Talk:Exorcism of Roland Doe

Article protection

While I appreciate and understand the need for protection here, given the changes that have been foisted on this article, and needed correction ... could someone please begin posting a protection notice HERE? I see some grammatical errors and terminology that requires attention, and cannot get to it!

In other words, will whomever it is protecting the page please stop doing that without notification at least? We'd like to be notified here at the talk page!76.195.81.212 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't protected, but I see on your talk page that your IP has been used for vandalism before. It's possible the IP has been given a temporary block from editing as a result. You should consider registering for an account, as IP addresses are shared across multiple users and you may be suffering from a problem caused by another user of your IP address. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

TechSym, I know I have replied to someone about this before. I have not committed any vandalism anywhere here, ever. It appears a school shares my IP range - but so do a few choice troublemakers such as those who regularly vandalize Claddagh ring, which article I helped compose and research. There is naturally nothing I can do to prove I didn't do it, except to state that I'm fairly well recognized by my work here.75.21.98.141 (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Jumped back in to say, I was IP 76.195.81.212 - but no longer. As I have explained, my provider alternates our IP addresses for security reasons. We have no control over that, and it appears the provider has no control over it either since they have exposed my city of residence several times!75.21.98.141 (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is fairly normal for ISPs, particularly considering the exhausted IPv4 address pool. For the record, I never said you did any vandalising, simply that your IP has been pegged before. As I said above, registering an account here would alleviate some of the problems you've been having as your account is unique and won't be used by other people on the same IP address. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Techno, it's been a while since I could post. I wanted you to understand, I wasn't upset at you, nor did I believe you accused anyone of anything. I know you were tracking the IP activity, I can understand that.75.21.149.151 (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone removed two additions to this article which had appropriate citations to back them up. Expect going to arbitration regarding this conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RugerOneShot (talk • contribs) 06:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

All good, I didn't make any assumptions =) Are you still having trouble editing the article? If so, you'll probably want to raise the issue somewhere (probably WP:AN?) to try to get it resolved. I suspect they'll also recommend you register an account though. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem

I have cleaned this article of a substantial copyright problem with several sources, most particularly the Strange Magazine article, from which we had taken over 1,200 words. Wikipedia's copyright policies forbid extensive quotations from non-free sources, and this is no question that this source is non-free; it reserves all rights. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content. It is permitted to use brief excerpts of copyright content for transformative reasons, but we cannot take substantial content from any source. While there is no precise word count that constitutes infringement, it's worth remembering that in one extreme case, 300 words from a 500 page book were found to infringe. While that was an extreme case, 1,200 words is likely to be substantial from any article. Several of the other sources, too, were far too extensively copied. Wikipedia articles must rely on proper paraphrase to a great extent when the sources are copyrighted. While information is free for reuse, expression is reserved and must be incorporated conservatively within policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cooper/Epperson source

The book "Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology" by Terry D. Cooper and Cindy K. Epperson, published by Paulist Press is being heavily cited in our article. I just read through the relevant chapter, and the authors are writing from a religious perspective, e.g. "Although they are not frequent, exorcisms are necessary for casting out the demonic" and "Cases of genuine possession cannot be explained by psychiatry" etc. I'm going to remove the extensive narrative passages cited to this source and edit accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:LuckyLouie, I do not think there is a problem with leaving the reference in the article as long as we attribute the claim. I am going to reword the quote you excised to state "Terry D. Cooper, a professor of psychology, as well as a Christian by faith, has stated..."; because this article is about an exorcism, it is important to include how Christian clerics and associated individuals, interpreted the case while balancing it with how skeptics interpret it in order to fulfill WP:NPOV. I hope this helps. With regards, `Anupam^Talk 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the recent article history, it seems that administrator User:Philg88, as well as User:Ian.thomson and 70.33.31.11 (the latter of whom I would recommend create an account), have also been involved. Before you make a major change to the article User:LuckyLouie, I hope to have some other users offer their thoughts. As I mentioned above, my preference is that we share the perspectives of both the Church, as well as skeptical perspectives for balance. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the bit "However, this theory is countered..." because the claim that Doe went on to have a normal life, or that he didn't have have had OCD, MPD, schizophrenia, or Tourette's counter the claim that he was pretending is absolutely unrelated to the argument that he was just pretending. While I don't necessarily object to including Cooper and Epperson's claim about Doe's supposed mental health with proper attribution and due weight, they should not be used as a red herring. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Ian.thomson, thanks for that. I did not see that statement there when I performed the revert and because it was uncited and unattributed, I agree with your removal of that sentence. Also, thanks for your comment about Cooper and Epperson's claim. I feel the same way. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP responsible for that bit (70.33.31.11) in the article [[has a clear agenda, shown through their preaching and censorship in the Theistic Satanism article and a borderline-attack rant on an admin's page. Honestly, until the IP is blocked or repents, I'm checking on their edits through the undo window, and I invite others to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The book Evil: Satan, Sin, and Psychology should be removed, it's fringe and unreliable yet is used on the article a number of times. Goblin Face (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I also question the use of these sources:

• A Faraway Ancient Country. Lulu. (self published)
• The dark side of God: a quest for the lost heart of Christianity. Element. June 1999. ISBN 9781862044586. (religious perspective)
• Paranormal Experiences. Mehra Shrikhande. Unicorn Books. ISBN 9788178061665. (paranormal perspective)

Also, Possessed: the true story of an exorcism by Thomas B Allen is being misused: the author suggested the boy could have fabricated the events or could have been suffering from mental illness [1] but this opinion is conspicuously absent from the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

My main concern was the IP, and would not have been involved otherwise. I will agree that the Lulu source needs to go, but otherwise have no real desire to get involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Had just flagged the first of these and was about to discuss others before seeing this thread. Good Spirits, Bad Spirits: How to Distinguish Between Them is also self-published, being printed by iUniverse. --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed statements sourced only to WP:SELFPUB sources. jps (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Date of Allen's book

The article doesn't mention when Allen wrote Possessed - although the lede implies that he wrote it prior to 1971 and it was inspiration in part for The Exorcist, it looks like Possessed was actually written in 1993? Is that right, or am I reading the blurb for a later edition of the book? --McGeddon (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

First edition was published by Doubleday in 1993. [2]. This is one of the most error-riddled articles I've ever seen. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Lutheran Involvement/Source

I recently wrote an article about Louis J. Sieck, president of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. A graduate student wrote this thesis on demonic possessions as relates to Lutheran theology and the Doe case; he obtained signed statements from some individuals around at the time who give details about the possession and the attempts of Dr. Sieck and Rev. Alfred Doerffler to cast out the demon. From what I have read about sources, the thesis does not pass muster to use as a source, so I will not add it. But I think it works as an external link, so I will add it there. Please comment here if you think it fit to remove. Thank you. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Quotes

Re this edit...no, the quotes are not "made up". The quote you are trying to verify is on the 5th page of the cited source [3], not the 1st page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)