Talk:Ed and Lorraine Warren
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
-
- OPINION
-
This article needs a good impartial edit. The writer was obviously biased against the subjects.
Contents |
[edit] Fixing this and other notes
The page mentions that with regards to the Amityville Horror case... "Though the case has never truly been proved false, these alleged events would become the basis for the 1977 best-selling book The Amityville Horror and a 1979 movie of the same name."
The onus on proof is on that of the people making the claim that the Amityville case is a real case of demonic possession. I'm changing this and other entries to reflect this.
[edit] Note
Although Ed and Lorraine did accept money from their many books and lectures, they never accepted money from the people, organizations or institutions who sought them out, not even for travel or other expenses incurred in order to get to help. Yes, they absolutley helped people dealing with paranormal activity for free. They made this their life's work. They are prioneers in paranormal research thus, experts in the field. As with other experts who lecture or sell books, they were able to support themselves from their hard work however, Ed and Lorraine lived a modest lifestyle in their humble home in Connecticut.--Oilda 20:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] An online source
I concur that there's neutrality issues. I found this http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/articles/demonology/wannabeademonologist.html, and wonder if there is some material there that is worth investigating further, specifically "He was the only layman recognized as a demonologist by the Catholic Church and was respected for that title" This should be easily verifiable, or disproved 66.93.203.199 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reader's Warning: This article has been planted.
This is not an objective biography of the Warrens. The writer of this article (going by the name Lovecraft) has a personal antipathy to the Ed and Lorraine Warren which goes back over a decade. Both the language and the references are skewed to vilify the subjects. It is simply written in a pseduo-objective style which has fooled the censors at Wikipedia.Time rover (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)