Talk:Exorcism of Roland Doe

Proposal to move this page

I mentioned this above and there was no objection, but to keep everything above board I will raise the issue officially here.

I propose this article is moved to "The Case of Robbie Mannheim" effectively renaming the article. The article "Robbie Mannheim" would be redirected to the new page.

I have done a search for wiki pages starting "The Case of" and there are quite a few, however the vast majority seem to refer to novels and movies, and legal "cases". So I am not sure whether this fits with wiki style or policy.

My main argument for moving this article is that this is NOT a "biographical" article, which is what people coming to an article named after a person would expect.

Robbie Mannheim is not a real name and the majority of the information here is not verifiably sourced about a real person. The real person allegedly doesn't even remember what this article is mostly about. Half of this article is sourced from unverifiable claims made by biased observers and the other half is built up "urban legend" and conjecture by people that had nothing to do with the case mostly made decades after the original claims to begin with.

Since I am not sure if there is a "proper" way of approaching this, or if "the case of" is reserved for "legal cases" other then proper nouns like "titles" of books and movies, or something like that. I think even if we reach a consensus here, maybe we should get a RfC from some more senior editors whether there is a "wiki correct" way to approach this. Vespine (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added a move notice template to the article, this will hopefully draw some attention to it. Vespine (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the move is necessary. People merit biographies on Wikipedia because they are famous for something (as Robbie is for his supposed demonic possession and consequent exorcism). If we find other information available on other parts of his life, there would not be a problem including it. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unwelcome though I may be, I SECOND Vespine's proposal.76.195.86.155 (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Does this article really constitute a "Biography"? Vespine (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the arguments above. With so few interested parties, we're pretty much at a stalemate at the moment. I don't disagree that the case of Robbie is notable enough to warrant a page, but I believe "The Case of Robbie Mannheim" is far more notable and appropriate for a title then an article purely about "Robbie Mannheim" the person. Vespine (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just done a little more reading and I think i have some more information which might clear this up. Technically, Robbie Mannheim is a living person, so have a look at Wikipedia:BLP. Even just reading the article's introduction, I think it is very clear this article does NOT fit the description of Biographies of living persons which is what you would expect coming to an article named after a person. I don't believe Anupam's argument of People merit biographies on Wikipedia because they are famous for something really addresses the issue at all. Vespine (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to weigh in, contritely and humbly. This article does not consist of a biography of any kind. (By the way, doesn't that banner belong at the TOP of this page?) Subject of article must remain anonymous due to Church Law, the Code of Canon Law: the identity has to be kept secret by all administrative means possible. That's why I tried to shunt this over to "religion" and "philosophy".76.195.86.155 (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. In regards to the banner, I had looked at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment and other examples of RfC on other pages and I believe I have used the tag correctly. I don't believe it belongs at the top of the page, it belongs in the topic for which you are requesting comments. Vespine (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So it does, so it does.76.195.86.155 (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I OBJECT to this move. Article titles containing "The case of" refer to subjects with that in their titles specifically, for example: The Case of Thomas N.. The turn of phrase has a decidedly archaic and legalistic connotation and is used almost exclusively as a literary device in fiction. Generally unless there is a strong reason to move an article it should not be moved. Compare the titles of other articles for which a critical examination of original sources strongly indicate that the individual described does not exist: Homer, Jesus, Moses, John Frum. Legendary individuals that do exist also have normal titles: Johnny Appleseed, Purple Aki. I feel this move is unnecessarily verging on violating NPOV, even if the the views being threatened may not be well-founded or encyclopaedic. -Craig Pemberton 23:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Craig's comment clears up the issue, i had a hunch that might be the case. I don't think any more input is required. I'll remove the tags. Thanks very much Craig, appreciate your explanation. Back to the drawing board. Vespine (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I'd like to at least say I concur.76.195.86.155 (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ouija board

Someone has removed a large chunk of information regarding Robbie's dabbling with an Oujia board which was very important for the article. The article now has no reason as to why Robbie would have become possessed (this is not to say I accept the reason of the claims of possession). I am therefore restoring the content. If you have a problem with the sourcing, you are welcome to remove the sources, but the article really doesn't make any sense without this piece of information. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, let me explain something to you: part of that was MY error, I think I removed excessively. As you sometimes do. But mine was an error.

As to the board, it need only be mentioned in a single, simple sentence and the reason why it is mentioned. No need to write so heavily about it. It is understood that someone claimed at one point that the Ouija was responsible for the allegations. That is all: just another stupid claim someone heard and printed years later. Does it deserve so much attention? I say not. Thank you Anupam for your noticing the errors I made, though, because I'd hoped they could be fixed.

I want everyone here to know I am calm about this, but I'm getting tired as I said before of everyone experimenting with ideas instead of action and correction. vespine, I'm sorry as a whole and sorry you think less of me now. I am a theologian, a published author and have 200 articles/scientific papers under my belt. I find it offensive that there should be lecturing going here about who is a "great writer" and who is not.

Let's stop that kind of talk and get this thing done properly. And again, after the initial mention of CLAIMS about the ouija board, let us drop it because it adds nothing. It is NOT the claimed reason Robbie was possessed. No one knows why he was allegedly possessed.76.195.86.155 (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way 76. I don't think less of you at all but I still think you are taking things too personally. I certinally did not intend to insult your writing ability, I was certinally not trying to "lecture" anyone, I was just trying to making a light hearted comment, I'm sorry if it didn't come across that way. I'm sure you are capable of very good writing, even profesionally as you say, as a lot of people on wikipedia are I'm sure.

As for the ouija comment, I completely agree with you. Anupam's claim that the whole article doesn't make sense otherwise is completely erroneous. There is NOTHING mysterious or supernatural about a oiuija board and there is absolutely NO reason to suggest that it has anything to do with the claimed events. Any "connection" made between the CLAIMS of playing with a Oujia board and the CLAIMS of Robbie's possesion are entirely spurious and speculative. I especially object to the line "saw the Ouija board as a means of contacting those who had passed on the next world " and the next line. It's PURE speculation and conjecture.

I'm not sure what you mean by "lets get this done properly", i thought that's what we've been trying to do... Vespine (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well according to the claims about the events that occurred, it was through the Ouija board that Robbie became possessed. I am not saying that I believe this. I am saying that this what many of the tertiary sources about the event state. It is for this reason that I added the clause "According to claims presented in a tertiary source" in another paragraph. I could do the same with the sentence pertaining to the Ouija board. I want to let you know that I am not inventing the concept of Ouija boards being used for occult purposes. This is a very well attested concept in the United States that has permeated literature and film. Maybe if you are not an American, you may be unaware of this fact. Without mentioning the Ouija board, the reader has no idea as to the reason Christian priests believed Robbie became possessed. Even though you may not recognize the sources as valid, at least three of them mention the Ouija board being the cause of Robbie's possession (1, 2, 3). This critical part of the story can not be exscinded. I hope you are understanding what I am trying to say. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that sources make this claim, that's not the argument. The argument is that there is no proof for this claim, it's purely metaphysical conjecture. Those sources are NOT presenting 'facts', they are just making an unfounded claim about a subject they have a biased opinion on. This does not qualify as encyclopedic content, it's pure speculation. Yes I agree that the claims were made and the conclusions drawn and that it makes part of the Robbie Mannheim "story", but it's not enough to just say "some tertiary sources make this claim," because this still sounds like it is a legitimate claim regarding FACTS when it is no such thing. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to state that "some sources have come to the conclusion" I think this would be a more clear way to present the facts. Having said that, I think this is just more support for the argument that this does NOT fit with what you would expect of a "biography of a living person".. Vespine (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Vespine on the above post. Now please, listen and hear me out: Vespine, what I mean is let us not argue any more about writing abilities or lack thereof, unless article-related. It is badly enough written that our work is cut out for us. It was not my intention either to insult you or impugn your work so far.

Secondly: when I say get it "done properly", well, what do you think I mean? You, Anupam and I are the only souls on earth even looking at this mess; you and I agree on basics. I say let us rewrite, revisit and take it from there. Vespine, do you not read what I write to you on your talk page? Don't you even read my remarks HERE?

We cannot do anything with Anupam messing about--I am sorry Anupam, but you are messing about, when we make good, clean edits to this article and you come along to revert it all. I have made errors, and I am going to cease editing the article completely. I'll only post here, and not often.

THE OUIJA BOARD: Anupam, Fr. Walt has said he never believed the boy was possessed and he saw no supernatural events. If you do not know this is a fact, you shouldn't be editing here at all. And the belaboring of the use of this board does not belong on this page. It belongs on the Ouija Board page if there is one--I have never looked but good God, I can imagine what THAT looks like....

As I said, this is Vespine's now. Do as you will.76.195.86.155 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I suggest you both read Ouija--hope that link is right. It's the page here about the board. Anupam! I don't see it says anyone believes the Ouija Board causes demonic infestations, obsessions or possession!76.195.86.155 (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, I would not mind if you added the clause "some sources have come to the conclusion." If you wish to do so, you can go ahead and add it in the article. 76.195.86.155, read the introductory paragraph of that article again - it's clearly stated there (along with a reference). I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a mention in the intro and one mention elsewhere would be more than enough. Thanks Anupam.76.195.86.155 (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

QUOTE: "Like other Spiritualists, she ["Harriet"] did not heed the Biblical admonitions against consorting with spirits.[14]" I move that this idiotic passage be stricken. It does nothing to help anything, and is so silly I cannot believe it keeps finding its way back in here. No one said until decades later anything about the planchette being the instrument of this boy's possession. No one today takes this kind of reasoning seriously and it detracts from the account.

I also move that some separation be introduced in between paragraphs. This badly written section is an eyesore, and Anupam is basically lifting Allen's textxs among others and pasting them here. This needs to be freshly, correctly written.75.21.106.189 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've been really flat out recently. I don't disagree that this article could do with a rewrite but that's not something i would have the time to do any time soon.. I think if we keep plugging at the "main issues", we can still get it to a reasonable standard. At the moment, I still think the sources are the main problem, if we keep removing the shoddy sourced info it will be much better.Vespine (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the quote, it is sourced back to "good spirits, bad spirits" which as has been discussed, is an inappropriate source, therefore I'm removing it. You didn't even need to ask as far as I'm concerned, this is not in dispute anymore. Vespine (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've chopped a bit more out and honestly, if i keep going, there's not going to be much article left! lol... And what is left is going to need to be rewritten to make any sense. I don't see any other way to proceed, unless someone feels like writing a new article from scratch, which I certainly don't. Vespine (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We're going to have to archive this page soon, it's getting as out of control as the article;).. As for the article... I've tried something a little different and I'm not sure if I like it myself..

When Robbie was thirteen his aunt died in St. Louis. Part of the mythological account presented in several books supposes that Robbie tried to contact his deceased aunt via an Ouija board, [14][15] and it is this which led to his demonic possession.[14]

What do you think? I'm not sure "mythology" is the right word, but I couldn't think of anything better, it's not really "urban legend", I don't know what else might fit meter. I'm definitely not calling it any kind of "account" from any kind of "source"... Vespine (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is for ease of viewing, everyone: OK, Vespine...perhaps I can be of assistance about this item. NO ONE mentioned the planchette in any capacity, as far as would have been done by the Church.

Fr. Halloran has made no statements about this ever. If Fr. Bowdern knew of the kid fooling around with a Ouija, it's a secret as I have told you before. NO hint of any kind can be leaked of the subject's ID.

This nonsense about the Ouija board was introduced by radical-type Catholics back in the day. Yet many Catholics and I ought to know had Ouija boards in the house as a game. One thing I can state is there was some record of the kid being fond of board games, and in the 1940s and 1950s the planchette was very parlour-popular.75.21.106.189 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, in regards, to your comment here, I will support your suggestion to include the clause "some sources have come to the conclusion" in regards to the Ouija board. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• SIGH*--Anupam, it is gallant of you to support Vespine but you still don't get it. The Ouija board is A STORY about a story!! It does not belong anywhere except in a section about false and weird claims! What is it with you and that Ouija? The Church at this point doesn't even care about the thing in itself and it has NO BEARING on this case! Jeez!75.21.106.189 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

yeah look this is getting confusing again, we're having three slightly different but "the same" conversations in three separate places at once... Anupam, my comment about the "some claim" was just one of the 1st things that came to my head. As discussed below somewhere, i now don't think it's appropriate to call them "sources" at all. The way it stands right now in early life section I feel comfortable with, but as i will mention below, I will work out how to insert the disclaimer into the appropriate section too. Vespine (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Vespine, thanks for your academic revision of the disclaimer. From what I can tell, it looks good. All the best, Anupam^Talk 16:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in the Early life section, I inserted a source for the line about the Ouija board that you retained in the paragraph. The source I used was from Thomas B. Allen's "Possessed." If you object to this insertion, we can discuss it here and compromise. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes that looks fine. I don't really get how those quotes work yet sorry, i break them more often then I fix them... The only thing is, I would really like to see that reference section look a bit neater, i don't think it's necessary to include superfluous text within the body of the "quote". For example, does the last sentence "She taught him to place his fingers lightly on the planchette, a wooden platform that moved on" really need to be there? Other then that, i think the 1st two sections look pretty good. I'm going to start another talk section at the bottom with my next suggestion. Vespine (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, sure, I can remove the redundant part of the quote in my next edit. I'm glad the first two sections are set to go. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Article's sources and claims disclaimer

Anupam, since I know it is you, PLEASE stop removing the sentence that this story due to tertiary sources is a bunch of unverified anecdotal reporting. That should be clearly stated at the top, next to your inclusion of secondary and tertiary source definitions. That is not enough to make people understand that most of this article is made up of STORIES and MYTHS. Vespine will agree with my wording, I'm sure.76.195.86.155 (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, excellent, this achieves pretty much the same thing as I was trying to do when I suggesting the article move. Vespine (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me be much more clear: "Robbie Mannheim" is a pseudonym that will be recognized only by Thomas Allen's readers. Now, as far as I can tell without getting too heavy, Allen enjoys 30 customer reviews on Amazon (including my review). That must tell you something. "Avatar", while not a book, enjoys close to 900 reviews. Allen's book in present form was published in 1999. See? No one has read it.

No one knows the name "Robbie Mannheim". Few people know about the Exorcist kid even being a real person, but those who know always ask about "the real exorcist kid". No one knows that he always went by Roland Doe, son of John and Jane Doe--which is standard for the Church to keep identities secret.

Point? How the hell can this be a biography of a living person of interest when we BARELY have proof he's real?? How can we discuss in such scholarly ways how to fix the article when the whole thing is urban legend and two or three tiny facts?

We ought to re-think this thing. I don't care how many books Anupam finds relating to this; as Vespine always said, a repeated lie doesn't make it true, and the rest is ghost stories. We need an article that reflects all that.

I move that the article be slashed and burned. Then we start over with a clean article, and anything Anupam wishes to add should be in a section called "COMMON MISBELIEFS, URBAN LEGENDS AND FABRICATIONS". As for me, that move is the only thing that will satisfy me at this point.

If no one agrees, I drop it here and now. But this whole article as it stands now is a half-baked mistake.76.195.86.155 (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

FROM "EARLY LIFE" SECTION: "Some of the more generally accepted claims about Mannheim are that he was an only child born into a German Lutheran Christian family and that during the 1940s they lived in the American city of Cottage City, Maryland.[10] Pseudonyms given to Robbie's parents in literature regarding this subject are "Mr. and Mrs. Doe" as well as "Karl and Phyllis Mannheim née Wagner."[1]

Since Robbie was an only child, it is claimed that he depended upon adults in his household for playmates, namely his Aunt Harriet. His aunt, a Spiritualist, who also professed Christianity, saw the Ouija board as a means of contacting those who had died.

When Robbie was thirteen his aunt died in St. Louis. Part of the mythological account presented in several books supposes that Robbie tried to contact his deceased aunt via an Ouija board, [11][12] and it is this which led to his demonic possession.[11]"

I've managed to trim the "Early life" section down to here, though it may need some type of filling in--but I think not. There should be no more than this content in this section. If Vespine agrees, then Anupam, leave this section alone unless you know how to streamline it...which I doubt.75.21.106.189 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's good... Going just for a minute back to your "disclaimer", I actually think I would go further then that. My thinking is that even "secondary and tertiary sources" is still a "research" term, it still doesn't apply to most of the sources used in this article, they are not "scholarly" by any definition, they are "story books".. I think your disclaimer is good, but it doesn't really sound like something you'd want to see in a "good" article. I think maybe something like this sounds more "positive": "Over time, quite a rich mythology has built up around the original accounts, with many sources contributing their own embellishments and interpretations to the story." What do you think?Vespine (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I support Vespine's disclaimer. However, why do we need such a disclaimer when the supposed "story-book" sources were removed? If we are going to give a disclaimer of that sort then why can't we restore all the sources that were deleted? With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, disclaimers are really superfluous if the superfluous materials are removed. However, we need to be much clearer on one thing:

This is a SHADOW of a person. He cannot ever be identified. We have next to nothing from the Church about him, and that is the only true authority. Everything else has to be listed as commonly held views/beliefs about the legend. YES, urban legend. That is all it is.

"Over time, quite a rich mythology has built up around the original accounts, with many sources contributing their own embellishments and interpretations to the story." Vespine, that is GREAT. If we can continue cleaning this up, your well-worded sentence which is frankly making me envious will have earned its place.

Now Anupam, do not try to turn this into a way to get all your flotsam and jetsam back in there. Vespine's sentence is really the true heart of this problem.

One more thing, Vespine: I'm sorry we did not get to do this as "The Case of" because this has no precedent and personally I'm starting to think the editor who contributed the opinion was a show-off without justification. This is a "case" and nothing more. 75.21.106.189 (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok it's getting really late here so i might not make much sense, i just want to comment before leaving it for the night. I actually asked Craig to come and make the comment about the article move, he is the admin that originally asked me to come and work on the article. I respect his opinion and I think his point is valid. In particular the examples he gave of other "fictional" or "mythical" characters who do not have "case of" in front of their article. I think as long as we can get the tone of the article right, it should be ok. ALSO, directly related to "can't we put back the sources we've removed if we have a good disclaimer", I would say definitely not. I agree that the main THEMES of the stories can and probably should be represented, but NOT a blow for blow account of every detail in the entire tale pieced together from all the multiple sources. That just makes a Frankenstein's monster out of the article, that was a big part of the main problem to begin with. Vespine (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Get some rest! CAPITALS are for ease of reference/definitions. I will jump in here--this is the last time I'm leaping into these topics I created--Vespine, my point is THERE IS NO PRECEDENCE for this person.

He is not "fictional" nor is he "mythical". Both of those words denote a made-up entity. This person IS NOT MADE UP, but of course stuff is invented about him because next to nothing is known of him. It is the very heart of the matter.

Your respect does you credit, but why just follow the admin's lead automatically? It is a logic challenge I propose. This subject outwits your admin's opinion because he does not really know what he's talking about with myths and fictional people. He's alluding to literary conventions, that's all. "Legally" this article deals with THE CASE OF an unidentified person who will always remain unidentified. No one will ever come forward, no one will ever say who it is.

Finally, this IS A CASE: a case of exorcism. The Church refers to exorcisms as "cases". Exorcism itself is referred to: "celebration". In other words, celebration of the deliverance that the Church can surely give. Am I making some respectable sense?75.21.106.189 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, mythical does not mean fictional, and not all the characters craig linked are fictional either, Johnny Appleseed and Homer to give two examples. But yes this article is as much about "the exorcism of Robbie Mannheim" as it is about Robbie Mannheim, if not more. But there would be heaps of people who are only known for ONE thing and they still have an article. I believe we CAN make it clear in the article that most of the stuff about the exorcism is made up after the fact and the article can still be called robbie mannheim. Vespine (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So what's the word then? If it's not "myth", it's not folklore.. I didn't think it fit "urban legend" but having a second look, maybe it does? Actually reading the wiki article, it pretty much fits exactly. An urban legend, urban myth, urban tale, or contemporary legend, is a form of modern folklore consisting of apocryphal stories believed by their tellers to be true. As with all folklore and mythology, the designation suggests nothing about the story's truth or falsehood, but merely that it is in circulation, exhibits variation over time, and carries some significance that motivates the community in preserving and propagating it. Emphasis added is mine.. So how about:

"Over time, quite a rich urban legend has built up around the original accounts, with many sources contributing their own embellishments and interpretations to the story."

I think I like it.. Vespine (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

God, I try to help and even with this trifling matter you are arguing with yourself, Vespine! Now you see why I have given up.75.21.106.189 (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your impatience and temper aren't helping anything either you know! I wasn't arguing with my self, I'm trying to have a discussion, I'm throwing ideas around, that's how people collaborate, make some suggestions, listen to some feedback, decide what the best option is. What's wrong with that? Vespine (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Improvements and can we please resume all discussion from here

Happy day! Vespine, you and I have made this article start to look like it should. Now, I have a statement to make here, and I have made it before: if Anupam begins reverting without checking in here first, or edits/reverts especially in defiance of the 3R rule, then I say we give him the what-for. Agreed?75.21.106.189 (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely getting there... still needs a lot of work, but we are definitely on the right track. Vespine (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

75.21.106.189, I saw that you recently removed some information in the "Early Life" section. Could you explain your rationale for doing so? I thought we agreed that a disclaimer was the best way to go here. Vespine, I would also appreciate your input on the recent removal as well so that we may come to a consensus of what is to occur. So far, I have not objected to your other suggestions and I hope we can have some more amicable discussion here. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 16:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't quite understand what your issue is? I actually like 75's edit much better. I personally don't see the point of including 5 paragraphs of QUOTED source to support 2 sentences. Also, saying "passed to the afterlife" is not appropriate, I agree with using "died". Vespine (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly I will explain, now that I am editing here again a little: I removed the references to "Aunt Harriet", the Ouija board and everything else that was superfluous. Vespine and I have agreed on this clean-up for a long time. You know all that already, but I am kindly answering you here for clarity's sake.75.21.106.189 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop disruption/edit war/conflict/reverts without discussion

Anupam, will you please stop reverting the edits we've made!! We do not need comments about Harriet and her rejection of the Bible!! We do not need tons of garbage about Ouija boards! This is not only your article! I warned you once and I am warning you again. What you are doing is violating three reverts and you are also adding conflict of interest here. I consider what you are doing to be vandalism because it fits the definition. Vespine can disagree, but you'd better stop messing up our work. We are doing you a favor redressing errors you've PACKED into this. Stop it! I keep seeing the crap you keep putting back in the article. You cannot keep doing that without discussion! You know that very well Anupam.75.21.106.189 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Following a request at WP:EAR#Seeking arbitration for disruptive editing / edit war on article Robbie Mannheim I popped in here. If edit warring is going on, then please report offenders at WP:3RR (after warning then of course). Jezhotwells (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

75, look, you really have to believe me that I'm not siding with anyone or stabbing you in the back or whatever but have a look at the edit history of the article, you can see how many times the article has been edited and reverted by Anupam. He did it once yesterday, Sep 11, I disagree with that reversion and I'll probably undo it. Before then, he did it on the 8th, have a look what he reverted? I don't think that was a bad edit. Before then he did it on the 6th, that was really neither here nor there, i don't think it was a bad edit. Before then he reverted those 13 edits of yours, the ones we had a discussion about and I said I agreed with about half of them. But everyone of those cases in the last week or two was 1 count of revesion in a unique section, that does not count as RRR rule. So if you don't like his revision, PRESS UNDO ON IT! That's what the undo button is for. Then if Anupam undoes your "undo", that's 2R, if he does it one more time, that's 3R and will count as a strike against him. Until then, Anupam has been coming to the table as far as I'm concerned. Sure he's undone some edits he didn't like and maybe we did, but I really don't think his edits amount to vandalism. So let's undo some of his "reverts" and then when he starts reverting more then 3 times, that's we'll have reason to report it. Until then, I really can't see why your cracking it so bad. Vespine (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Vespine, do you ever actually read what I write? There is no offense intended here, but this is exactly why you are so frustrating to me sometimes. 1st, why the hell would you think I am in any way riding you on this subject? I know the depth of your commitment and work. 2nd, the frustration also is you defend Anupam unnecessarily. Why?? You think his actions are correct?

You really think the abuses of his constitute "coming to the table"? He preens and minces here at the talk page but then does what he wishes to the article. And please, stop advising me to cool down or whatever. Do you not think it is sheer stupidity to be working so hard here for nothing? Yet we work, and someone like Anupam comes along and look what he does. Finish it with him then. I'm done with the pair of you.75.21.106.189 (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be on the record about this. I read very carefully what you write 75, but I can't seem to reply in any way that doesn't cause you to have a hissy fit. "why the hell would you think I am in any way riding you on this subject?" I honestly have no idea what you're even talking about, I was trying to be as reasonable and objective as I possibly could, and you still find something to take personally and crack the shits. "you defend Anupam unnecessarily. Why?? You think his actions are correct?" How am I defending him? By trying to show you the edit history? By showing you empirical evidence of his edits? If you think that's being unreasonable, then I'm afraid you are just wrong. "stop advising me to cool down" Well you really should! This is at least the third time you've thrown a tantrum and threatened to leave. "like Anupam comes along and look what he does." What exactly does he do? This is what my post above was asking, SHOW ME what Anupam has been doing? The evidence is ALL THERE in the edit history. I'm not defending him, I'm asking for what you're talking about? Am I not allowed to ask? Is it unreasonable? Maybe I'm missing something that you can see, so show me. I'm not just going to go around accusing people of vandalism unless I see some evidence for it, if you have the evidence, then please show me. Just getting angry or upset and stormin off doesn't help anything. Vespine (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Archived

I have archived the older discussions to make this page a bit shorter. The link to the archive is at the top of the page. Vespine (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you brilliant thing you!! Good job. You could not have paid me to try it!75.21.106.189 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Article layout, section headings.

Having another look at the "broader" picture, I really don't see why there should be ten headings in this article, it really doesn't warrant it. I think sections "1 Origin of claims" and "2 Early life" look pretty good for now, they can be left, but I can't see a reason why "3 Poltergeist activity", "4 Medical and pastoral conclusions" and "5 Exorcism" need to be three separate sections. I think they could very easily come under one heading. I propose the heading be called "Possession and Exorcism", I believe all the information under the current 3 sections would fit under this heading. If no one objects, I'll try to make a draft of the 3 sections combined and paste it in. Vespine (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Vespine, I personally think it is alright if you wish to lessen the amount of section headings. However, if you wish to do so, please do not remove any of the present content (and corresponding sources) in the article without discussing it here. All the best, Anupam^Talk 15:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes Anupam, don’t worry, I won't use it as an opportunity sneak in other edits without discussing it.. Vespine (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality disputation

Does that banner still need to head the article? As good a shape as it's in presently, I don't see how or why that banner needs to be there. I've never removed it before, but I have raised the issue before. One thing about hard work on a good article here: don't sell it short!76.195.80.62 (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Cold hard facts? FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Mannheim#cite_note-Mark_Opsasnick_-_DOB-1

Strange Magazine. http://www.strangemag.com/exorcistpage1.html. Retrieved 2007-12-31. "Reporters to date have claimed that the 13- or 14-year-old boy was allegedly from Mount Rainier, Maryland. (It was later revealed that his date of birth was June 1, 1935, meaning he was actually 13 when the rite of exorcism was finally completed)." [Italics all mine.]

There is a problem here, and this kind of intimate minutiae is the problem I've always had with this article. I do not dispute the quote is what the author wrote, but kindly do the math.

This kid was 13 when they exorcized him, per Fr. Halloran, and it was in 1949, per Fr. Halloran. For some reason the date sometimes jumps to 1950 in some "sources", making the kid 14. Now of course if one does the math the kid was allegedly born in 1936. Certainly by autumn 1949, he would have been 13...other than that, what does it really matter putting in his birthdate?

Putting in a correct birthdate would give away his identity! I move that the information be stricken. If I see no objection, I'll remove it.75.21.155.143 (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The "Possession and Exorcism" section is still a bloody mess. I am afraid to try and trim it back. This has to be Hoovered thoroughly, too many citations! And lord is it ever hard to read, even as-is.

As to the rest of the clean-up I have been doing, hopefully there are no objections. There were punctuation errors and some stuff that could be written a bit more professionally.75.21.155.143 (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the motion to give away his birthdate. This article is a biography and can include that information. Also, perhaps you could format the "Church Law" reference you inserted. Vespine is still working on amalgamating the Exorcism section so we'll wait for his revision. I support your suggestion to remove the neutrality template in the article - you can go ahead and do that if you'd like. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the birth date being there, I mean, it really doesn't narrow much down, and the information is referenced. As for working on the article, I've just moved house and in a week I'm going overseas for a month, so you'll have to forgive me but I really probably won't have any time to knuckle down any time soon. I might just try to rudimentarily fix up the mess that removing the section headings made. As to removing the banner, I'm not sure why you're so keen to remove it, but I suppose most of the cruft is gone.. It still needs a lot of work but I suppose the "feel" of the article is almost there, so I guess I don't oppose removing the banner. Lastly, I also agree that the "citations" are still WAY out of control. In my browser, the citations at the bottom literally take up HALF the article.. How do the references take up as much room as the actual article? It's completely over the top. For example, specifically reference 23, 32, 34, 35 and 36. I really don't see the need to have such large quotes. It is really not necessary to have entire paragraphs quoted in the reference. People can always click the reference to read more, you don't have to cover every single word of the article in a quote. Take for example today's feature article Australian Magpie, extremely well referenced, and the refs section only takes up the bottom, maybe a quarter or fifth of the article Vespine (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

---

1. Anupam opposes "giving away" the birthday. I raised the issue because frankly it looks rather dumb up there (unless it's just the YEAR, which is also for some reason in question and it should not be). The year of birth is clearly 1936, based on Fr. Halloran's testimony. He may have lied, so we have a problem. To solve it, I say we stick to only the year, 1936.

2. Vespine, that banner in my opinion creates an impression that is not reality. Almost nothing is in dispute--there is no big fight here, no real controversy about the article. We are in a work-in-progress. Does that merit the banner? Using a banner like that to solicit attention/assistance is improper.

3. I agree about the awfully presented citations, the entire pargraphs quoted, they need to be trimmed entirely...but then I said that some months ago and was ignored. I second the motion to remove all those paragraphs. The trouble is, only Anupam knows how to do it right since he put all that in there. And we know he won't do it.

4. I'm not changing anything about the Church Law reference, Anupam. It is properly set into the article as it should be. We are not shuffling the good things around just because you do not like their "formatting". This is vital because it is a link to the proper, revised Code of Canon Law commentary about the Rite of Exorcism, in keeping with the Rituus Romanus. I managed to find that as a citation, and you're complaining about how it looks?

Finally, a fond good luck to Vespine, and with some trepidation I hope you'll be back with us soon. I cannot imagine the migraine I'm going to have here unless I 'vacation' along with you. Because I really have never wanted to give up on this article and it has progressed so well!75.21.155.143 (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Continued ideas for streamlining the article

1. It has been suggested that we fuse Later life with the final section. Later life is almost pointless and looks silly.

2. Citations and quotes need a vast amount of trimming. I will do it if I must. All of this has been discussed here already.

3. It has been suggested that we change the section title "Psychiatric considerations" because it is badly worded. I recommend we change it to "Scientific opinions", and I will do so unless there is a strong objection. Of course I do not object to "Psychiatric interpretations"....

4. I think that the exorcism section is in the wrong place, but I will have to review it again to be sure. It seemed to me that it was in the wrong order, in the wrong place.

5. I noted Vespine's upcoming month-long absence. This means we will not have a consensus between us for this duration. Hopefully we can still continue to work the article, and I ask pardon if I commit any unintentional errors in the editing process. A lot of my problem is with the editing/removing of paragaph-long quotes that don't belong there.75.21.110.251 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Some work has been done, very minimal, and I think it looks very good. I have jumped back in to comment that I don't necessarily think the notes/references need to be shrunk down...people may want to read those footnote entries. Personally I find them quite informative, even if they are anecdotes, and I think they should stay as reference notes. I will not do anything to remove or edit those.75.21.110.251 (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite see what the 1st paragraph of "origin of claims" adds to the section. Doesn't it just sort of repeat what's already stated elsewhere? It's out of synch with the rest of the section, IMHO, I don't think it really needs to be there. The section already explains the sources of the information, including Halloran, and what does "Also see citations below" mean? Vespine (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're asking my opinion, I don't exactly know about the Origin of Claims section either, and I mentioned that sometime in the past, but Anupam said something about it being like an introduction. Otherwise I'd take it up with him Vespine...he put it there and I'm not sure I am comfortable taking it out without a 'replacement statement'. I can't see what harm it does....

I think "See citations below", as related to the text in question, is self-evident! Scientific texts, books and articles often use that term so that we don't repeat citations over and over! Isn't that a problem we STILL have with this thing as it is?75.21.110.251 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

---

ORIGIN OF CLAIMS: all right, I will concede two things. 1) The section title is bad grammar. We can change that, and I am having some dull ideas on the subject at the moment. "Outline of Initial Claims"? "Outline of Story"? Man, help me, try to come along armed with ideas! You have such good ones!

2) Lots of stuff in the Origin section seems to belong elsewhere, I can see that. Then again, I have heard nothing about the rewriting and clean-up of the Exorcism section, which is a mess and looks like bugs on a windshield.75.21.110.251 (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No no, I think "origin of claims" was ok, I was specifically referring to just the 1st paragraph. I'm not sure when that popped in there, it's a more recent addition, it mostly just repeats what's already said in that section. I'm just going to take it out for now, if you want a point by point dissertation of why I think that paragraph doesn't add anything to the section, I'll oblige. Vespine (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Claims

OK, I see which way this was headed, I was a bit slow on this...I actually am reiterating a problem I have with the Origin of Claims section anyway. It looks stupid as it is now, I'm sorry but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. It is no proper introduction to the actual ORIGIN OF CLAIMS! Why call it that then? If the origin of claims is introduced earlier, why have the dumb section at all? I ADDED what Vespine is asking about to that section just to justify its existence! And what is there now is incomplete, belongs elsewhere or ought to be removed. Some of it for the very reasons you stated above, Vespine. It needs removal or work and a re-titling.75.21.110.251 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also I wish to ask who put back the silly birthdate of this person? Where is that date of birth definitively cited? Ah, you are just wrecking this thing all over again.... I am removing that date. I will try to put the correct year which anyone can see was supposedly 1936 anyway.75.21.110.251 (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)