Jump to content

Talk:Bell Witch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 166.4.173.229 (talk) at 14:18, 28 October 2015 (→‎This article is incorrect: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

At the time...

Are there any know references to the Bell Witch phenomenon from the actual time they allegedly occurred (1817-1820) or immediately thereafter? Or is all such documentation from much later in the century? 98.221.137.91 (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation

The hauntings took place between 1817 and 1820, yet the first documentation of the event came in 1887, 70 years afterward, when nearly every possible witness was dead? Who's to say this wasn't just some story made up by a random author which snow-balled into a classic folktale?

Well that's the fun of folktales, is it not? nut-meg 06:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The actual article mentioned above was published in 'Goodspeed's History of Tennessee' (Robertson County) for 1886. In 1886, the only person left from the original family of John Bell (1750-1820) was Elizabeth Bell Powell (Betsy) who was then living with her daughter in Mississippi. Betsy died two years later in 1888. I highly suspect the article was written for Goodspeed by M. V. Ingram as it contains elements of Ingram's style, and sounds like a promotional of the legend. Most of the articles were collected by agents of Goodspeed from officials of the counties in Tennessee. (Jcook56050 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Spirit Names

What is with the spirit names? Mathematics seems like a retarded name for anyone, let alone a ghost, and Cypocraphy isn't even a word.

Very nicely said!

Kate Batts was not the only spirit, but there were two others. Their names were "Blackdog" and "Jerusalem" 71.115.244.65 (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Naiki Dans[reply]

Tone

The general tone of this article is roughly comparable to that of a campfire story. This is an encyclopedia. Jaimetout 03:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then be bold and rewrite it. --Centauri 06:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I being from clarksville, TN which is right next to Adams finds this article to be fine and accurate with the History of the bell witch. I know the current owners and i have had errie occurences happen. This article shoud not de disputed.

A post by some random anonymous person on the Internet does not qualify as a reliable source. This article is certainly disputed.

"The Bell Witch haunting is the name given to a series of SUPPOSEDLY real events" Well i removed the disputed, because we are not talking about the existence of the ghost, but of the events as history knows them to be. Again the proof or existence of the Bell Witch ghost is not the debate.--Alembic 02:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"...supposedly real events" smacks of NPOV on the skeptic side. Better would be "reported events"; a report may or may not be mistaken. --Chr.K. 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone mind if I remove the "quotes" later today? They don't add any value, and in fact come across as a sneer.

Which quotes are you referring to? --Centauri 21:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "quotes" around single words / actions as they seemed to come across as a sneer.

Incomplete?

Yes, and? What were the events you mentioned?DS 17:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

holadiee

Repitition

This page is incredibly frustrating, the most noticeable problem being how many of the statements made in the Legend section are directly re-iterated in the Analysis section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.211.202 (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Skeptical analysis

The Middle Tennessee Skeptics analysis of the Bell Witch legend is based on actual research of the available evidence. Mis-labeling it as a "statement" or "opinion piece" is deliberately misleading POV. --Centauri 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False. If you read it, the person did zero research. They read other peoples books and then made statements about how they didn't like what they read. They have no credibility, they are not published. Its a personal website nothing more. Its the work of one single person. This is not a WP:RS. Wjhonson 07:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove links that you don't agree with. The site represents a valid analysis of the legend, and shows that the ludicrous claims made by supports are false and almost entirely without foundation. --Centauri 08:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to repeat myself one more time - do not persist in removing valid links from this article as a way of insidiously promoting the witch legend POV. --Centauri 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping with WP:RS please cite where the work of this skeptic (or group) has been published or noted in some previously published, third-party, reliable source unaffiliated with the skeptic themselves. If it has not, then it's not a valid source for wikipurposes. Wjhonson 02:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making specious, nonsensical statements and vandalising the description of the link you disagree with. It's a perfectly reliable external link that has direct relevance to the article - particularly as it constitutes the only reasoned opinion to balance the "woo-woo" paranormal gobledegook that forms the basis of all the other links currently listed - and I don't see you getting too hot under the collar about those. --Centauri 11:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the Middle Tennessee Skeptic site and I think it is a valid link to include in the "external links" section. I do not believe it is notable enough to warrant it's own section in the article. The research seems to be woefully incomplete, having relied on only one source, the Fitzhugh book. Additionally, Wikipedia states that original resarch is not a valid source for articles on this site. nut-meg 00:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a major overhaul

At the present this article is little more than a totally uncritical, slack-jawed and rather confused retelling of a well-known ghost story - and I make that statement as the original creator of the article. In order to ensure this article complies with Wikipedia WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V policies a major re-write is called for, and central to that is a proper relation of the legend as it is told by Pat Fitzhugh, who is the leading supporter of the "paranormal" origins theory. I've now started adding this, and invite other thoughts and contributions that will help in this process. --Centauri 01:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And whenever anyone criticizes your style which is completely and totally lacking in citations for one thing, you revert them. Nice double-standard. Wjhonson 02:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to persist in attempting to insidiously vandalise the article by removing or adding POV comments designed to suggest that no explanation other than the paranormal is an acceptable inclusion, then you are naturally going to find that people will revert you. Welcome to the real world kiddo. --Centauri 11:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have no concept of what I was or wasn't doing. I'm trying to get you to cite your sources and use WP:RS instead of personal websites. Wjhonson 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very clear understanding of what you are trying to do. The Tennessee Skeptics website is a perfectly valid reference site. Whether it was written by one person or an army of worker bees and a dancing iguana, and whether it is itself referenced in other sources is irrelevant and entirely beside the point. Your argument that it must somehow be held to a different - and frankly, bizarre - accountability standard than the other linked sites promoting the paranormal POV, is entirely specious. --Centauri 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you shouldn't worry about putting in the skeptics link. Let the reader decide. (Plesmond)

  • Ok. I will see what I can do about a rewrite. The article is a real mess. nut-meg 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

According to WP:External Links 3. On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. (For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view – in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight.) 4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

For those reasons, I believe that http://mtskeptics.homestead.com/BellWitch.html is worthwhile keeping in the External Links section. Englishrose 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And those sites should not be cited as sources. Wjhonson 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they happen to agree with Wjhonson's POV, of course. --Centauri 20:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a POV. I'm like a blank slate. Doesn't change the fact that the skeptic site is a personal webpage and as such not a WP:RS. Wjhonson 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have attempted to update my outside link to http://bellwitchlegend.blogspot.com/ in order to present my updated paper, "The Spirit of Red River." I have been researching the historical data on the legend since 1980, and I can say with almost 100 percent certainty that this is a very cleverly written fiction using some very believable references to real people and events of the time. I must admit that the actual historical events and documents were more interesting than the book written by M. V. Ingram once I became aware of how those events actually related to Ingram and the Bell family. My wish is that this wikipedia article had more relevant information rather than being a promotional of the witch legend. It has improved over time, but needs lots of revision. The MT Skeptics link is indeed one of the only outside links that details some of the reasoning behind a good, healthy skepticism over this story and I have spoken with the author, who is very versed in the real history behind the legend. You'll find my work on that web site as well. I'm very happy to see an entry of the legend on Wikipedia. If anyone needs more detailed information, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks! (Jcook56050 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This article tells the story of a legend. Whether or not the events actually happened is not provable and not really relevant. Since it is classified as mythology, legend, and folklore, most people know to take it with a clear head. Whether or not people choose to believe it is not the concern of this article. A while back, this article was riddled with weasel words. Every other word was "allegedly" and "supposedly" and yada yada yada. It was one "skeptic" attempting to convince everyone to believe as they did. This is not the point of the article. The point is to tell the story. It took some work to get it back to an acceptable quality article. There can certainly be a "criticism" section. However, it cannot be original research. This is not my policy, nor is it the policy of anyone else that edits this article. It is a Wikipedia policy. A skepticism or criticism section should have some point besides just debunking the obvious. Otherwise we'd have to do the same to every other article on mythology and folklore. Are we going to go to the Paul Bunyan article and insert disclaimers and skeptical analysis and "proof" that he never existed? No. That would be stupid. If people believe the legend that is their business. The business of Wikipedia is to inform people of the legend. nut-meg (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point. But, if you approach this from the viewpoint of an historical researcher, the "spirit events" as related by Ingram are not actually provable at all since 25 years of research by some very dedicated people have revealed no first hand documents or verifiable evidence. And, Ingram challenges us by asserting these events were real. However, that is simply part of the legend, and plays a large part in why it has remained so popular after so many years. I'll admit that Ingram's book is a very addictive narrative and quite fun. Good luck! (Jcook56050 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

A bit unclear on the publications...

In the Analysis section, one of the sources is Our Family Trouble, written by Richard William Bell. Later, we are told that this book was written thirty years after the events described, which puts it at 1858 or so. But we are also told that an 1886 book is the earliest publication of the Bell Witch story.

Now maybe Bell's diary was never published, so that the later book really is the first published account. But if that's the case, it would be nice to explicitly say so. As it is, I found the text confusing. Phiwum 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've researched the Bell Witch for years and I have never heard of the 1887 publication. I'd like to find a copy of it and have a look for myself. The earliest publication I know of is the 1894 M V Ingram book, which I have a copy of. It is curious that the 1887 article calls John Bell "Garry Bell". I have to wonder if it isn't a fake. nut-meg 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?

This page is extremely biased, and the worst part is it seems to be biased towards different opinions in different parts of the article. While I agree that the paranormal should not be given as the "true" conclusion, the article actually has bias towards saying that the legend is a fabrication. The tone is more or less that of "a lot of people believe in the bell witch hauntings, but it is simply superstition." It should be given more or less as "Group A believes that the Bell Witch Hauntings actually occurred, while Group B believes it is a fabrication and/or superstitious," with Group A and Group B being defined explicitly, and not simply "some people say this and others say this." Although some science minds might believe that a scientific view of the topic should be viewed as fact the truth is many people believe that the legend is true and therefore we must assume a NPOV. Irregardless, the bulk of the article should be giving information about the legend, and not arguing with itself about whether the events actually occurred. As far as this content is concerned, I do believe that it gives good information but the article should touch on other versions of the legend. Finally I must say that the link in question that has created a sort of edit battle is a valid link, since it is accepted by some people as fact and therefore constitutes a valid opinion, although I wonder whether a website that advocates a NPOV would be better served linking to pages that also hold a NPOV.

  • No. The point of the links are to display what can not be on the page. Such as original research, or a non NPOV.69.213.70.93 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki clearly asks us not to cite original research.
  • The problem is that this page should not be about whether or not the hauntings really happened. It should be about the legend itself. There is really no reasonable question that something happened. What caused it is where the debate should be. I've heard a lot of interesting skeptical theories, as well as a lot of wonderful stories about the legend. There is no reason for this article, and this talk page to be so contentious. nut-meg 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please Name Specific Person or Group Tags appear several times, even when a person or given or when it makes no sence. I am removing these, as I believe they are vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.155.164 (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Overhaul In Progress

I've removed a lot of the weaselyness in the "Legend" section. I've also temporarily removed the "Skeptical Analysis" section until I can find better researced articles. nut-meg 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Revert

Hmm, my revert note didn't seem to go through to the history page, but I did revert it. There's a series of three edits in a row from the same IP, all vandalism, so the version from before that has been restored. The Nixinator 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell home?

I've read the Bell property is still intact and now owned by a trust, and the Bell home is still standing. Anybody else know more about this? Where does it stand? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The home was a log home and it is not standing. There is a replica of the Bell home near Bell Witch Cave. There is also a house nearby that is a small cabin that was originally on the Bell property, but I can't remember if it is a replica or not. That one is in front of a commercial property. I haven't seen the replica house. I think it has been built since I went there several years ago. I'm pretty sure when I went the property was divided up and owned by several families. I know the cave is now on the National Register of Historic Places. Some of it could be owned by a trust now but I kind of doubt all of it is. nut-meg (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson?

An IMDb page (not the best source!) says "Andrew Jackson is quoted as saying, "I would rather take on the entire English Fleet than stay one night at the Bell House." He later formed a group of men to test the rumors of the Bell haunting. Their findings are documented in M. V. Ingram's 1894 book, An Authenticated History of The Famous Bell Witch." This article states "No mention of the Bell Witch was ever made by Jackson in any of his letters, journals or papers, however." Which is correct? Шизомби (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Researching the history of Andrew Jackson, you will find the following: (quoted from my paper, "The Spirit of Red River") 'The information on Andrew Jackson given in the "Authenticated History" is incorrect. It is well written and very entertaining, but incorrect. Simply put, in 1819 Major General Andrew Jackson accompanied President James Monroe on a tour of the Western Armies of the United States that ended in Lexington Kentucky. This tour occurred during the period in which Ingram tells of Jackson's encounter with the Bell Witch. (Ingram never actually revealed the date, but we must assume by real history that it was in 1819). Despite his public popularity, Major Jackson almost failed to make the tour due to a major illness and declining health. He had recently escaped official censure by the United States Congress for unauthorized actions he had taken on a military campaign, and was advised not to accompany the President through the state of Georgia where he was not welcome. Jackson had also admonished the President to allow him a peaceful retirement. Monroe declined. Upon returning home, he remained bed ridden for some time in recovery. At no other documented time from 1814 to 1820 was Jackson in the Springfield area for any reason (even though records from the clerk reveal that he did indeed own tracts of land in Robertson County as did many absentee speculators of the period). Actual letters and documentation freely available from the Library of Congress and several published histories, especially those of Congressional Historian, Dr. Robert Remini, verify these events. The only major event in Robertson County that happened during Jackson's return to Nashville was the dedication of the new courthouse in Springfield. There were no newspaper accounts that Jackson was present for that event.' Having read through all of President Jackson's papers for the period in question, I found no record of any visits to the Bell Plantation nor any quotes as mentioned above. (Jcook56050 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]


Hey buddy...hate to be the one to break it to you but noone cares that you "wrote a paper" about the legend...so have many other college students. We have all read the same "documents". Your paper proves nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.35.40 (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed quote

I have removed the contents of the following box:

It is not acceptable in an article in its current form. It is introduced with a citation for a specific work, to wit:

...earliest written account is in the Goodspeed History of Tennessee published in 1887 by Goodspeed Publishing. No author is given. Page 833...

That citation may only be offered by an editor who has seen the work, and for a direct quotation like this, copied it verbatim et literatim (or correspondingly compared someone else's transcription against the work).
The passage as quoted clearly has two voices, the predominant voice and voice of the italicized and parenthesized portion. There are three obvious interpretations of this:

  1. The quoted passage was corrupted in a WP edit different from the one that introduced the quote into the article (and misrepresents the source). If true, that can be determined from the edit history.
  2. The passage is not drawn from the stated source, but from a secondary source based on the stated source, which presumably says (of the "main voice" text) that it came from the stated source. In that case we have a false quote, falsely attributed.
  3. The quote accurately represents part of the stated source's text, which is incoherant (by not explaining what it means by using two voices), or explains the two voices but has been effectively misquoted by omitting context necessary to preserving its meaning.

Each of the three would violate our standards. This needs to be explained, and fixed, before the hole i left can be filled.
--Jerzy•t 08:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I think there is an issue with one of the links. The first link, to the site maintained by the Middle Tennessee Skeptics review of the legend, is a good site to have, in theory. I think having a good site that can delve into the legend to try and verify it, rather than assuming it is true, is an important asset. However, after looking through it for several hours, the author/s psychoanalyze and diagnose the people involved in the legend (something which cannot and should not be done by a layperson, and especially not 150 years later), the author/s make hard statements of falsehood based on a variety of erroneous assumptions and "investigation" (for example, it is stated that there is no media reporting of this widely known event, yet the author/s fail to note that the one Tennessee paper, published in the adjoining country, that was publishing at that time rarely reported local events - The history of the Leaf Chronicle), and then, the least significant issue, but still important in a site such as this, is the poor writing, i.e. there is a lot of misspelling. So, I don't know if it should be deleted (and perhaps a new investigative site found) or if there should be a warning of non-impartiality. Thoughts?? Kkiely (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Cruelty

This article is tagged as an article about animal cruelty. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorhook.thepirate (talk • contribs) 07:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link is original research, and not really suitable for a wikipedia article. However, we've been back and forth with the author for a few years now and it seems to just go round and round. nut-meg (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cave mentioned in Travel Channel show?

I remember watching a Travel Channel television show titled "Night Visitors" that included the Bell Witch as their starting story. It talks about a cave near Adams, TN where people say they hear strange noises and feel demonic/evil presences there yet today. The show calls it the "Bell Cave" currently owned (well the land the cave is on) by a couple that claims they hear growls, screams, and evil noises from the cave. The show also said that during the time of the "Bell Witch" haunting the Bell family, a little boy accidentally got his head stuck between two rocks in the cave (which was located on the northern end of the farm). After the boy had yelled for some time, the entire cave lit up and invisible hands tugged at his legs. His head was freed and he was pulled all the way back to the cave entrance by the witch. How true this all is I can't say but it was on that Travel Channel show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.71.195 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a rewrite

Reading through all the comments here on the talk page, it is obvious that the page needs help. I've been doing some research and think there are a lot of new good sources that have been published since the talk page comments from 2007-2009. There is a single-source flag from 2010 here also.

In case someone is going to be adding anything in the next day or so, don't please. Let me have my way with this page (as my user page) and hopefully everyone will be happy with my revision. If not you can always discuss the changes here. Sgerbic (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with it. Happy Halloween all, tweak it to your hearts content. Sgerbic (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is incorrect

There are many references in the special collections library (rare books) at the University of Tennessee that are not included in this article. Among them are the first telling of the story by Harriet Parks Miller in 1859

The Bell witch of Middle Tennessee Harriet Parks Miller 1852 or 3-1935. Clarksville, Tenn., Leaf-Chronicle 1930

Available at Special Collections (UT) Rare Books (BF1578.B4 M5 )

As well as (and I can not believe it was not included in this article) the book by Charles Bailey Bell,


A mysterious spirit, Charles Bailey Bell 1869- Nashville, Tenn., C. Elder 1972

Available at Hodges Library Stacks (BF1473.B37 B4 1934a )

Brent Monahan's recounting:

The Bell witch : an American haunting : being the eye witness account of Richard Powell concerning the Bell witch haunting of Robertson County, Tennessee 1817-1821 Brent Monahan 1948-

and Gladys Barr (1905) Add to e-Shelf The Bell witch at Adams, Gladys H. Barr (Gladys Hutchison), 1905- Nashville, D. Hutchison Pub. Co. 1969 [1st ed.].

Available at Special Collections (UT) Rare Books (BF1578.B4 B3 )

This article needs serious updating. Soswalt

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bell_Witch&oldid=687925398"