Miscellaneous desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 13

George Anderson - medium.

Dear Wikipedia,

I did a search on your site, under the English language section, for "George Anderson" and got many results in many categories (politics, sports, etc.). However, one that seems to not yet have been included on your site is a listing (if this is the right terminology) for the George Anderson who is a medium. If you do a search for him (medium George Anderson) you can get his website. He is close to 62 years old (born in August 1952). Because of a near-fatal bout with both chicken pox and encephalomyelitis simultaneously when he was six years old, some "re-wiring" (if you can call it that) occurred in his brain, and he started having visions and contacts with spirits and souls of people who have crossed over from this world to the hereafter. He has done tens of thousands of readings with subjects (living family members of departed loved ones) whom he didn't know and had never met, during the past 40 years. Countless skeptics have tried to trip him up or expose him as a fraud, and everyone of them has failed. His is a fascinating story, of a fascinating person, and I think his inclusion as a subject on Wikipedia would be a good and constructive thing. Thank you for your website, which I thoroughly enjoy. Sincerely, David Barrett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35CC:C1C0:C563:72AC:CB12:DF99 (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If George Anderson were to meet put notability guidelines, as demonstrated in third party reliable sources, and if someone were to take the time to write an article on him (we are all volunteers here), you can be assured that under no circumstances will the article assert that Anderson has "contacts with spirits and souls of people who have crossed over from this world to the hereafter". This is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for the propagation of credulous piffle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that this guy is going to meet our notability guidelines - but even if he did, we wouldn't say "He contacted spirits" we'd say "He claimed to have contacted spirits"...unless of course there was some kind of scientific proof that he contacted spirits...but if THAT was true then this guy would be beyond famous! He'd be nobel prize material. Obviously he's not going to prove it - so if an article were written about him, I very much doubt his followers would like it! SteveBaker (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little Googling reveals that Anderson does telephone sessions, at $1200 per hour. A review by someone who had one such session can be found here - [1] "...by the time the reading was over I had gone from a true believer to a person who knew right down to the bone that this guy was a fake". See also csicop.org on Anderson: [2]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Hans Holzer once said, "Good mediums are rare." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Hans. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want, you can write very small. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit!!! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is a fake, as are all mediums. He is a <- redacted per WP:BLP policy, ATG ->, and a performer of parlour tricks. I can say these things with 100% certainty, and I don't know anything about him. Talking about him here is so stupendously dumb that it makes everything else around it less valuable. Please take your garbage elsewhere. 217.158.236.14 (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, there is no need for such vitriol. And it's not true that everything else around here is less valuable as a result of this thread. This is a reference desk. --Viennese Waltz 08:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He might be a notable fake, <- redacted, ATG ->. (But such a question doesn't belong to the RD.) —Tamfang (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've redacted some of the above comments, per WP:BLP policy. This isn't a forum, and I think we've already made it clear that any potential article on Anderson wouldn't take the form that the original poster proposed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my strong words. I have people in my office who believe in this nonsense, and I might be too sensitive. They believe in ghosts, and that the moon landings are fake. My frustration with these people has obviously leaked out here, apologies.217.158.236.14 (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun a talk page discussion here about how this redaction has ruined the ref desk and forced away millions. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, Wikipedia doesn't choose whether we need an article about someone based on their value to society, or to how truthfully they speak or anything much like that. We have articles about evil dictators and sociopathic mass murderers, people who have been shown to be fakes and even people who wound up in jail for that kind of behavior. So if this person qualifies under the notability guidelines, then an article can, and should be written about him regardless of how any of us feel about what he claims. However, such an article would have to reflect what has been said about him in reliable sources - and in particular, since he clearly makes statements that bring him under the WP:FRINGE guidelines, we'd need reliable scientific experiments, reported in peer reviewed journals before we could say that what he claims to be able to do is true. If there is evidence that what he says and does is bunkum - then we'll report that evidence unflinchingly. Moreover, since WP:FRINGE requires us to take the mainstream scientific view (which is that mediums are all fraudsters) - and because WP:UNDUE requires that we give prominence to that view - the likelyhood is that our article is going to be exceedingly unflattering. Failing solid evidence either way, we'd simply report in the "So-and-so claims such-and-such" style where we merely report that someone said something without indicating whether it's considered to be true or not.

Personally, if I were a proponent of someone like this - the very last thing I'd want is a Wikipedia article about them, because it never ends well for those kinds of people. SteveBaker (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]