Talk:George Chapman (healer)

A clear breach of WP:NPOV

This article is clealy unbalanced. It unequivocally asserts that Chapman was a 'spiritual healer' a fringe theory, of no credibility to mainstream science, best understood as a particular aspect of religious faith. It needs a fundamental rewrite to meet acceptable Wikipedia standards. I'd also question whether Chapman meets the required standard of notability for Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. The bunkum in the article is presented as if it was established fact not the weak minded blubber it actually is. Jschnur (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the title

@AndyTheGrump: you didn't suggest what you thought would be the appropriate disambiguation for the title. The sources support either (healer) or (medium). The Daily Telegraph obituary says "healer". I suppose that was likely written by his family, but how can you avoid POV? "Alleged healer" or "charlatan" would just represent another POV. Editors are free to balance the title with counter-POVs in the article body. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Fringe article

The article was clearly in violation of WP:Fringe, so I removed some references linking to 'psychic' books or websites. Apart from the obituary piece for George Chapman, he does not appear to be notable. I can find no skeptical evaluation of his claims, only credulous paranormal books claiming he channelled spirits. If this article was submitted for afd it probably be deleted. HealthyGirl (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)