Talk:Derek Acorah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NOT Vandalism by 82.6.98.214
I've added a warning to their talk page. --Paul Moloney 11:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
There's continued vandalism, from different IP addresses. Perhaps a lock should be put on this page?
--Paul Moloney 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- I removed more vandalism — The external link to "Most Haunted on Living TV" was to a pornographic website.S3BST3R 04:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Where's the evidence?
This article clearly has a potential for controversy. I think it is important that Wikipedia remain factual, as opposed to simply opinion. So when someone says that Acorah offers "overwhelming evidence" of genuine mediumship, that evidence should be referenced. As far as I am aware, no medium has ever passed a test which proves their abilities, so if such evidence is available, it should be found on Wikipedia! Stevepaget 22:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ISPR and Dr. Larry Montz
There was a recent complaint to m:OTRS about the characterization of Dr. Montz as a ghost tour-guide from New Orleans. I wasn't able to find any reference to this statement except in other websites who list us as their reference. In any case, since this article is about Derek, information on Dr. Montz is probably better off in his own article. Shell babelfish 20:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My reversion
I feel that Stevepaget should have simply reverted to my version rather than attempt to edit the wholesale deletions made by 217.42.229.247. For example, they deleted the sentence about Montz even though I had substantiated this with a reference. When making such wholesale deletions, I feel the onus is on the editor to explain such deletions on the discussion page.--Paul Moloney 09:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that, Paul. I just reworded the criticism section to take into account some of the sentiments of the previous editor. It was a little assumptive, so I have tried to make it more neutral. Stevepaget 11:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool, no problem with your new edits either! --Paul Moloney 11:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism on this page
The guidelines relating to biographies has this to say about negative content:
"If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Critics of Wikipedia are sometimes the subject of biased editing and it is important not to allow pro-Wikipedia biases to influence editing.
Views that are relevant to the subject's notability, are based on reliable sources, and are not given undue weight are usually appropriate content."
How much more reliable can you get than video evidence and interviews with members of the Most Haunted crew? The Kreed Kafer story appeared in the national newspapers, with interviews from Mr O'Keeffe. I can understand how Mr Acorah and his supporters would prefer to forget these episodes but it is relevant to Acorah's notability, it only appears in one carefully labelled paragraph and it is backed by evidence. As such, it belongs on Wikipedia.
[edit] Warnings (Slightly Off Topic)
This is slightly off topic, but this has happened as a result of me adding a verification link to this topic. A user, Topov, has added warning symbols to my page accusing me of inserted spam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulmoloney
The user themselves has no user talk or identification page. Who do I complain to about this illegitimate use of the warning system?
P.--Paul Moloney 14:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I got the same. Don't worry. I'm confident that the information on the page deserves to be here. If he requests a block, it will be up to a moderator to decide. I'm happy to let the decision rest with them.Stevepaget 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
As yes, I didn't realise that Topov was the one who has been performing wholesale deletions of criticism. It would nice if they themselves could justify turning this article into a hagiography rather than cowardly try to block us. --Paul Moloney 14:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Topov
This person has now performed at least 3 reverts, removing any material critical of Acorah. They have also refused to engage with other editors on the talk page. They have also added warnings to my user page, yet removed questions I have asked of them on _their_ user page. What "higher power" should be bring this to?
P.--Paul Moloney 08:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Footnotes
One of the spurious warnings that the reticent Topov added to my page was for the use of "spam" on this article; I presume that s/he was referring to the use of references to external web sites with critical info.
Just to remove _any_ doubts about that, I've reformatted references link to use reference tags as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FOOT.
P. --Paul Moloney 09:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
I doubt whether badpsychics.co.uk is a reliable enough source for WP:LIVING; the domain name suggests that it's not exactly neutral. The "Kreed Kafer" story is covered in several newspaper articles including The Guardian[1] and The Mirror[2]; I'd suggest using these sources instead. Demiurge 13:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the reference to the Mirror web site. It seemed more specific to the topic than the Guardian page. Stevepaget 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Han on a second, BadPsychics.co.uk broke the original Kreed Kafer story 6 months before the mirrors article, so to call the Mirror article the original is plainly a lie.
Ciaran O'Keeffe originally came to BP to break the story anonymously, and only went to the papers when he had the support of Karl Beattie, and the promise that he would not be sued for breaking the confidentiality clause in his contract.
I think the FACT that BadPsychics is widely recognised as the authority on everything Derek Acorah, as well as being the WORLDS first media outlet to expose Acorah, should mean that it can and should be seen as such on here.
The fact that the story on BadPsychics which was published in April 2005 was later backed up by the Mirror article proves that that site was indeed correct in its original expose.
- Thanks. I've had enough of Topov's vandalism and evasion and have asked for mediation:
- P. --Paul Moloney 13:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Topov has finally been blocked, albeit temporarily, from editing this page:
-
- P. --Paul Moloney 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation
The Mediation Cabal was asked to help in resolution of issues with this page. The mediation will be held at the case page, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-04 Derek Acorah. I've taken the case as the mediator.
Please visit the page and check the information presented. Is everything correct? Is something important omitted? Is there something to add? Please add comments on the case page, to bring the summary of all information and opinions in one place. If you have compromise ideas, it would also be nice to post them on the page. Please take your part in the resolution of the issue.
For the time of mediation, please be careful with editing the information related to criticism of Derek Acorah to avoid controversial actions; of course, this doesn't concern working with other parts or noncontroversial edits. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Questionable sources - it is now easy to verify if Derek is for real or not. In a "session" he did in Hull he specified the name Gilbert Horton (or Houghton) as one of the dead who spoke to him. I went and did extensive searching on birth death and marriage records. There were some Gilbert Hortons / Houghtons - mostly in the USA - of the even smaller number that lived in England not one of them was born, married or died in Hull. It would be insteresting to have some of the other names he has mentioned investigated - even better if he could give us rough dates. You can get a rough idea based on the age of the buildings that are supposedly haunted.
[edit] Derek's Age
Surely he wasn't born in 1977? This makes him 29 years old! Griffin147
[edit] Trick of the Mind
Derek is discussed in the Derren Brown book Trick of the Mind. It might provide a useful reference but I don't think it would add too much to the article. violet/riga (t) 10:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Qualifying his status as a psychic medium
The intro currently reads as follows: "...who has come to fame as a self-described psychic medium." An earlier version listed him as a "so-called psychic medium"; I deleted "so-called" because it feels too slanted from the POV that he is bogus.
We've already identified earlier in the intro that he has attracted controversy. Do we need to qualify his labelling as a medium? —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Factually, he cannot be a psychic, yet he describes himself as one. Therefore, he is a self-described psychic. 81.152.220.50 01:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It is now illegal in the UK for mediums to advertise their powers as supernatural in any way,instead they must clearly advertise themselves as an entertainer. So the phrase "Derek Acorah[1] (born 27 January 1950), is a well-known psychic medium" is not only incorrect (as he has not proven that he can contact the dead) it's also illegal for him to advertise himself as such without a disclaimer saying something like "Derek may not actually be able to contact the dead and this show is for entertainment purposes only".212.137.27.116 (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Victim of TV reality
I remember when Derek acorah was a very good and well respected medium but unfortunately I have seen the most haunted show and I do think he had sold out or been duped into becoming a drama queen. The whole show is an afront to what I feel genuine ghost hunting should be and if they were sitting for hours with not much happening it would make for pretty boring TV. Hence the Yvette Fielding screaming which there was no need for. However the show has made ghost hunting popular with people who seem to be seeking some kind of adrenaline rush. I am sure many people would sell out for fame and fortune and he is not alone in doing that, it's human nature. There are far worse people around than Derek Acorah.(YinYangChing (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC))
It's not human nature to swindle your employer and your clients (the viewing public) - morally and ethically it is wrong. Likewise, to become a professional confidence trickster is not human nature - otherwise we would all be "psychic mediums". 212.137.27.116 (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)