Talk:Rosemary Brown (spiritualist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. |
 |
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. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
This page seems impossibly biased to me... given that communicating with the dead is and never has been a provable/proven experience, not to mention that it defies all logic of any kind, the page as written certainly seems to operate under the assumption that it's just another day at the park for an average person. I am, alas, not an expert on Rosemary Brown though so I won't edit the page directly.
- Thank you for not editing the article in a way that reflects your own personal belief about the subject. We don't do that at Wikipedia since that is not NPOV and, because it borders on original research, another Wiki-no-no. The article tries very hard to be neutral. For example it states that she claims to have had these experiences, not that she actually did. Belief in Channelling and/or spirit mediums goes back to the 1840s ( see Spiritualism) and is nothing new. For most people who believe in this kind of thing, it is part of their spirituality/religion and therefore, we as editors must be careful to tread lightly upon articles such as these. A believer in God should not trash an article on Atheism just because they KNOW God is real. Likewise, just because an editor has a strong personal belief that some phenomenon is not possible doesn't make it their duty to disavow believers of their faith in it. We have to do our best to describe the events, person or phenomenon in question in as neutral a way as possible. This doesn't mean, however, we have to provide point and counterpoint arguments. if the person, event or phenomenon has had specific attention from Skeptical researchers, it's appropriate to include a mention or reference to that. it is not, however, necessary to the general objections of skeptics to any and all religious or spiritual issues. So, if you want to add a source specifically debunking Rosemary Brown, feel free so long as you incvlude the proper source info.LiPollis 15:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This page seems to have been lifted almost entirely from the Reader's Digest "Strange Stories, Amazing Facts" (1975) therefore probably breaching copyright.
- That would be a problem. Anyone? 194.144.19.207 15:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- It would be if we could prove it but I don't have access to the text that user is referring to and not having written the article, it's not something I care to jump into. To prove something violates a copyright, you have to do a lot more than simply assert that it does.LiPollis 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category change
Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
