Talk:Doris Stokes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I don't have time to deal with this, but it needs attention. This article was mentioned as the "worst on wikipedia" on, I believe, the Randi forums. Using only biographies to write something like this is ludicrous. "Mediumship" last I checked, was also not accepted as a real phenomenon by the academic/scientific community, and as such needs to be described as a minority view. If this article is to be on wikipedia, let it be written around newspaper articles. Sources who have fact-checkers can be presented as fact. Sources who do not must be represented as claims or opinion. Also, can somebody provide evidence of notability? Thanks Tenebrous 23:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow! This article is really, really bad! NPOV is completely absent. I will try and fix this up later this week, when I have some time to do some research. Qarnos 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Doris Stokes a psychic medium for a profession, or did she have a "normal" job and do psychic things as a hobby? JIP | Talk 10:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

She was a psychic by profession. As for the notability question, she was notable enough to appear on tv more than once, so I think she qualifies.

Worst Article on Wikipedia

Not only is it short, but it is not at all neutral has no citations and totally lacks credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmytheT (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Vashti 22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Doing some work on this article at the moment. If people think this is a bad article, they should see the ODNB article - they might find themselves in need of the services of a medium shortly afterwards, put it that way! FWIW, it cites all of Stokes's autobiographies as sources, and if it's good enough for them... Vashti 22:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm done for now. I am not happy with the negative sources I was able to find, however - despite it being common knowledge that she was debunked, discredited, a fraud &c., I cannot find any substantive newspaper reporting on this despite doing a full newspaper search between 1985 and the present day and a Times search going back to 1880 (!). The concept seems to have just seeped into the national consciousness without ever being substantiated. I've heard rumours of a Mail story which did the research which discredited her, but have been unable to find it ... does anyone know it, or have a relevant source? I've included the gossipmongering stories, but I don't consider them terribly good sources to have used and would like to replace them at my earliest opportunity. Vashti 01:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

NPOV? Are you there? Hello? NPOV?

I added the NPOV template, in case you hadn't guessed.

-- Qarnos 11:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific criticism you would like to make? Vashti 11:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The general motif of the article is to accept her claims without any critical input. One of the few criticisms is followed by the gem "However, repeated attempts to discredit her..."". The article seems to be not much more than a slightly watered down fan page. -- Qarnos 12:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article, in fact, doesn't use any of her own claims at all, but uses an encyclopaedia piece and newspaper articles as sources (I deliberately didn't use Stokes's books as sources as I think we would both agree that they're somewhat unreliable). If you have appropriate sources demonstrating that she was a fraud, I really would like to see them so that I can incorporate them into the article, but I'm not going to write anything based on hearsay. Vashti 12:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have appropriate sources demonstrating that she was a fraud - This is the problem. It is not up to anyone to prove her wrong - she must prove herself correct. Being deceased is obviously a bit of an obstacle, but given the complete lack of imperial evidence supporting her claim it is completely unreasonable to assume it is true.

I am not attacking you - you have done a lot of good work on this article - but it still needs a more work, which I plan on doing myself. In the mean time I think the NPOV template is a wise move.

-- Qarnos 12:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm happy to see the article improved - but it isn't a question of whether she was correct or mistaken or lying - it's a question of what we can prove. Anything that's added which is both neutral and verifiable is absolutely fine with me. I don't personally have an opinion on whether she was mistaken or fraudulent, which is part of why I work on this article, but I can't make claims for which I have no supporting sources. If you think the language used isn't sufficiently neutral, again, please do change it. Vashti 13:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind saying that I was worried about what you were going to do, but looking at the diffs this morning what you've done so far is really good, well sourced and looks like something I might have written - thank you. :) Vashti 11:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed

This discussion was pasted from User_talk:Throw.

Okay, firstly "self-proclaimed" is not accurate because we have a sourced statement in the article that she was recognised as a medium by the British certifying body that deals with such things. "theatrics" is commonly held to be a negative word - I think "public performances", which I changed it to, is both accurate and neutral.

I agree that "gained fame yadda yadda" isn't the best it could be - would something like "was widely known for" be better in your opinion?

Note that none of this has anything to do with whether she spoke to the dead or not, but if someone claims to be a medium, then they are one regardless of exactly what that means (misguided, fraudulent, etc). Mediums most certainly exist (they keep cropping up in the media for one thing), but a discussion of exactly what that means is better placed at [[Medium {spiritualism}]] or spiritualism or some other place - you'll note that particular claims regarding Stokes are there in the article where they should be. There are many articles regarding supposed mediums and they can't all have the same stuff in them. Vashti 03:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you that if someone claims to be a medium then they are a medium. I can easily claim to be Emperor of the United States but that doesn't make it so.

I would also have to disagree with your claim that mediums exist as no person or even the field itself has ever been scientifically proven to be such. Mediums do not keep cropping up in the media, people who claim to be mediums keep cropping up in the media.

I do not know what British certifying body you speak of but obviously since the field itself is unproven and this certifying body doesn't have the weight to actually make waves throughout the world and change every rule of science as we know it, it doesn't hold any water. Describing Stokes as a self-proclaimed medium is the only honest and NPOV way to address her in her article. - Throw 09:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary describes a medium as "6b. Spiritualism. A person believed to be in contact with the spirits of the dead and to communicate between the living and the dead. Hence: a clairvoyant, a person under hypnotic control." Note that "believed to be". The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography's entry on Stokes, cited throughout, opens "Stokes [née Sutton], Doris May Fisher (1920–1987), medium, was born on 6 January 1920 at 9 Wong Row, Grantham, Lincolnshire". The Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry on mediums states "in occultism, a person reputedly able to make contact with the world of spirits, especially while in a state of trance."; note "reputedly". Perhaps it is your understanding of the word which is mistaken.

The certifying body in question is the Spiritualists' National Union, as stated in the second paragraph of the article you are criticising, by the way. She was also described as a medium throughout her career not only by her fans but by the media, and if you insist I will present you with adequate references to that effect.

As to the fact that mediumism isn't, in fact, real, I can only say that Britney Spears apparently won an American Music Award for "Favourite Pop/Rock New Artist" despite not being my favourite new artist that year or, indeed, able to sing at all; I can only conclude that many things bear no resemblance at all to reality. Vashti 01:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, however I'll have to point out that both your definitions refer to people doing their act under hypnotism/trance. Very few self-proclaimed mediums ever appear in this way. The only one I know of is Sylvia Browne when she promoted that her 'spirit guide' Francine could inhabit her body and tell people about themselves. She stopped doing that act in the late 1990s. But this is all semantics, isn't it? In the end you believe people really have the ability to speak to the dead. I say I want proof, and unfortunately the Spiritualists' National Union isn't the unbias, objective organization that changes the world of science as we know it.

Your analogy of Britney Spears doesn't hold any water in that your not liking her music doesn't change the fact that she won an American Music Award. The AMA, like the SNU, are subjective organizations who have their opinions. For something to be fact – like mediums being real – it needs to be tested and succeed time and time again under controlled conditions. No such medium has ever been declared a scientifically proven medium. All we have is people who claim to be and have more in common to cold readers than people in tune to another existance. It makes more sense to follow Occam's razor than to believe the improbable without so much as shred of proof. - Throw 01:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your dismissal of references from respected reference works simply because they do not agree with you is noted. And my analogy is fine. Britney Spears won an award despite her lack of talent - this is objective fact. Stokes was recognised as a medium by people who make it their business to recognise people as mediums regardless of her lack of actually speaking to the dead - this is objective fact also, and means that she *cannot be described as self-proclaimed*.

One last thing. I don't know where you get the idea that I believe spiritualists can speak to the dead, or that what you or I believe is the point of this discussion. I'll thank you not to accuse me of bias while repeatedly demonstrating your own. Your point of view is not necessarily neutral.

If you want to take this further, I suggest an RFC. Vashti 06:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just chip in with my 2 cents, here. We had this "self-proclaimed" argument a while ago in Talk:Sylvia Browne and, whilst we went with self-proclaimed for a while, we eventually managed to come up with a better approach (see the article).

As a skeptic, I would prefer self-proclaimed since these people would not be recognised by others as being psychic without their initial claim.

As a Wikipedian, I think it is best to try to come up with an alternative, since "self-proclaimed" is a loaded term. Perhaps something like this:

Doris Stokes was a contoversial figure, with supporters claiming she posessed psychic abilities, and detractors insisting she was merely a cold reader??? -- 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See, that would be great, it's neutral and does what Wikipedia articles should do, which is leave judgements up to the reader - but do we have references for the latter? This has come up time and again; we've got Simon Hoggart's comments already regarding outright fraud, but I've not yet found a source that even mentions cold reading. Unless we quote someone we risk falling foul of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Vashti 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have found this[1] article by James Randi - "The art of Cold Reading", which states, "That technique (cold reading) was employed by the very successful reader Doris Stokes. She would feed back any data she got as if she were refreshing her memory of what had been told her". This gives us a basis for making the claim.

I propose this:

Doris Stokes was a controversial British citizen who many believed possessed psychic abilities. Skeptics, however, assert her performances amounted to nothing more than cold reading, a technique used by mentalists to create the illusion of mind reading and clairvoyance.

With references inserted where appropriate. Also note that a good portion of this lead was borrowed from Sylvia Browne, but it at least gives us a bit of consistency between articles. -- Qarnos 10:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

*nodnods* "Citizen" is a bit weird though. I do still think "medium" is the best word to describe her, going back to the references earlier which demonstrate that a medium is only someone who is *believed* to talk to the dead, and the fact that the ODNB describes her simply as a medium, since everyone knows what it means. I'm also leery of "performances" since she did do private sittings and private work for decades before she entered the spotlight.

How about "Doris Stokes was a British medium. Like all mediums, she was a controversial figure; some believed her to possess psychic abilities, while others asserted that she used nothing more than cold reading." We can put a detailed description of cold reading and cover the Randi reference in detail further down, keeping the opening brief. Vashti 15:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if "believed to be" is part of the Oxford definition, many people will still interpret it as Wikipedia acknowledging her psychic abilities. This is clear because that's what the more common definition of medium (not necessarily psychic related) would mean if you put psychic in front of it. That seems to have been the problem in the first place. It's a good idea to avoid words that can be interpreted ambiguously or at least to present them in such a way to specify which definition is being taken. Perhaps something similar to Qarnos's suggestion, and then medium should be OK for the rest of the article once it has been made clear that this definition is taken. I don't agree the word should be in the opening sentence(s) as it can be misleading. RB972 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RB - I would like to avoid labeling her as a medium or psychic in the lead. Perhaps if we replaced citizen with spiritualist? I feel that word is more appropriate and is neutral with regards to her abilities:

Doris Stokes was a controversial British spiritualist who many believed possessed psychic abilities. Skeptics, however, assert her performances amounted to nothing more than cold reading, a technique used by mentalists to create the illusion of mind reading and clairvoyance.

-- Qarnos 01:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. A couple of changes I'd strongly suggest: "stated" not "asserted", as "assert" implies an unfounded claim, and "sceptics" not "skeptics"; it's a British topic and the article is in British English. And "many believed"? Do we have a reference for that? What's wrong with "some believed"? (I know many people *did* believe it, but without a reference it's kind of weaselly)

So "Doris Stokes was a controversial British spiritualist who some believed possessed psychic abilities. Sceptics, however, stated that her performances amounted to nothing more than cold reading, a technique used by mentalists to create the illusion of mind reading and clairvoyance."

Which I'd prefer to see as:

"Doris Stokes was a British spiritualist.

She was a controversial figure, with some believing her to possess psychic abilities, while sceptics stated that her performances amounted to nothing more than cold reading, a technique used by mentalists to create the illusion of clairvoyance."

This keeps the immediate opening very brief and purely factual, and since discussion is in the next paragraph of the opener, it can contain more detail than the immediate opening paragraph without seeming overly verbose, but this is purely an issue of writing style... thoughts? Vashti 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've taken the liberty of adding it to the article - I can't see there being any objections to it. I also left the final paragraph of the original lead in place for the time being, although I think it needs to be sourced. -- Qarnos 03:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be sourced, but I wouldn't question the truth of it - she was very prominent in the early 80s, in the UK at any rate. I've made one paragraph out of it.

Someone is bound to be along to capitalise "spiritualist" at some point, though - what do we think of that? The OED doesn't capitalise it but quotes an example where it is capitalised. There are other meanings besides the common one, also. Vashti 04:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Other articles of interest

Related articles that could use some work include Colin Fry and Gordon Higginson; one is a substub and the other is ... really, really terrible and probably copyviolicious. Anyone up for it? Vashti 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Are there any remaining neutrality issues? What do people think? Vashti 04:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me.Nicely dealt with.FelixFelix ^talk 21:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Category change

Categories have been changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration on the paranormal, specifically 6a) Adequate framing, and Cultural artefacts. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor celebrities?

A bit unfair to describe Dale Winton as a 'minor celebrity', no? Holmes, fair enough. But Dale is at least medium-sized.Widmerpool 03:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Doris Collins

Wasn't there another one of her? Called Doris Collins and about the same time? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Supposed 1944 conviction

I've removed this, as it seems clear that either the editor or the original journalist has badly confused Stokes with her heroine Helen Duncan, who was indeed convicted of being a fraudulent medium in June 1944 and sentenced to nine months, according to The Times. Before it can go back, we need a far, far better source. Vashti (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

When considering the reliability of the source, it seems that Stokes's son died in 1944, and she joined the Spiritualist Church shortly afterward. This doesn't appear to give time for her to either begin practising as a medium or to be charged and convicted. Furthermore, since her son died in August, and the last conviction under the Witchcraft Act was in September, this source has to be put aside as unreliable. She may have been an old fraud and she may be dead, but this is still a violation of the spirit of WP:BLP that leaves me very uncomfortable. Vashti (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Lastly, the applicable policy here seems to be WP:REDFLAG - "Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". If Stokes served time in jail as the source claimed, we should have multiple mainstream sources for this, and we don't. Vashti (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)