Talk:David Hatcher Childress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Why was the photo removed? I received this photo from Childress himself! What the heck was wrong with it???Serapisia 07:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)SerapisiaSerapisia 07:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous coward attack on me

I seem to have attracted a fan. :-) Probably jealous because my website is mentioned favorably in Archaeology magazine, he's repeatedly edited the main article to make libellous attacks on me. I'm a bit worried about the 3R rule so I'll leave it for the moment to see if an admin or someone sorts it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 07:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I see the loser is back with a different IP address.--Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I hadn't noticed the addition of a claim for Childress's vast fortune. That's sudden, in 2002 he had to take out a mortgage to buy property in Arizona and turn to Harry Osoff for help with his failing restaurant/tavern in Kempton. Still, Childress is a very successful, perhaps the most successful, publisher of fringe literature in the US, I will give him that. And his writing style isn't all that bad either.--Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the supposed "vandalism" of the Childress article, what goes around comes around. Weller has taken great delight in adding unfavorable information obviously because he has some personal vendetta aginst Childress. Yet, when the same is done to him, he screams bloody murder!, vandalism!, libel! Methinks he doth protest too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.117.27 (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have a stalker. :-) Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, NPOV means that this isn't meant to be a fanboy site for Childress or a site to make personal attacks on anyone. If anonymous coward doesn't like that, tough. However, I've taken this opportunity to correct something about Childress and make it clear that he relies on channelled information from other writers, he doesn't channel himself so far as I know.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

David Hatcher Childress did not "channel" his information, but is the result of extensive travel and reflection. His theories are presented with a grain of salt, but there is enough evidence that they should be taken seriously, instead of being dismissed by so-called "serious" academics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.109.12 (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above and as I edited the article, Childress openly uses information channelled by other writers. He doesn't try to hide the fact. But no, there is no reason to take his ideas (hardly theories) seriously.Doug Weller (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)