able to use them for that length of time. On the other hand some of those involved did confess faking some of the phenomena. The case deserves some objectivity, which hopefully on 27/01/06 I've restored. How long it will last is anyone's guess though... JN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.15.242 (talk)

φφφ Having polished the article up, corrected several inaccuracies, put the whole thing into an objective register it was reverted back to a much earlier version, which again had the term "menopausal bint", it also also leant towards libel in its remarks towards Maurice Grosse and Guy Loyon-Playfair. So I've changed it back to how it was and hope I've not just started a revert war... JN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.15.242 (talk)

φφφ Seems the epithet has a life of its own, keeps coming back. Have removed it (2/10/06) while trying to preserve skeptical tone. Skepticism cannot legitimately be extended to imputation of motive or to distressed mental states without evidence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.3.236 (talk)

φφφ

attention! *i* am the one who started this article and wrote the original with the correct details and her description as MENOPAUSAL BINT. bint = colloquial name for woman stemming from the arabic "daughter", and she was menopausal at the time.

anyway anyway anyway.. everyone knows it's a big fraud. =)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.5.46 (talk)

φφφ The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.4.96 (talk)

φφφ As the article stands it uses a derrogatory slang term for a woman (certainly in the UK "bint" would be highly derrogatory).

It also claims she was menopausal - what for the entire duration of the alleged phenomenon? menopausal for two years??? Did she suffer from some rare medical condition? If so why isn't this noted?

The details provided are of dubious accuracy - not to mention extremely biased. The current article seems to rest on contested information from the gutter press (News of the World - roughly the equivalent of the National Enquirer in the US) and a glossy woman's magazine!

It also entirely ignores the use of the false chords during the alleged possession which is one of the most interesting features of this case.

I also think it libels Maurice Grosse and Guy Lyons-Playfair to say they were just out for fame. From having heard Maurice Grosse speak I don't believe he was out for fame. He is one of the SPR's most respected investigators, he currently chairs the Spontaneous Phenomena Group, although there would be significant differences of interpretation with him over this case from other members of the SPR (which was mentioned before this article was simply reverted back to its original form, without the revert being noted...). But, I think what's currently written amounts to a subtle, yet very real, personal attack on his integrity which is out of place in an encyclopedia.

I would agree with the above writer that an encyclopedia entry should not adopt a sceptical tone. Indeed, I seem to remember the guidelines for Wikipedia actually arguing for neutrality and objectivity in entries.

Personally I'd revert it back to how it stood on Feburary 6 2006 (the last change before it was reverted back to the original again) as being a more accurately researched and more objectively written piece that better meets the aims of Wikipedia... although I'm hardly unbiased having made several of the revisions that lead it to taking that form. JN— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.15.242 (talk)

Bias

why is a VERY biased investigator's statement included on this???— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.254.33 (talk)

Just more unsigned garbage. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Responding to an OTRS complaint, I have neutralised the article. I also added {{fact}} tags, and if these haven't been fufilled with direct citations per WP:RS, then a decision can be made as to whether to remove the statements all together. Daniel.Bryant 04:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up and expansion

I've tagged the article for expansion and clean-up becuase as it stands, it's a very scrappy version, no details, no sources for statements made etc. I believe there's a good article inside there wanting to get out! But it definitly needs more details, citations for those details etc etc, the usual Wiki stuff. The Kinslayer 10:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What the heck's going on here!

This page really demonstrates the absolute weakness of Wikipedia. Several times this article has been developed, and expanded, but after all the contributions the original article crops up again, and again, and again, complete with it's bad grammar and libellous assertions.

Personally, I'd strongly suggest reverting to the version of the 6 August, which didn't have most of the current problems, and then locking the page for all time to stop these recurrent problems. If we don't the original submission will return every six months or so as it has been and make this page utterly pointless. There probably is a formal procedure to follow, but I'm not really _aux fait_ with all this wiki-stuff and wouldn't know what it was or where to find out how to do it. I just think the article should be accurate.

And as for the above comment's on the investigators statement, given the ridiculous article that's currently on display called into question his neutrality I personally believe he had every right to post it on the talk page. It is useful to remember that we actually have posted up there is a first-hand report which, whether you accept its conclusions or not or not, is evidence in the matter at hand, even potentially unique evidence unable elsewhere; and certainly a fair argument against the biased article wikipedia's currently displaying. JN— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.19.243 (talk)

This article is probably the worst of all on Wikipedia

Some individual (or individuals) has come along here and decided to write up an article pushing his own POV all the way, stating his own assumptions and beliefs as hard fact. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia. This article should simply state known facts - what the claims are with regard to the phenomena, what fraud was uncovered, whatever phenomena that supposedly remains unexplained, skeptical analysis, and so on. It's that simple. The idea that this article should state as fact that the case was definately entirely fraud from start to finish is not acceptable, regardless of an editor's a priori assumptions and personal beliefs and bias. This case has never been conclusively proven to be a hoax, what any editor may personally believe one way or the other is irrelevant. To accuse Grosse and Playfair of consciously commiting fraud themselves without any evidence of any kind is straightforward libel and probably leaves Wikipedia in a situation where it could be threatened with legal action. None of this should be tolerated on Wikipedia. It really is not difficult to imagine a balanced, reasonable account of this case and it shouldn't be too difficult to put together. Anyone who disagrees and thinks the article should be written entirely according to their own POV, and insists on including unfounded allegations of fraud against investigators, should have their absurd contributions reversed immediately and should blocked from editing the page if their insist on continuing. 195.93.21.99 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the story? I just want to point out that while I completely agree with the many cases being made here for objectivity, and am personally very disappointed in this "non-entry", there is a writer above who says, "menopausal for two years??", who basically destroys his/her own credibility by not knowing the definition of "menopause". That being said, if there is actually a factual, reasonably unbiased article that explains the details of the Enfield Poltergeist, it would be nice if someone could restore it. I have never been left so unenlightened by Wikipedia.76.179.85.52 18:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Still going on

The rewversion to the POV version has happened again. I've made it a bit less awful, but this still needs work. This is yet another case of someone thinking his own opinion is the absolute truth. Totnesmartin 21:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good article on the Enfield activity. BBC also has a documentary with the original video recordings and the infamous interview. I've never added anything to an article and I don't intend to either.

This article needs citations from (skeptical) investigations of any sort, it also needs the original pictures and videos (if possible). I suggest someone collects the neutral information from newssources, and then investigate the claims further. This article is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theamaa (talk • contribs)

Hi, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Therefore, rather than simply stating "this article is ridiculous" and making vague suggestions, I would recommend that if the article needs fixing (which it does), you would be more than capable and encouraged to make the neccesary changes yourself. Simply just saying "I've never added anything to an article and I don't intend to either" isn't really helpful. Thanks. Bob talk 14:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not being rude

In no way, at all do I think that my opinion is the absolute ruth. I simply wrote the article as how the television show presented it to me. I did not say that I believed the case of the Enfield Poltergeist. I just thought, I would write an article on the television show.

If it is not in the Encyclopedia format, I am sorry, but it's Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit it.

Mr Vamps 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

References

I see that there are very few references in this article. I know quite a lot about the case and would be willing to go through it and try to reference it soundly. What I am not sure about is what qualifies as a good reference for this type of subject. There will lots of stuff on websites for example and in books by people involved. I am not sure, however, whether these can be counted as very reliable. Advice welcome.Zeticulan (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is this house?

Where exactly is this house?? The article seems sort of vauge. I want a street, or better yet, an actual address. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Green Street which runs between the A1010 Hertford Road and the A1055 Mollison Avenue, the alleged goings on have been well documented, including this Daily Mail article and this video Winchelsea 08:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientists Agree That ..........

The statement 'scientists agree that janet was faking the voice' is curious. What scientists are they? and how did they reach such a conclusion?. A B.B.C. sound engineer was asked to listen to the voices in 2002. All she could say for certain was "that is spooky". She doubted if any one could fake such a voice without the aid of a computer sound effects machine. However a language expert who listened to the Tapes of Bill found the content of his talk childish; just like a 12 year olds. The persistent advise to "f**koff" handed out by Bill also sounds childish.Johnwrd (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The voice-thing is what fascinates me about this story. The researcher had her take a sip of water and hold the water in her mouth the he duct-taped shut her mouth and the "ghost" still spoke in the exact same voice... with tape over her mouth. There are original videos, photographs and documents which should be included in this article.

This article is full of unverifiable claims, one of the worst on wikipedia. Some things have also been, deliberately, left out - such as where the girls confess to have faked a lot of it. The people who were present - crew, journalists and so on - stated that their tricks were quite poor and they were always caught, and the girls said they did it because they were sick of being treated like test subjects. In addition, those tricks do not explain things like a chair levitating in front of a police officer, or a 12 year old ripping out a fireplace...

I'm by all means a skeptic, and I don't believe in poltergeists for a split second, but this article is simply awful.

Will someone take the time to re-write the article into NPOV? --84.211.17.226 (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is wikipedia taking money to delete information to help promote a movie?

I'm an Independant Investigative Journalist, and I've sat on the phone for hours getting information from an Society for Psychical Research member, I cannot reveal that source per their agreement to speak about the events and what people within the SPR were thinking and talking about at the time of the investigation. I've made several changes to this page and yet a lot of it keeps getting deleted by Wikipedia saying that it wasn't constructive. I posted verifiable information, research, and references on The Enfield Poltergeist, and a link to a YouTube video that i thought was catchy, and it was deleted saying that the information wasn't constructive and that I violated the link policy! I don't see how I've done this, and I checked Wikipedia's policies, these deletions shouldn't have happened. So What Is Going On Here? Is Wikipedia taking money or something to delete changes for a production company's movie that's coming out?

TheJudgeJoker (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure your changes didn't fall foul of WP:NOR?? Links to youtube are "generally" considered bad too. Heywoodg ^talk 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this how "independent investigative journalism" works these days? Someone removes some speculative, unsourced claims and a copyvio link, and the hack immediately assumes it must be a multinational conspiracy to suppress the truth? Wow ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Enfield Poltergeist References

A 1987 BBC Radio 4 play, House at Spook Corner, written by Bob Couttie, who was also a paranormal researcher as well as a script writer, draws heavily on the Enfield Poltergeist case and several similar cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.25.15.208 (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Will Storr Vs. the Supernatural

The claim that Storr's book "throws considerable light on the personalities involved, particularly those of Maurice Grosse and Anita Gregory" is, without elaboration, meaningless. Maybe somebody who has read the book could explain exactly what Storr concludes about the personalities of Grosse and Gregory? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Yanks are coming

I have Noticed over the last month that Guy lyon Playfair and Maurice Grosse are slowly being written out of the history of the Enfield Poltergeist. In place are 2 Investigators Called Ed and Lorraine Warren!! I have read Guy Lyon Playfairs book "This House is Haunted" i have also studied this subject for many years/spoken to 100s of people about it and NOT ONCE has the Warrens come up...... This page is farcical now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgejoker (talk • contribs)

Yes i have noticed that this wiki page is full of American Investigators now also.....what could possibly be the reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.111.196 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

HELP

The Enfield Poltergeist wikipage has been hijacked by a bunch of people who know nothing about the case. It feels like its people from other countries (Not U.K.) please if you know any thing about his case please correct it as every time i do i get accused of vandelizing the page loool — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgejoker (talk • contribs) 22:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I would correct it but I am alrady entangled with another engangement with the same fellow currently insisting upon he versions of edits. For what it is worth I read over the revisions and Saw nothing to pointed. Certainly their was room for more cynisism and/or skeptisism but the version original already did point out the girls as fibbers so that is a hefty dose of real right there. I'll not be editing this because I know jack squat about it. Ima yank 2. All the same the UK version does seem more consise. 108.247.104.253 (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)