Talk:Arthur Ford (psychic)

Fraud?

This sentence stands out: "Ford was exposed as a fraud shortly after his death (Alcock 1991:182)." Is there more to substantiate this? Canuckle 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
--I'm looking for the reason this article exists. It does not read objectively. --Art8641 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ford's Hidden Archives

After Arthur Ford's death, Ford's close friend and supporter William V. Rauscher and author Allen Spraggrett discovered Ford's collection of obituaries, newspaper clippings, Who's Who articles, etc. that Ford had hidden away. If I understand it correctly, they were disguised as being bound poetry books. Ford read his poetry before giving a reading. There was enough information to indicate that much of the famous Pike messages and others were fraudulent. There were many other things that Ford ordered his secretary to burn (after his death?) that are lost. Ford and his secretary parted company due to a falling out. Ford's secretary claimed Ford had no psychic abilities. The book Arthur Ford: The Man Who Talked with the Dead by Allen Spraggett with William V. Rauscher, New American Library, Inc.,1973 gives the whole story. This is the primary source used in Alcock's book. James Randi claimed Arthur Ford used to call his clients "suckers". My study of Ford (taking a break) strongly indicates he was a master "hot" and "cold reader" who took advantage of the bereaved. Some magicians who are readers say this, as is done by John Edward, (like to see him without the edited camera tricks), and others, is not morally wrong because their readings give the living hope. It also makes the "psychic reader" a lot of money, sometimes with gifts and certainly with mind expanding courses that increase the students irrationality and dependence. You can sell a lot of books, tapes, etc. User:Kazuba 15 May 2007

Are you supposed to be giving your own opinion, or should we be relying on published sources? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Category change

Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Rest of the messages - confusing

Bess Houdini told reporters her husband planned to send messages to Arthur Conan Doyle and Remigius Weiss (Weiss had worked with Houdini to expose psychic fraud.) Both men denied this was true.

What does "this" refer to (I bolded it above). That Bess's husband planned to send messages, or that they had received any? Or something else? Did Bess claim that Harry had informed the two men of this, which might explain what the "this" is about? As an aside I found the preceeding section confusing - the three messages are not introduced in any comprehensible way. Could someone copyedit or improve it please? -84.223.120.228 (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

POV of the article

The article sounds to me as if the author (or authors) disbelieve either in Arthur Ford's abilities, or in psychic phenomena in general. Does Wikipedia take a stand on whether psychic phenomena can or do occur? That is, does Wikipedia assert that only the physical world exists, and that there is no spirit world (spiritualism)?

If Wikipedia is determined to remain neutral on this, then perhaps we can work together to rewrite the article. It should balance the assertions of those sources who accept Ford's claims against those who question or reject those claims.

Is there a Wikipedia:Supernatural guideline page, which tells us contributors how to treat these matters?

I may as well make a WP:COI statement: I believe in Arthur Ford's abilities, and also in Rev. Moon's 'stature' as testified to by Fletcher. Nonetheless, I shall do my best not to advance my own POV in the article, and not to argue against those who disagree with Moon's ideas or practices or with spiritualism in general. I'm sure my old friends Jayjg and SLR will help to keep me honest, and I promise not to edit war with them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree and also this article is a mess. Shii (tock) 06:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

We treat claims that people can contact the dead like any other extraordinary claims according to our neutral point of view policy. That doesn't mean we need to "balance" the supernatural view and make it sound plausible (see "giving equal validity") especially when sources that support Ford's claims appear to be WP:FRINGE sources that would not be considered reliable by our reliable sources policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a number of WP:RS references, cleaned out some original research and dubious material and edited the article accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your defense of skeptic sources e.g. at talk:Arthur Ford

I noticed that you defended the use of skeptic sources e.g. at talk:Arthur Ford. I personally do not mind them if they are used with common sense. I have used them in the past too. However it has been my experience that these sources may not survive a very critical look by the Wikipedia community on controversial subjects. So contents sourced to these sources may eventually get deleted. Andries (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you identify which sources you feel are "skeptic sources" and why the WP community would disapprove of them? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For example this one

• Robert Todd Carroll (11 January 2011). The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-04563-3. Retrieved 12 May 2013.

The reason is that this source would most likely be considered too biased. You could test this by using this source for a controversial, sensitive subject e.g. Jesus or religion if the dictionary has entries for those terms. Andries (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that it would not be appropriate to use those sources in Jesus or religion, since the religious beliefs contained in those articles are framed as religious beliefs rather than WP:FRINGE claims. It really has nothing to do with bias or controversy or sensitivity. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not see so much of a difference. Many Christians believe that Jesus performed miracles which I think is a WP:Fringe claim. May be you can use the source for miracles of Jesus to test whether the skeptic dictionary is suitable for that. Andries (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the article miracles of Jesus falls under WP:FRINGE for reasons explained above. So it makes no sense that I should "test whether the skeptic dictionary is suitable for that". If you'd like wider input on the distinction between religious beliefs and fringe claims, I encourage you to post your questions at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think what Mr. Ford claimed and did comes closer to religious faith than to (pseudo-)scientific claims, so this makes him fall out of the WP:Fringe scope. I am not the only one who thinks like that, J. Gordon Melton treats him in his The Encyclopedia of Religious Phenomena. See Mr. Melton about Mr. Ford(I personally think that Melton tends to be too uncritical in general). Also, your logic does not make sense, when Mr. Ford acquired followers then following your logic he would fall into a religious class, meaning that the Carroll's skeptic dictionary suddenly should be removed as a source. It is not really in my interest to write this, this is just a friendly warning that eventually contents sourced to skeptic dictionary will likely be removed by others. Andries (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sincerely confused. You seem to be saying that skeptical sources shouldn't be used for criticism of claims made by psychic mediums...because they will eventually be removed by others. Or maybe you're saying you think they should not be used at this article because Ford's claims are not WP:FRINGE. Either way, I'm sorry but I don't agree. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is that this is a religious subject and hence falls out of the WP:Fringe scope. In part as a result of this, the contents sourced to skeptic sources (such as skeptic dictionary) will likely eventually be removed by others. Andries (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. Religious subjects are not protected from criticism. While a well-framed religious article may make it clear that it is simply describing beliefs, and thus not require significant criticism, we don't censor criticism, not from people, not from religious topics, not from anywhere, outside of considering the appropriate weighting of an article, as framed.

This is especially wrong when there's loads and loads of sources talking about the evidence for him behaving fraudulently. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Adam, I am not saying that no criticism is allowed, only that hard line skeptic sources have no place in a well-sourced article about a religious subject. Criticisms from peer reviewed articles is okay. See here. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/New_religious_movements#Reliable_sources which I and user:Jayen466 wrote. Andries (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The section of the guideline you're citing contains material added by yourself. I assume you understand that's not a good thing to do. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I was very open about it (I had written it today here) and my edits have not been reverted or challenged. So no, I do not see a problem. Andries (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)