Talk:James Van Praagh

Criticism Removed

On Nov 19, 2010 Booradley08 stated that he/she "references removed", when in fact the entire criticism section of Van Praagh was removed. References are NOT entire sections. SGerbic (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

alleged medium ???

The word "alleged" was removed because it, in my opinion, is not NPOV.

The validity of "medium-ship" is discussed later in the article, which may be the issue the person who added the "alleged" has.

Cheers, WIKIPEDIAVI 19:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how removing "alleged" makes it more NPOV, since now it says that he IS a psychic & medium, implying that such things are real. How about something like "James Van Praagh claims to be a psychic & medium"? BigFatKnowAll 15:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "Who claims psychic abilities" is accurate, NPOV and consistent with, for example, the article on Edgar Cayce. LeContexte 11:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There doesn't seem to be a lot of activity on this page so I'm going to go ahead and add "...who claims to be a psychic and medium". Justinfr (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom decided that psychic are cultural artefacts. The Psychic page was re-written accordingly, " The term is also used to refer to theatrical performers who use techniques such as prestidigitation and cold reading to produce the appearance of having such abilities.", and see this. The Edgar Cayce article just needs to be cleaned up. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I disagree and I think that most people, when they see the word "psychic" do not recognize it as a "cultural artifact" that does not imply veracity. The word psychic, unmodified, implies that psychics exist. Just throwing in my two cents though; if it's been decided elsewhere then I'll abide by that. Thanks for the link, it was informative. Justinfr (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. What the ArbCom seems to have meant is that if you live on Earth, and you don't know about the controversy over whether there are real psychic abilities, then it doesn't help to put doubt words in front of it. In other words, we can talk about psychics just like in normal speech, because we don't have to worry that much about the reader. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying he 'is' a medium doesn't imply anything about the veracity of mediums or psychic abilities. Whether or not mediums 'exist' also doesn't imply anything about the veracity of mediums or people who claim to be mediums. I don't think it is NPOV to say that he 'claims' to be a medium, because whether or not mediums have any psychic ability or any ability that they claim to have, should be addressed in the article on mediums. Because the word and concept of medium exists, and there are people who profess to be mediums, means that mediums exist, existence doesn't say anything about whether or not their claims are true or whether or not what they do is what they claim they're doing. The article should say that he is a medium, and then if a reader wants to know what mediums claim to be and do and the controversy over whether or not that is true, they can go to an article on medium, rather than introducing doubt words to every single article about specific mediums, which is totally not a neutral point of view, it is a doubtful point of view. I think the most rational compromise is to say that he is a medium and then when talking about what he does, use 'he claims to' or 'allegedly'. Because the veracity has to do with the claims, not with the word medium, obviously mediums exist, but existence doesn't say anything about what a medium is, does, or claims to be or do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.191.228.71 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 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)} 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Critics?

Does anyone have a source for the unsourced and possibly defamatory information about a living person I removed in this edit? PouponOnToast (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Shermer has plenty to say in his book How We Believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.14.18 (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Btw, after seeing the Beyond episode (E108) about Hornbeck the info regarding the criticism seems questionable to me. Hornbeck had been missing two months at the time of the Beyond show. JVP repeats several times that he feels Shawn is alive, and was abducted by a man driving a truck who had threatened him with a gun when Hornbeck was out riding his bike. He seemed to be right about Shawn's clothing according to his parents. He "saw" other kids around him at his new location close to a state border, and that the kidnappers name was an "Ed.."-name. Even though it turned out to be a "De..."-name (Devlin) JVP seems to have been rather close to what actually happened. JvP did not say anything about a railroad yard nor a dead body. The referred James Randi page says "The Akers also appeared in television segments on “Beyond” with James Van Praagh, another equally accurate “psychic.” He led the search in an entirely different direction, suggesting that a person who worked in a railroad car plant was involved, and that the body “might” be concealed in a railway car. Again, totally wrong, in all respects." I can't find Shawn's parents in any later episode of Beyond. It may be in place to be a bit critical to the critics. Saying that JvP was "totally wrong, in all respects" is just not true anyway, and makes me wonder if the rest is made up with the same kind of creative subjectivity. If not, it would be nice with some references (like which episode of Beyond).

I saw on tv (can't remember if it was an episode of 'Beyond') a search concerning the rail car in question and what actually happened was that JVP showed up at a railyard and asked about a boxcar with a railway name and number. The attendants denied any existence of such a car with those specific markings in their railyard. JVP took his team and searched the railyard (which is Huge!) and located a railcar with markings that he had previously described in a vision and asked the attendants about. So, to declare that JVP was "totally wrong" is in fact quite an inaccurate statement compared to the results that he obtained. 72.87.184.79 (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats still rather vague. If there is evidence that can be cited then lets get it on the page and correctly cite it. Just saying that JVP searched a huge railyard for "markings" means little. What kind of "markings" did the number he gave at first match the one he found? What about the railway car, did it solve a crime somehow? Sgerbic (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Skepticism

The entire skepticism section needs to be cut down to about two sentences. Some people think psychics are real. Some people think they are not. It is NOT the place of Wikipedia to be taking sides. Which, by the way, constitutes "original research" which Wiki says it prohibits. "I followed James van Praag around and he didn't convince me!" That's scientific? That's a vendetta. Those who carp will always find a reason to carp, they will never find anything genuine. They have always done so in the past. They are ideologues. Their minds are closed. There is no reason for Wiki to cater to them. An article about a prominent person is not an excuse for an attack. Dave of Maryland (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What "some people" think doesn't matter. What matters is what's valid information and what isn't. The important thing is that there are valid, reliable sources. -- Numbnumb (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way we can make this section a more easy read, it does seem rather redundant. Can we incorporate sub headers or cut sections? Audicity (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Several of these sources are invalid or not credible, please review. Thanks!Valdeez (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed Joe Nickell's blog piece which refers to several mediums and seems to group them together for no apparent reason. The source lacks validity and seems to only promote Joe Nickell's own site. Please check source. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/john_edward_hustling_the_bereaved/Marsobeit (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the info. It is a perfectly acceptable reference from a reputable, well established, organisation.--Dmol (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Invalid Dead Links

Please note that many of the sources on this page are invalid and dead. Please re-address, I've searched for links for sources 11 and 12 and found nothing on the web, therefore the highly controversial section was removed. Thank youMarsobeit (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Believers

Obviously James Van Praagh has a huge following of believers to reach his level of fame, shouldn't there be a believers section to make the page appear more netural? I mean it doesn't make much sense to not mention what people see in him  ?

I am new to wikipedia but watched a documentry on James Van Praagh and I am pretty surprised there isn't a believers section, can I start one to build my wiki editor cred?Valdeez (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what neutrality is. Neutrality doesn't mean treating two positions as equal. See WP:NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Believers section is valid with credible sources, it is important to note how James Van Praagh got to his level of success; with success comes skeptics which is why there should be a section referring to his believers and followers. James Van Praagh skeptics should not define his Wikipedia page, it makes the pages appear more like a hate page more than a credible article. Please verify each source and please state which sources are disputed before simply removing sections. Thanks Marsobeit (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the endorsements would fit better under the Career section where other celebrity endorsements are already listed. I do have a problem with some of the quotes. The Jennifer Love Hewitt quote and the other quotes taken from Eomega.org have a questionable citation. There is no information about the where or when of these quotes, and I suspect they are merely lifted from a press release. Hewitt is already mentioned in the list of celebrity fans, and I'm not really convinced her quote or the questionable Newsweek quote really add anything important to the article. They should probably be removed. I can imagine the Believers section very quickly turning into a string of celebrity quotes which would not add anything meaningful to the article. Quotes from movie stars endorsing Praagh do not belong in a WP:NPOV article, though I would grant that a list of celebrity endorsers is relevant information. Some of the info new to the article in the Believers section is really good. Like the bit about the TV mini-series starring Danson as Praagh.Dustinlull (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it makes sense to have a believer section, I'll restructure some of the page. Thank you for the feedback. Marsobeit (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed everything that was not cited or cited to non-noteworthy sources. I've never heard of a Believer section before and can't understand why this article would be improved with one. Surely his own website which is already linked fulfills the support he needs? Sgerbic (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

JREF

Can someone please explain how the JREF challenge is credible and why it has it's own section, doesn't really fit the flow of the page. 65.60.120.205 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? The JREF challenge is a well documented, legally set up (can't think of the right word here), challenge that has been standing for at least 20 years. One of its critics' favourite tricks is to challenge the validity of it, and I'm tempted to think you are doing the same, judging by your edit history. As for having its own section, if you find another challenger willing to offer 1,000,000 dollars, please let us know.--Dmol (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

More than half the article is about skepticism of this person, which makes it lack depth. The JREF stuff should be in, but I think there is undue weight concerns with how much space is devoted to critics. The article ought to be either expanded to more fully explain his life/career, or ought to be trimmed in the criticism area (perhaps a bit of both). For instance, the devotion of a longish paragraph to the JREF zombie stunt is arguably more about his critics' theatrics than it is about Van Praagh. In a longer article I could understand an argument that it merited a sentence or two, but in one this light on life history it's a bit much. --David Shankbone 03:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Van Praagh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121127222840/http://www.bestpsychicdirectory.com/news/Medium-James-Van-Praagh-Ghost-Whisperer-Shares-His-n29.html to http://www.bestpsychicdirectory.com/news/Medium-James-Van-Praagh-Ghost-Whisperer-Shares-His-n29.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022212614/http://www.vanpraagh.com//Ghost_CBS.cfm to http://www.vanpraagh.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Links in "See also" section

Numerous wikilinks seem to have been copy-and-pasted to the "See also" sections of various pages despite not having any particular relevance. I have removed several links from the "See also" section that did not have any direct relevance to the article subject other than to implicitly disparage the article subject, which would be a violation of the WP:BLP policy against unsourced content. I believe that that the remaining links should be removed if they are not relevant either. WP:SEEALSO says that "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I do not think that lists of other mediums are relevant enough without some actual connection, or else any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: You are going way overboard on the medium articles you are removing material. The MOS states: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics..." I maintain that the bios of other mediums and articles covering the general topic are, for certain, tangentially related. RobP (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop restoring unsourced BLP violations. Regarding wikilinks to other mediums, under your interpretation, any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. Can you explain how that would make sense as a guideline? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Claiming See also links are "unsourced BLP violations" is nonsense. What is unsourced? Be specific. I am following the guideline as I stated. Seems pretty clear. Let me repeat it from the MOS on See also: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. That's what these are. If any are not tangentially related, explain. RobP (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How are you claiming the links in the "see also" section are not unsourced? Also, regarding wikilinks to other mediums, under your interpretation, any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. Can you explain how that would make sense as a guideline? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

CatCafe, why do you think "another mentalist" is relevant to include in the article's "see also" section [1]? Is there any direct connection, or is it merely from a shared profession? Linking to all people with a shared profession would seem to be an overly broad use of the "see also" section, and seems more appropriate for the categories to handle. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

???, I'm following your lead. You reverted an edit leaving all the other Mentalists in [2] so you thought such was all ok with you. In future I won't answer silly questions such as this where I'm simply following the same practice as the other. CatCafe (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

CatCafe, that seems disingenuous as I obviously do not think those random links to others in the same profession should be there either. I explicitly said in my first comment above: I believe that that the remaining links should be removed if they are not relevant either. WP:SEEALSO says that "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I do not think that lists of other mediums are relevant enough without some actual connection, or else any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. Can you please provide an explanation for your addition and respond to the points I have made here? Consensus is based on having discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You started an edit war with no concensus. Don't call me names such as disingenuous. Look at your own actions. No more to discuss as you have been uncivil.CatCafe (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

CatCafe, discussion is a fundamental aspect to editing Wikipedia. Please explain how the links you are adding are relevant, or else they may be removed. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You were the one who started an edit war refusing to discuss on talk pages and you now have 3RR and no concensus because of your uncivil behaviour. Sort out your own problematic editing behaviours first. CatCafe (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert:@CatCafe:@Rp2006: Seriously people??? Can you just stop this edit war across several pages and reach some consensus? Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wyatt Tyrone Smith: How would you suggest the best way to discuss this issue would be? I'm not sure how or where to start an RfC or some similar process. What is your advice? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: discuss the changes you want to make on the talk page. That's what its there for. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wally is obviously right. He asked for a justification several times, and after the MOS quote Wally refuted with "any biography could have dozens", there has been no response, only dodging and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no point in adding "see also" links to some articles that can be easily reached via an existing common category such as Category:American psychics or Category:American spiritual mediums. If that were the correct way, by the same reasoning, all the other articles in those categories should also be added in "See also". But that would be pointless as they are, as I just said, easily reached via the categories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Valid argument except that in the mobile version the categories don't show up, only a see more section with 3 pages chosen by the WP algorithms as being vaguely related. As the majority of people will be accessing the pages on mobile ..... Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh. I would see this as a bug in the WP software.

Should this discussion and the parallel ones take place somewhere else? The appropriate place seems to be the Talk page of, say, WP:SEEALSO. That is, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Hardly a bug. Merely a limitation of the hardware. In the same way that side panels and nav boxes also don't show up on the mobile version. Just something to keep in mind. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

His facial disfigurement and his homosexual partner.

For the longest time, I've always wondered what is wrong with his face, particularly his jawline. It looks like some sort of injury. Then, there is the subject of his vague "partner" mentioned in the article, with no name or gender. No description at all. Legendofdilda (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)