![]() | Daniel Dunglas Home has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The article is still heavily biased in tone and content in favour of Home. I am undergoing to change this.-- Farrtj ( talk) 07:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Go away with your nihilism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.20.194 ( talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Do we really need such copious background on his family life? It must be remembered that he's a relatively minor Victorian character -- Farrtj ( talk) 08:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This article needs a complete rewrite - if no-one objects, I will go ahead and do this (at some point in the near future).
This article is not skeptical in tone, just informed and fact-based. It is not necessary to mutilate factual entries to make airheads feel better about being credulous. Rory Coker
I agree Redxela Sinnak, this article is full of original research. I think you should be bold and begin hacking out the stuff that doesn't tell us something about D.D. Home's life. Anthon.Eff 19:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed "who had been expecting a thorough refutation of Home's claims" because I don't believe they expected that. Maybe Doyle thinks they did, but - didn't everybody already know by then that Crookes was easy to fool? He already had been into spiritualism for four years. -- Hob Gadling 15:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of putting them in? -- andreasegde ( talk) 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have started work on this article, with the aim of taking it to GA status. Anybody willing to add references or work with me on this (but no edit wars, please) is totally welcome. -- andreasegde ( talk) 19:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is open on this one, because if he was a fake, he was a very good one. -- andreasegde ( talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This is my first GA review so it will take me a little longer to review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
*"As the one-year-old Home was deemed a delicate child, having a "nervous temperament", he was passed to Elizabeth's childless sister, Mary Cook, who lived with her husband in the coastal town of Portobello, 3 miles east of Edinburgh, although the cost of raising so many children may have contributed to the move." split: Done Changed it.--
andreasegde (
talk)
13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
'Nuff said.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`.
05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no (definite) opinion on the subject, but I have a strong distaste for bias masquerading as "objectivity", let alone encyclopaedic writing.
Nowheere is the biased slant of this article more evident than in the caption to the photograph on the left:
"Home was known for his love of fanfare and show, as evidenced in this staged photograph in which he ponders a skull."
Firstly, by WHOM was he "known" to be that? And where is the reference to support this assertion?
Secondly, the "staged photograph" is absolutely TYPICAL of mid- to late 19th century studio photography - as anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the visual culture in the 19th century would know. It was the vogue of the time, especially when portraying celebrities. (There are literally hundreds of examples floating around the internet, in case books are no longer the preferred source of information here.)
Of course, pointing to the "staged" nature of the portrait while omitting the highly relevant facts above tells us more about the person who wrote that caption than about Home or his photographer; but this is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry, where personal ignorance and irrational fears - or indeed the inability to write a simple according to the standards of encyclopaedic writing and intellectual honesty - should have no place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.189.180 ( talk) 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
No evidence is adduced for this claim. William Crooks tested the accordion phenomenon by buying a new accordion and making Home change into clothes Crooks had bought for the occasion in front of him. To say further that the discovery was "private" and can't be given sounds like the weakest "evidence" of those Randi intends to discount (forgetting his own standards). I intend to add philosopher, tenured professor, and investigator Stephen Braude's claim that Home was "never caught cheating, "phenomena are beyond today's technology," and contemporary experiments made by major figures in the history of science were "very well controlled." In the video at about 32:00
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/
50.81.38.82 ( talk) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no mention of the "The Ashley Place," a key event in his Spiritualist career and his most extreme levitation: floating (or giving the impression of floating) out of the window and into the adjacent window some feet apart in the presence of witnesses, two of whom gave written accounts.
The event, which took place in about 1868, is still considered an important spiritualist/magical illusion event. For example, the event is discussed in depth in Eugine Burger's book Spirit Theater, I understand, and is discussed in the BBC series "History of Magic" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4946H0VHjY).
I propose that "The Ashley Place" at least receive a mention.
75.32.138.141 ( talk) 04:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The 'Ashley Place' incident was examined closely by a man in the 1980s who visited the actual house where it took place. He pointed out that Home insisted the two gentlemen witnesses go into another room, while he stayed alone in the next door room. Home a few moments later appeared at the window of the gentlmens room and let himself in. The room was two floors off the ground. The story of Home 'floating out of one window and into another' is pure 'Urban Myth' no one present at the House ever said that. They simply said 'Home was at the window'. On closely examining the outside of the building and the possibility for fraud, the conclusion was Home could easily have faked the levitation simply by swinging from one window to another by means of a rope which could be later pulled away by an acomplice. The problem with fraud was that no one in the houses neareby saw anything suspicious, and, tho not very high up, the windows were non the less intimidating in their hight. The final conclusion was that the Ashley Place incident could have been easy for Home to fake, but there is no evidence at all he did fake the incident. Johnwrd ( talk) 22:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Author and psychical researcher Peter Lamont has stated to me the methods used with the accordion by Slade and Home must be different. It is difficult to tell what exactly went on with the flying self playing acccordions associated to both men. Documentation of seances is poor. I suggest the popular use of laudanum may have something to do with extraordinary seance stories. Kazuba ( talk) 18 April 2013
I was thinking of adding this to the article but I don't think it is needed. In brief the psychologist Joseph Jastrow in 1889 for an article in a science magazine (Popular Science Monthly) published a supposed confession from Home admitting fraud. You can read it here [1].
Unfortunately Jastrow had made an error. The confession was not written by Home and was nothing to do with himself. The confession was of another fraudulent medium who Home quoted in his book Lights and Shadows of Spiritualism [2]. Home did not like other mediums, he saw them as rivals, and he would occasionally quote confessions from them.
Jastrow realized the mistake he made and corrected it. In his book Fact and Fable in Psychology published in 1900, the confession was re-published but Home's name was removed. You can see that here online on page 164 [3]. The problem is that spiritualists (who are very desperate to try and find any holes in any critical material of Home) had picked up on his mistake (even though he had corrected it) and have invoked some kind of conspiracy theory to try and degenerate Jastrow that he "deliberately" made a false confession of Home.
What is dishonest about some of these spiritualist texts is that they don't mention that Jastrow corrected his mistake in his book Fact and Fable in Psychology published in 1900, instead they lie and claim that Jastrow never corrected his mistake. Fodor Fan ( talk) 20:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel Dunglas Home. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel Dunglas Home. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Daniel Dunglas Home has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The article is still heavily biased in tone and content in favour of Home. I am undergoing to change this.-- Farrtj ( talk) 07:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Go away with your nihilism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.20.194 ( talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Do we really need such copious background on his family life? It must be remembered that he's a relatively minor Victorian character -- Farrtj ( talk) 08:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This article needs a complete rewrite - if no-one objects, I will go ahead and do this (at some point in the near future).
This article is not skeptical in tone, just informed and fact-based. It is not necessary to mutilate factual entries to make airheads feel better about being credulous. Rory Coker
I agree Redxela Sinnak, this article is full of original research. I think you should be bold and begin hacking out the stuff that doesn't tell us something about D.D. Home's life. Anthon.Eff 19:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed "who had been expecting a thorough refutation of Home's claims" because I don't believe they expected that. Maybe Doyle thinks they did, but - didn't everybody already know by then that Crookes was easy to fool? He already had been into spiritualism for four years. -- Hob Gadling 15:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of putting them in? -- andreasegde ( talk) 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have started work on this article, with the aim of taking it to GA status. Anybody willing to add references or work with me on this (but no edit wars, please) is totally welcome. -- andreasegde ( talk) 19:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is open on this one, because if he was a fake, he was a very good one. -- andreasegde ( talk) 23:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This is my first GA review so it will take me a little longer to review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
*"As the one-year-old Home was deemed a delicate child, having a "nervous temperament", he was passed to Elizabeth's childless sister, Mary Cook, who lived with her husband in the coastal town of Portobello, 3 miles east of Edinburgh, although the cost of raising so many children may have contributed to the move." split: Done Changed it.--
andreasegde (
talk)
13:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
'Nuff said.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`.
05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no (definite) opinion on the subject, but I have a strong distaste for bias masquerading as "objectivity", let alone encyclopaedic writing.
Nowheere is the biased slant of this article more evident than in the caption to the photograph on the left:
"Home was known for his love of fanfare and show, as evidenced in this staged photograph in which he ponders a skull."
Firstly, by WHOM was he "known" to be that? And where is the reference to support this assertion?
Secondly, the "staged photograph" is absolutely TYPICAL of mid- to late 19th century studio photography - as anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the visual culture in the 19th century would know. It was the vogue of the time, especially when portraying celebrities. (There are literally hundreds of examples floating around the internet, in case books are no longer the preferred source of information here.)
Of course, pointing to the "staged" nature of the portrait while omitting the highly relevant facts above tells us more about the person who wrote that caption than about Home or his photographer; but this is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry, where personal ignorance and irrational fears - or indeed the inability to write a simple according to the standards of encyclopaedic writing and intellectual honesty - should have no place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.189.180 ( talk) 22:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
No evidence is adduced for this claim. William Crooks tested the accordion phenomenon by buying a new accordion and making Home change into clothes Crooks had bought for the occasion in front of him. To say further that the discovery was "private" and can't be given sounds like the weakest "evidence" of those Randi intends to discount (forgetting his own standards). I intend to add philosopher, tenured professor, and investigator Stephen Braude's claim that Home was "never caught cheating, "phenomena are beyond today's technology," and contemporary experiments made by major figures in the history of science were "very well controlled." In the video at about 32:00
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/
50.81.38.82 ( talk) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no mention of the "The Ashley Place," a key event in his Spiritualist career and his most extreme levitation: floating (or giving the impression of floating) out of the window and into the adjacent window some feet apart in the presence of witnesses, two of whom gave written accounts.
The event, which took place in about 1868, is still considered an important spiritualist/magical illusion event. For example, the event is discussed in depth in Eugine Burger's book Spirit Theater, I understand, and is discussed in the BBC series "History of Magic" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4946H0VHjY).
I propose that "The Ashley Place" at least receive a mention.
75.32.138.141 ( talk) 04:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The 'Ashley Place' incident was examined closely by a man in the 1980s who visited the actual house where it took place. He pointed out that Home insisted the two gentlemen witnesses go into another room, while he stayed alone in the next door room. Home a few moments later appeared at the window of the gentlmens room and let himself in. The room was two floors off the ground. The story of Home 'floating out of one window and into another' is pure 'Urban Myth' no one present at the House ever said that. They simply said 'Home was at the window'. On closely examining the outside of the building and the possibility for fraud, the conclusion was Home could easily have faked the levitation simply by swinging from one window to another by means of a rope which could be later pulled away by an acomplice. The problem with fraud was that no one in the houses neareby saw anything suspicious, and, tho not very high up, the windows were non the less intimidating in their hight. The final conclusion was that the Ashley Place incident could have been easy for Home to fake, but there is no evidence at all he did fake the incident. Johnwrd ( talk) 22:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Author and psychical researcher Peter Lamont has stated to me the methods used with the accordion by Slade and Home must be different. It is difficult to tell what exactly went on with the flying self playing acccordions associated to both men. Documentation of seances is poor. I suggest the popular use of laudanum may have something to do with extraordinary seance stories. Kazuba ( talk) 18 April 2013
I was thinking of adding this to the article but I don't think it is needed. In brief the psychologist Joseph Jastrow in 1889 for an article in a science magazine (Popular Science Monthly) published a supposed confession from Home admitting fraud. You can read it here [1].
Unfortunately Jastrow had made an error. The confession was not written by Home and was nothing to do with himself. The confession was of another fraudulent medium who Home quoted in his book Lights and Shadows of Spiritualism [2]. Home did not like other mediums, he saw them as rivals, and he would occasionally quote confessions from them.
Jastrow realized the mistake he made and corrected it. In his book Fact and Fable in Psychology published in 1900, the confession was re-published but Home's name was removed. You can see that here online on page 164 [3]. The problem is that spiritualists (who are very desperate to try and find any holes in any critical material of Home) had picked up on his mistake (even though he had corrected it) and have invoked some kind of conspiracy theory to try and degenerate Jastrow that he "deliberately" made a false confession of Home.
What is dishonest about some of these spiritualist texts is that they don't mention that Jastrow corrected his mistake in his book Fact and Fable in Psychology published in 1900, instead they lie and claim that Jastrow never corrected his mistake. Fodor Fan ( talk) 20:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel Dunglas Home. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daniel Dunglas Home. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)