Talk:Wolf Messing

Untitled

I have a scholarly article that disputes the contents of this article but the author does not want the article to be published yet. Andries 18:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

for what it's worth -- the web has this name on all types of psychic sites such as [1]. Trying to proof the veracity of the claims is another matter indeed. WBardwin 04:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The assertions stated as fact are disputed by Nagel's article. That is why I gave it a NPOV warning. Andries 22:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these "assertions" are wrong. There is no evidences of these "assertions" except evidences from the books written by... Messing! And actually, taking into account alot of historical errors in these "assertions", i have very big doubts about these "assertions". I've corrected the article by adding links on the articles that prove that all those assertions are hoaxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.223.172.189 (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

not much chat.....

about this;

so i moved it here. Purples 00:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly notable

IMO the subject of this article is a hardly notable figure who manufactured a bunch of falsehoods about his life to make a name for himself. --Mista-X (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

He is very notable in Russia. There are a number of books and films about him Olegwiki (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arguably a reliable source

Which strongly suggests that like quite a few successful entertainers he attracted at least a few myths:

http://77.170.120.22/ex-baba/engels/articles/paperwolfmessing.html

©Geni 18:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I would love to use it, but in the past this kind of sources were rejected as unreliable in a formal mediation. Andries (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This source is just an internet publication. It has not been published in a journal. So even though it looks well-researched (and I believe it is), it does not meet the formal Wikipedia requirements for a reliable source.

However, the article is quite similar to a Dutch article that was published in a journal (listed in the article). I do not have this Dutch article anymore. Andries (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed a lot of info that I believe is not reliably sourced, but I have no other sources to expand this article, because Nagel, is not a reliable source according to the letter of the Wikpedia policies. Andries (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)\

http://briansteel.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/wolf-messing-a-lesson-for-wikipediacrats/ I missed this one but may be somebody who can read Russian better than I can take a look at Kitaev. Andries (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The article can always use more reliable sources but that particular blogger (briansteel.wordpress.com) seems to be advocating original research and claiming censorship, e.g. "ingenious and exhausting use of Wikipedia’s arcane laws by “interested parties” to suppress or remove unpalatable facts from the controversial page". LuckyLouie (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree to some extent with Steel. This article is in a lousy state, in part because good, reliable sources do not follow the letter of the reliable sources condition. You can call this advocating original research, but I would call it advocating using common sense. Anyway, this discussion about Steel does not help. I will ask for help from Russian speaking persons. Andries (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Common sense is something everyone agrees with, but I just don't see a conspiracy here "to suppress or remove unpalatable facts" such as Steel suggests. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Balance

The claim, "...he was able to broadcast mental suggestions in order to alter people's perceptions" seems like it needs to be balanced with the mainstream scientific view on the subject. Even a quoted claim should have the accepted science to balance it. I haven't done the research yet but I am pretty sure the body of evidence indicates such mind control has never been substantiated. There must be something more recent then the MKULTRA results. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

According to this video document, Joseph Stalin used Messing as psychic spy (at minute 3:39). For anyone believes it is true reality, clarvoyance is a military strategic and decisive power which can determinate the end of any war, much more than any socalled hard weapon.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud

Messing never met them, it is a story that he invented. You might want to add this information. 2A02:14F:173:D893:7878:4240:25BA:2CC (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)