Talk:Fox sisters

Merge Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Fox sisters. -- DarkCrow^Caw 19:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Well I support it. The other article is only a stub. And Margaret wasn't independently famous for anything.-173.3.112.55 (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

René Guènon writes in his book "Errore dello spiritismo" that the Fox sisters have been Germans and that their real name was Voss. Could it be true?

Just a thought: Is someone who cares to point errors in other creeds someone to be trusted? Mr. Guènon has surely never studied seriously the Spiritist Doctrine, otherwise he would never have written such a book.

This is an argumentum ad hominem. --Abu Badali 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The events and people are usually referred to as 'the Fox sisters'. QED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.174.71 (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutral Point of View?

I don't think this article is written from a neutral point of view. Instead it seems to come from a "Spiritualist" point of view.

-- I Agree, This whole article is a waste of space.

I added the POV tag. This can't even be called bias, the article is written entirely as if it was all factual truth. It most likely needs a complete rewrite. A few pointers:

• Wikipedia does not believe in Spiritualism. It does not disbelieve it, either, Wikipedia is neutral. That means the article must be written from a neutral perspective, and any Spiritualist (or contrary) claim must be unmistakingly attributed to whoever made it, it cannot be stated as if it was the article's opinion.
• This article does not show any controversy. As I said before, it would have to improve before it could be called just "biased". This has to be addressed.

I'm wondering how it stayed like this for so long.AoS1014 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is an article about religion, so the sneering tone is a bit out of place: do you see any attempt in the Jesus article to question whether he really turned the water into wine? If you are going to actually do some work here (rather than strike supercilious poses), an article that would serve as a good role model might be the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. Smith was a religious figure from much the same cultural milieu, who made similar claims about contact with the supernatural, who had a similar effect in attracting large numbers of adherents. The article on Smith strikes a pretty good balance between believers and skeptics. Go to it lads! --Anthon.Eff 02:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been over two months since AoS1014 put up the POV tag, and he never returned to do any editing or even to discuss the article on the talk page. I am now removing the POV tag--if anyone cares to replace it, please commit yourself to doing some work on the article. Thanks. --Anthon.Eff 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article at the start seems to be written as if the events claimed actually happened, which I would think inappropriate, given that it's actually confessed to be outright fakery later in the very same article. 60.240.127.125 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd previously made some edits to add her confession, but didn't want to mess around with the overal structure too much. Should the confession be moved to the beginning, or just a statement that it was later admitted the "incidents" were fake?

Roygbiv666 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The "confession" was retracted (it's in the article). You're free to make any sensible edits in accord with the facts. Just keep in mind that this is an article about two women who were among the founding figures of an important religious movement, and approach the topic with respect.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is poor, it needs re-writing, but yet again a self-interested Wiki-editor who feels he owns this page, and the very subject of religion, chimes in with pompous overtones about how edits should be conducted. He feels this is an "important religious movement" and that comment should, and has, warned many editors that a re-write, or significant edits would be a slow, painful and ultimately pointless process, with the aforementioned editor throwing stones from the sidelines at every opportunity. It is staggering that the same editor also states " You're free to make any sensible edits in accord with the facts", why thank you kind sir, thank you for the permission! The facts are they used to make noises (using an apple, their toe or whatever!) to con the dim, desperate and the uneducated, with the prime intent of generating money and notoriety for themselves. And so it continues....someone's probably got an academic career and a book in the pipeline based on this tripe! 90.220.134.141 (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't know that "they used to make noises....to con the dim, desperate, and uneducated" is a fact. Prove that every person who witnessed the phenomena and believed it genuine was as you describe. There was motive to make a false confession, and the "confession" was later retracted. You are simply prejudiced. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:D1BC:2A7B:B2C9:B218 (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That is how believers are: it is very easy to convince them that something is genuine, but to convince them that someone is faking, neither being caught in the act nor confessing is enough.

You are responding to a twelve year old statement that has probably helped remove gullibility from the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no affiliation with Spiritualism, and I find this page to be VERY biased sounding, practically sneering with contempt at the subjects of the article and mediumship/Spiritualism. It seems as if a 'skeptic' with an axe to grind took out the anger of his bad day on this article; it reads more like a cautionary tale than an objective blurb. And I quote: "This pattern of confession followed by retraction, which is not uncommon, has supplied both spiritualists and skeptics with material to support their case, so controversy never ends."

Does that REALLY need to be at the end of the second paragraph? No, it does not. Putting it there is a jab, and encyclopedias aren't supposed to have jabs. My suggestion would be to do a total revamp, placing all of the swindling and lying into its own section so readers have the opportunity to find out who these people are without being told that they're idiots if they believe in mediumship or Spiritualism. And please limit the 'insight from Harry Houdini,' as that should be saved for another project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.86.233 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Charles Rosana

I can't remember where, but I read somewhere that Mr Split-Foot identified his killer as "CF" and folks later tracked down Mr. Rosana. I'll have to go look it up myself but that is how I understood the story. I am new to this whole thing and if I have committed a wiki-faux pas, please let me know.

-- hfodf: By accident I found this PDF file http://www.woodlandway.org/PDF/Leslie_Price_PP9.pdf : "PSYPIONEER, An Electronic Newsletter from London, Volume 1 No 9 January 2005." I remember reading it discussing the killer of Rosna (or Rosma?). It also holds a discussion about the name being Rosna/Rosma (that was my intrest).

The usual persecution of Atheists against FACTS that don't fit theyr religious beliefs! "A waste of space" says one of them. Well, that quite a a statement... Ricardo Gomes/Portugal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.129.235.235 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No Mr. Rosma was ever found. In 1904, part of the basement wall collapsed. This event revealed the presence of a skeleton with a peddlar's pack near it. That was never suppressed, and if it had been, it wouldn't necessarily have been by "atheists" (no capital A is necessary), as most of those who do not believe in Spiritualism and/or consider the Fox sisters to have been frauds are not atheists. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:192D:450F:7FAB:61C8 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

We build Wikipedia pages from reliable secondary sources, it is not our opinion. This discussion about what we think we remember and atheism is not relevant to the Fox Sister Wikipedia page.Sgerbic (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

As I recall, "Charles Rosma" (not "Mr. Splitfoot") identified his killer as a man named Bell who had lived in the Fox family cottage previously. Bell was still alive and well at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.60.122.141 (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Fox Sisters Were Canadian

If you review this on-line book resource, you will see that the Fox Sisters, were from Ontario, Canada. DJNelson7 (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC).

http://books.google.ca/books?id=YGFLAQ-Cu6sC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=fox+sisters+born+in+ONtario&source=bl&ots=TK-35uizXO&sig=LKud2yGgaq9EZVrFypp1NUhqk6o&hl=en&ei=kw3VTeGiAYfagQevgKHtCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=fox%20sisters%20born%20in%20ONtario&f=false

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DJNelson7 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC) --DJNelson7 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rappings

The term "rappings" isn't explained until (after) the third time it's mentioned, which seems like a bad way to present an unknown term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.186 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Margaret vs Margaretta

I noticed that Margaretta is referred to as Margaret a number of times in this article. In the references I checked, she's Margaretta or Maggie; the name Margaret refers to the mother of the Fox sisters. I changed the instances that I found. -CaptainJae (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

First reference I checked[1] says her name was Margaret. The second[2] and third[3] say Margaretta. Next one I found was Houdini's, who writes Margaret[4]. I'm split. Can anyone find a definitive answer to this? VdSV9•♫ 17:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@VdSV9: @CaptainJae: Gravestone reads "Margaret". 1850 US census says "Margaretta". Newspapers from 1851 until her death in 1893 use Margaretta, Margaret, and Maggie. My quick count on Newspapers.com indicates that Margaretta was used most frequently. Her entry in New York City's death index, available on Ancestry.com, says "Margaret".

I don't know if there's a definite answer, but I don't think Margaretta is wrong. Billmckern (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, @Billmckern:. The grave could just as well read "Maggie", right? I'm now favoring Margaretta, and thinking she and others might have shortened it to Margaret on occasion, hence the confusion. VdSV9•♫ 18:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Contemporaneous source

I just came across "A report of the Mysterious Noises heard in the house of Mr. John D. Fox, in Hydesville, Arcadia, Wayne County, authenticated by the certificates, and confirmed by the statements of the citizens of that place and vicinity." published in 1848. Might be a good reference, or maybe just "Further reading" or something. 2804:35E0:12:8100:A487:927C:987E:8CEA (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)