Talk:Bell Witch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mythology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Documentation

The hauntings took place between 1817 and 1820, yet the first documentation of the event came in 1887, 70 years afterward, when nearly every possible witness was dead? Who's to say this wasn't just some story made up by a random author which snow-balled into a classic folktale?

Well that's the fun of folktales, is it not? nut-meg 06:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spirit Names

What is with the spirit names? Mathematics seems like a retarded name for anyone, let alone a ghost, and Cypocraphy isn't even a word.

Very nicely said!

[edit] Tone

The general tone of this article is roughly comparable to that of a campfire story. This is an encyclopedia. Jaimetout 03:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then be bold and rewrite it. --Centauri 06:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I being from clarksville, TN which is right next to Adams finds this article to be fine and accurate with the History of the bell witch. I know the current owners and i have had errie occurences happen. This article shoud not de disputed.

A post by some random anonymous person on the Internet does not qualify as a reliable source. This article is certainly disputed.

"The Bell Witch haunting is the name given to a series of SUPPOSEDLY real events" Well i removed the disputed, because we are not talking about the existence of the ghost, but of the events as history knows them to be. Again the proof or existence of the Bell Witch ghost is not the debate.--Alembic 02:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"...supposedly real events" smacks of NPOV on the skeptic side. Better would be "reported events"; a report may or may not be mistaken. --Chr.K. 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I remove the "quotes" later today? They don't add any value, and in fact come across as a sneer.

Which quotes are you referring to? --Centauri 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "quotes" around single words / actions as they seemed to come across as a sneer.

[edit] Incomplete?

Yes, and? What were the events you mentioned?DS 17:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

holadiee

[edit] Repitition

This page is incredibly frustrating, the most noticeable problem being how many of the statements made in the Legend section are directly re-iterated in the Analysis section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.211.202 (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Skeptical analysis

The Middle Tennessee Skeptics analysis of the Bell Witch legend is based on actual research of the available evidence. Mis-labeling it as a "statement" or "opinion piece" is deliberately misleading POV. --Centauri 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

False. If you read it, the person did zero research. They read other peoples books and then made statements about how they didn't like what they read. They have no credibility, they are not published. Its a personal website nothing more. Its the work of one single person. This is not a WP:RS. Wjhonson 07:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Do not remove links that you don't agree with. The site represents a valid analysis of the legend, and shows that the ludicrous claims made by supports are false and almost entirely without foundation. --Centauri 08:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to repeat myself one more time - do not persist in removing valid links from this article as a way of insidiously promoting the witch legend POV. --Centauri 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
In keeping with WP:RS please cite where the work of this skeptic (or group) has been published or noted in some previously published, third-party, reliable source unaffiliated with the skeptic themselves. If it has not, then it's not a valid source for wikipurposes. Wjhonson 02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making specious, nonsensical statements and vandalising the description of the link you disagree with. It's a perfectly reliable external link that has direct relevance to the article - particularly as it constitutes the only reasoned opinion to balance the "woo-woo" paranormal gobledegook that forms the basis of all the other links currently listed - and I don't see you getting too hot under the collar about those. --Centauri 11:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the Middle Tennessee Skeptic site and I think it is a valid link to include in the "external links" section. I do not believe it is notable enough to warrant it's own section in the article. The research seems to be woefully incomplete, having relied on only one source, the Fitzhugh book. Additionally, Wikipedia states that original resarch is not a valid source for articles on this site. nut-meg 00:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a major overhaul

At the present this article is little more than a totally uncritical, slack-jawed and rather confused retelling of a well-known ghost story - and I make that statement as the original creator of the article. In order to ensure this article complies with Wikipedia WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V policies a major re-write is called for, and central to that is a proper relation of the legend as it is told by Pat Fitzhugh, who is the leading supporter of the "paranormal" origins theory. I've now started adding this, and invite other thoughts and contributions that will help in this process. --Centauri 01:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

And whenever anyone criticizes your style which is completely and totally lacking in citations for one thing, you revert them. Nice double-standard. Wjhonson 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to persist in attempting to insidiously vandalise the article by removing or adding POV comments designed to suggest that no explanation other than the paranormal is an acceptable inclusion, then you are naturally going to find that people will revert you. Welcome to the real world kiddo. --Centauri 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you have no concept of what I was or wasn't doing. I'm trying to get you to cite your sources and use WP:RS instead of personal websites. Wjhonson 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a very clear understanding of what you are trying to do. The Tennessee Skeptics website is a perfectly valid reference site. Whether it was written by one person or an army of worker bees and a dancing iguana, and whether it is itself referenced in other sources is irrelevant and entirely beside the point. Your argument that it must somehow be held to a different - and frankly, bizarre - accountability standard than the other linked sites promoting the paranormal POV, is entirely specious. --Centauri 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you shouldn't worry about putting in the skeptics link. Let the reader decide. (Plesmond)

  • Ok. I will see what I can do about a rewrite. The article is a real mess. nut-meg 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

According to WP:External Links 3. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.) 4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

For those reasons, I believe that http://mtskeptics.homestead.com/BellWitch.html is worthwhile keeping in the External Links section. Englishrose 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

And those sites should not be cited as sources. Wjhonson 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless they happen to agree with Wjhonson's POV, of course. --Centauri 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a POV. I'm like a blank slate. Doesn't change the fact that the skeptic site is a personal webpage and as such not a WP:RS. Wjhonson 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A bit unclear on the publications...

In the Analysis section, one of the sources is Our Family Trouble, written by Richard William Bell. Later, we are told that this book was written thirty years after the events described, which puts it at 1858 or so. But we are also told that an 1886 book is the earliest publication of the Bell Witch story.

Now maybe Bell's diary was never published, so that the later book really is the first published account. But if that's the case, it would be nice to explicitly say so. As it is, I found the text confusing. Phiwum 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've researched the Bell Witch for years and I have never heard of the 1887 publication. I'd like to find a copy of it and have a look for myself. The earliest publication I know of is the 1894 M V Ingram book, which I have a copy of. It is curious that the 1887 article calls John Bell "Garry Bell". I have to wonder if it isn't a fake. nut-meg 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

This page is extremely biased, and the worst part is it seems to be biased towards different opinions in different parts of the article. While I agree that the paranormal should not be given as the "true" conclusion, the article actually has bias towards saying that the legend is a fabrication. The tone is more or less that of "a lot of people believe in the bell witch hauntings, but it is simply superstition." It should be given more or less as "Group A believes that the Bell Witch Hauntings actually occurred, while Group B believes it is a fabrication and/or superstitious," with Group A and Group B being defined explicitly, and not simply "some people say this and others say this." Although some science minds might believe that a scientific view of the topic should be viewed as fact the truth is many people believe that the legend is true and therefore we must assume a NPOV. Irregardless, the bulk of the article should be giving information about the legend, and not arguing with itself about whether the events actually occurred. As far as this content is concerned, I do believe that it gives good information but the article should touch on other versions of the legend. Finally I must say that the link in question that has created a sort of edit battle is a valid link, since it is accepted by some people as fact and therefore constitutes a valid opinion, although I wonder whether a website that advocates a NPOV would be better served linking to pages that also hold a NPOV.

  • No. The point of the links are to display what can not be on the page. Such as original research, or a non NPOV.69.213.70.93 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Wiki clearly asks us not to cite original research.
  • The problem is that this page should not be about whether or not the hauntings really happened. It should be about the legend itself. There is really no reasonable question that something happened. What caused it is where the debate should be. I've heard a lot of interesting skeptical theories, as well as a lot of wonderful stories about the legend. There is no reason for this article, and this talk page to be so contentious. nut-meg 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please Name Specific Person or Group Tags appear several times, even when a person or given or when it makes no sence. I am removing these, as I believe they are vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Overhaul In Progress

I've removed a lot of the weaselyness in the "Legend" section. I've also temporarily removed the "Skeptical Analysis" section until I can find better researced articles. nut-meg 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Revert

Hmm, my revert note didn't seem to go through to the history page, but I did revert it. There's a series of three edits in a row from the same IP, all vandalism, so the version from before that has been restored. The Nixinator 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)