From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NPOV

This article needs a complete rewrite - if no-one objects, I will go ahead and do this (at some point in the near future).

Starting on the rewrite - I will draw from the original article, web and print sources. Pointers would be helpful, so feel free to chime in! NOTE: All of what will become this article is as unbiased as possible, however hard to believe it is - the current skeptical bent of the article does not do Home justice. Redxela Sinnak 14:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is not skeptical in tone, just informed and fact-based. It is not necessary to mutilate factual entries to make airheads feel better about being credulous. Rory Coker

Thankyou for your stirling contribution. Redxela Sinnak 09:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree Redxela Sinnak, this article is full of original research. I think you should be bold and begin hacking out the stuff that doesn't tell us something about D.D. Home's life. Anthon.Eff 19:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crookes

I removed "who had been expecting a thorough refutation of Home's claims" because I don't believe they expected that. Maybe Doyle thinks they did, but - didn't everybody already know by then that Crookes was easy to fool? He already had been into spiritualism for four years. --Hob Gadling 15:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Hob, I challenge you. Find one reputable source that says "everybody already knew by then that Crookes was easy to fool." It seems rather that the shock and dismay at Crookes' report was due to the fact that everyone had thought him to be a hard-headed scientist. I'm looking forward to your procurement of the source... Anthon.Eff 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who is claiming anything. At the moment we don't know one way or the other. The article reflects that by not claiming one or the other. So that's okay. If you want the claim back in, find a source (other than Conan "I believe in fairies because of obviously fake photographs" Doyle). --Hob Gadling 17:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hob, you really are too fond of ad hominem arguments. Anthon.Eff 18:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on! You want Wikipedia to just copy Doyle's opinion? That's not NPOV. I'm sorry, but there are people who are easy to fool but don't know they are, and we shouldn't take at face value what people say. Would you please give a real reason why "who had been expecting a thorough refutation of Home's claims" should be in the article, instead of going off on tangents? Do you even want "who had been expecting a thorough refutation of Home's claims" in the article? --Hob Gadling 14:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)