Talk:Derek Acorah/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

NOT Vandalism by 82.6.98.214

I've added a warning to their talk page. --Paul Moloney 11:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There's continued vandalism, from different IP addresses. Perhaps a lock should be put on this page?

--Paul Moloney 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed more vandalism — The external link to "Most Haunted on Living TV" was to a pornographic website.S3BST3R 04:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The link is not pornographic. Perhaps you should check the link itself before you accuse others of vandalism. The link is to a video of Derek Acorah on Most Haunted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.104.9 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 19 June 2006

Where's the evidence?

This article clearly has a potential for controversy. I think it is important that Wikipedia remain factual, as opposed to simply opinion. So when someone says that Acorah offers "overwhelming evidence" of genuine mediumship, that evidence should be referenced. As far as I am aware, no medium has ever passed a test which proves their abilities, so if such evidence is available, it should be found on Wikipedia! Stevepaget 22:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


There's no evidence and in Acorah's case, the opposite is true - there's evidence of him being a con-man and a faker. He was set up by people leaving tit-bits of information about a "ghost" and he came along, strung it together into a story and was then exposed as a hoaxer. I'm surprised he was given another TV show after that.

Strangely, the hoax had all the hallmarks of the other psychic stuff he did previously which makes me wonder - is it all a hoax? I believe the answer is "yes" and until there is evidence otherwise, I think that's what we should all believe.155.136.80.173 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Football timeline inaccurate

"When he was 13, Acorah fulfilled a boyhood ambition to be a footballer when he signed for Wrexham as an apprentice. Two years later he had moved on to Liverpool FC under the legendary Bill Shankly. Acorah played for the reserves, but after failing to make the first team, moved back to Wrexham in 1959" Somthing is amiss here. He packed 2 years of Wrexham football club before playing for Liverpool reserves, then moving back to Wrexham at the age of 9 after failing to make the first team. Should the dates be completely ommitted here? Even changing the year of the move back to 1969 doesnt seem to give it quite enough time realistically for that to have all happened, assuming Acorah made the move back as his own choice (hinted in the article) rather than being kicked out / let go before signing personal terms 62.25.109.197 (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

good point HEARMYLUSTYwhispers 01:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ISPR and Dr. Larry Montz

There was a recent complaint to m:OTRS about the characterization of Dr. Montz as a ghost tour-guide from New Orleans. I wasn't able to find any reference to this statement except in other websites who list us as their reference. In any case, since this article is about Derek, information on Dr. Montz is probably better off in his own article. Shell babelfish 20:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My reversion

I feel that Stevepaget should have simply reverted to my version rather than attempt to edit the wholesale deletions made by 217.42.229.247. For example, they deleted the sentence about Montz even though I had substantiated this with a reference. When making such wholesale deletions, I feel the onus is on the editor to explain such deletions on the discussion page.--Paul Moloney 09:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, Paul. I just reworded the criticism section to take into account some of the sentiments of the previous editor. It was a little assumptive, so I have tried to make it more neutral. Stevepaget 11:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, no problem with your new edits either! --Paul Moloney 11:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Warnings (Slightly Off Topic)

This is slightly off topic, but this has happened as a result of me adding a verification link to this topic. A user, Topov, has added warning symbols to my page accusing me of inserted spam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulmoloney

The user themselves has no user talk or identification page. Who do I complain to about this illegitimate use of the warning system?

P.--Paul Moloney 14:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I got the same. Don't worry. I'm confident that the information on the page deserves to be here. If he requests a block, it will be up to a moderator to decide. I'm happy to let the decision rest with them.Stevepaget 14:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As yes, I didn't realise that Topov was the one who has been performing wholesale deletions of criticism. It would nice if they themselves could justify turning this article into a hagiography rather than cowardly try to block us. --Paul Moloney 14:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Topov

This person has now performed at least 3 reverts, removing any material critical of Acorah. They have also refused to engage with other editors on the talk page. They have also added warnings to my user page, yet removed questions I have asked of them on _their_ user page. What "higher power" should be bring this to?

P.--Paul Moloney 08:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

One of the spurious warnings that the reticent Topov added to my page was for the use of "spam" on this article; I presume that s/he was referring to the use of references to external web sites with critical info.

Just to remove _any_ doubts about that, I've reformatted references link to use reference tags as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FOOT.

P. --Paul Moloney 09:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I doubt whether badpsychics.co.uk is a reliable enough source for WP:LIVING; the domain name suggests that it's not exactly neutral. The "Kreed Kafer" story is covered in several newspaper articles including The Guardian[1] and The Mirror[2]; I'd suggest using these sources instead. Demiurge 13:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the reference to the Mirror web site. It seemed more specific to the topic than the Guardian page. Stevepaget 13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Han on a second, BadPsychics.co.uk broke the original Kreed Kafer story 6 months before the mirrors article, so to call the Mirror article the original is plainly a lie.

Ciaran O'Keeffe originally came to BP to break the story anonymously, and only went to the papers when he had the support of Karl Beattie, and the promise that he would not be sued for breaking the confidentiality clause in his contract.

I think the FACT that BadPsychics is widely recognised as the authority on everything Derek Acorah, as well as being the WORLDS first media outlet to expose Acorah, should mean that it can and should be seen as such on here.

The fact that the story on BadPsychics which was published in April 2005 was later backed up by the Mirror article proves that that site was indeed correct in its original expose.


Thanks. I've had enough of Topov's vandalism and evasion and have asked for mediation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-04_Derek_Acorah
P. --Paul Moloney 13:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Topov has finally been blocked, albeit temporarily, from editing this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Topov
P. --Paul Moloney 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Badpsychics is certain not neutral,and most certainly is not"a recognised authority"Badpsychics is simply a website made up of sceptical individuals led by gentleman who simply targeted Most Haunted to gain his site and forum noterity.There are far more noted sites and resources that are far more well respected and known than BadPsychics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esotericonline (talk • contribs) 09:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

The Mediation Cabal was asked to help in resolution of issues with this page. The mediation will be held at the case page, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-04 Derek Acorah. I've taken the case as the mediator.

Please visit the page and check the information presented. Is everything correct? Is something important omitted? Is there something to add? Please add comments on the case page, to bring the summary of all information and opinions in one place. If you have compromise ideas, it would also be nice to post them on the page. Please take your part in the resolution of the issue.

For the time of mediation, please be careful with editing the information related to criticism of Derek Acorah to avoid controversial actions; of course, this doesn't concern working with other parts or noncontroversial edits. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Questionable sources - it is now easy to verify if Derek is for real or not. In a "session" he did in Hull he specified the name Gilbert Horton (or Houghton) as one of the dead who spoke to him. I went and did extensive searching on birth death and marriage records. There were some Gilbert Hortons / Houghtons - mostly in the USA - of the even smaller number that lived in England not one of them was born, married or died in Hull. It would be insteresting to have some of the other names he has mentioned investigated - even better if he could give us rough dates. You can get a rough idea based on the age of the buildings that are supposedly haunted.

Trick of the Mind

Derek is discussed in the Derren Brown book Trick of the Mind. It might provide a useful reference but I don't think it would add too much to the article. violet/riga (t) 10:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Qualifying his status as a psychic medium

The intro currently reads as follows: "...who has come to fame as a self-described psychic medium." An earlier version listed him as a "so-called psychic medium"; I deleted "so-called" because it feels too slanted from the POV that he is bogus.

We've already identified earlier in the intro that he has attracted controversy. Do we need to qualify his labelling as a medium? —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Factually, he cannot be a psychic, yet he describes himself as one. Therefore, he is a self-described psychic. 81.152.220.50 01:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is now illegal in the UK for mediums to advertise their powers as supernatural in any way,instead they must clearly advertise themselves as an entertainer. So the phrase "Derek Acorah[1] (born 27 January 1950), is a well-known psychic medium" is not only incorrect (as he has not proven that he can contact the dead) it's also illegal for him to advertise himself as such without a disclaimer saying something like "Derek may not actually be able to contact the dead and this show is for entertainment purposes only".212.137.27.116 (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The above information is incorrect. It *was* illegal in the UK for mediums to advertise their powers as supernatural - until the repeal of the Witchcraft Act in the 1950's!! The reason those psychics who performance for money describe themselves as "entertainers" is to avoid giving anyone grounds for suing them for misrepresentation if it doesn't turn out to have been Uncle Fred on the line. Illusionists and stage hypnotists carry the same disclaimer, for similar reasons, as do advertisements of decks of Tarot cards (as used for fortune telling). The poster should note that clergy of the Spiritualist church can quite legally describe themselves as psychic mediums or trance mediums, as can 'dial-a-psychic' lines. The use of the disclaimer in a public performance should not be viewed as evidence that the individual is or is not a psychic, clairvoyant etc. One must make one's own judgment on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Victim of TV reality

I remember when Derek acorah was a very good and well respected medium but unfortunately I have seen the most haunted show and I do think he had sold out or been duped into becoming a drama queen. The whole show is an afront to what I feel genuine ghost hunting should be and if they were sitting for hours with not much happening it would make for pretty boring TV. Hence the Yvette Fielding screaming which there was no need for. However the show has made ghost hunting popular with people who seem to be seeking some kind of adrenaline rush. I am sure many people would sell out for fame and fortune and he is not alone in doing that, it's human nature. There are far worse people around than Derek Acorah.(YinYangChing (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

It's not human nature to swindle your employer and your clients (the viewing public) - morally and ethically it is wrong. Likewise, to become a professional confidence trickster is not human nature - otherwise we would all be "psychic mediums". 212.137.27.116 (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course its wrong but since he has left the show I have seen Yvette Fielding coerce another psychic into going into a cellar that he had no wish to go into. It was obvious she was being manipulative. TV isn't reality and the show is hyped for sensationalism and ratings, I am sure his employers were well aware hence the term duped. As for the viewers, its entertainment not documentary. Perhaps the lack of integrity lie with the producers and the psychologist feeding him as with Derek Acorah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YinYangChing (talk • contribs) 05:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I've just made some big edits to help improve the article's neutrality. I'm pretty sure it's neutral now except for the Controversy section becuase i don't even know where to start with that!! I don't even have any interest in the guy so don't really know if everything I left in is factual but I have also added a template highlighting it's need for citations. It just looked like soneone needed to do some work on the article. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 22:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now done the remaining sections. I believe the article is pretty neutral now. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Information re grandfather

"Acorah claims that his first supernatural experience came as a child when the spirit of his late grandfather visited him. When young Derek told his grandmother she was not surprised as Derek was to learn that she herself was a medium. His grandfather died before Derek was born."

The first sentence is OK in context. The second and third are written as if they are valid 'facts'. However, there is no worthwhile citation for them. The source given, [3], is certainly not NPOV being what appears to be an advert for Derek Acorah. Furthermore, it doesn't fully substantiate the statements.

Also, quite why the first citation to the IMDB occurs where it is is a total mystery to me. --Candy (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reformatted to make it clear this is a new section. I agree with what you say - I wonder if this has lost some context. There's certainly nothing wrong with "according to Acorah, his first psychic experience.....etc" but it does seem to have lost that. I can recall editing out where someone had added 'alleged' to every second word, could be from then. Are you happy with a rewrite along those lines? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elen of the Roads. Yes I'd be happy with a re-write along those lines. If you go ahead and do that I'll pop back and have a look to help out later if you want. --Candy (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This any better? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

many people think he makes it all up, i was surprised this wasnt included because so many people think it. This article seems to be biased in the way it makes him look real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.32.250 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. Anyone who believes in mediums need there head tested anyway.Jamie (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the article is not to discuss whether or not mediumship exists, whether the dead can be contacted by the living, or any similar thing. Acorah claims to be able to contact the dead, so that's what the article says. Instances of where Acorah specifically has been challenged on this claim (the whole Most Haunted business) are included in the article. Readers can make their own minds up.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that "Mary loves Dick". Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Pretended" versus "attempted"

Here - it's no inapropraite to say that Dereek Acorah 'pretended' to contact Michael Jackson. He did. He fucking obviously did. HEARMYLUSTYROARS 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Saying he "atempted" to implies that he tryed but were unsucsesful. HEARMYLUSTYROARS 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

First, yes it is inappropriate, and you've had it explained to you, so continuing to change the text is vandalism. And second - get rid of that signature before you end up blocked!!! You've been asked nicely about that as well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's been exlpained but still. He's been exposed more often than a French flasher. BTW, how's mah signature look now? Isit still flashing? I can't tell oan this computer. HEARMYLUSTYROARS 02:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

Sig is no longer flashing (hurray!) - fixed header (third time). If you want something in bold use the B button on the edit toolbar, or '''Bold text''', not ===. As for Acorah, I agree with you that the likelihood of him being actually able to contact the dead is about the same as the Titanic rising spontaneously from the seabed and continuing her journey to NY. However (1) Wikipedia articles are not the place to air editor opinion and (2) to be honest, I couldn't be sure whether he is a fraud or a sap (the evidence from the Most Haunted farrago suggests sap rather than fraud). He describes himself as a medium, and that's what the article says. It does not (and should not) offer your opinion on mediumship itself. You can perfectly well point to reliably sourced evidence that interventions of a more earthly nature are involved in Acorah's activities, or indeed reliably sourced assertions that his claim eg to have contacted Michael Jackson are bogus. What you can't do is just offer your own opinion. Cheers Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it could be that a malevolent spirit claimed to be Kreed Kafer etc as an attack on him. Or, for that matter, he could, without realising it, have soething like multiple personality disorder, with what he believes to be possession being where one of his alters takes over, and "psychic communications" (or whatever the appropriate term would be) coming from his alter(s). I personally find the former rather unlikely, but pretty much outside the realm of science at present, and have no professional standing to advance the latter as any sort of diagnosis (it's just a thought). He could, however, genuinely believe what he is saying, even though it is objectively false or mistaken. Philculmer (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ghost of William Tell

Part of the article states: "During programming, the ghost of William Tell famously appeared to the camera crew and outed Acorah as a fraud". I'm assuming that this is a mickey-take!!! There is also a part which mentions "mentally dubious scousers" or the like!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.1.145 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You'd be astonished at what the creative vandal has added to this article over time. Hopefully its gone now.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in lede

Hi Verbal, while I share your opinion, I think the last sentence ought to reflect the fact that Acorah remains popular despite the criticism and parody. Feel free to tweak what I've put. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Canceled appearance

The section on a recent canceled appearance was removed by User:Robofish stating it was, “ultimately pretty trivial”. Please support the idea that this is trivial. The notability of an event can be demonstrated by its coverage by reliable sources. This event has been covered by multiple sources; the Mirror article used as reference, The Huffington Post, The Daily Edge, MSN news, The Daily Record. It has been the subject of multiple blog and forum posts and discussions including those of notable persons. The determination of the significance or importance of an event should be based on something other than a single editors opinion. I think the coverage of this event warrants its inclusion. If in the future this “blows over” and is insubstantial in relation to the overall subject of the article it can be removed at that time. If this contributes to the public perception of the subject of the article or is seen as part of a pattern which repeats its inclusion will be supported further. I am not restoring the section pending discussion and because of the importance of strict adherence to the biographies of living persons policy.MrBill3 (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair argument. I'm not completely convinced, but I also don't think it would be a serious BLP problem if restored to the article. Feel free to revert my edit if you like, and I won't remove it again. Comments from other users on this section would be welcome. Robofish (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your open minded consideration of my argument. Per WP:BRD I invite you to restore the section, if you choose not to I will wait a while to see if other editors weigh in here before doing so myself.MrBill3 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This section was removed again without any discussion here. I have reverted the removal and invited the editor to discuss it here. My position remains unchanged this was a notable event based on it's coverage by multiple WP:RS and being commented upon by notable persons with some authority and relevance to the subject. The evaluation of the notability of the event is not determined by the opinion of editors but by it's coverage or lack there of by reliable sources and notable authorities. The general interest is reflected by the number of newspaper articles about it. I don't see any bias it the section contained only factual information.--MrBill3 (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No point in arguing. Keep it in. It just seems like a very silly thing to have in the page. But really, why not put something like that into every person's page that has had to cancel and event due to unforeseen circumstances. I think everyone can see the irony in it, but it's not for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesWarrender (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This was an event that was found newsworthy by multiple WP:RS, clearly newspapers don't write articles about every person who has had to cancel an event due to unforeseen circumstances. Why would you say it is not for wikipedia, it meets the criteria pretty clearly.--MrBill3 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to remove the information on the basis that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid" per WP:BLP. Then I saw this talk page section. It's just a bit of tabloid fun, an old joke about people who claim to have predictive power, amusing but not encyclopedic. We don't have to add things just because it's been reported the media. WP:NOTNEWS is policy. If, on the other hand, several non-tabloid reliable sources published an evaluation of the subject's abilities based on this and other evidence it might be worthy of inclusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your input Sean.hoyland. Take a look at the set of media reports I included above. See if you think that the articles reflect some evaluation of the subjects abilities, it seems to me they do, a couple include other evidence as well. Not sure what the standard for tabloid is... I don't think the fact that this has happened to other people who claim to have predictive abilities and has been reported in the past diminishes it's factual value. People who claim to have predictive abilities are consistently demonstrated to have poor predictive abilities, this is factual material in each case. Please feel free to provide input on your thoughts on the sources, their value and the weight of their content. How substantial does the volume of reporting of an event need to be for inclusion? How in depth the evaluation? What sources do you think are RS for this particular information? I certainly think that a demonstrable, well documented failure of the predictive abilities of the subject that has received substantial media coverage is worth inclusion in an encyclopedic article on the subject as his primary notability is his purported predictive abilities. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I looked at all of the sources above, all of which I suppose are RS, before I commented in a fairly futile attempt to mitigate my rampant bias. I think it's essentially trivia, someone exploiting a proof by example fallacy for it's comedy value, followed by a predictable response/damage control/PR by an agent, picked up and published by the media presumably because it's funny. It doesn't really tell the reader anything useful about the subject (unlike the Kreed Kafer/Rik Eedles episode) and it doesn't demonstrate "failure of the predictive abilities of the subject" according to the agent. It's maybe worth one sentence, perhaps at the meta-level, along the lines of 'In 2013, it was reported that...' so that what we say is that it was reported rather than imply anything by it, but I don't think it deserves a dedicated section. As a general comment, the sources in the article aren't great. This one might help (which by the way says "Derek has inspired a website: badpsychics.co.uk." and covers the subject in some depth). Sean.hoyland - talk 15:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Sean.hoyland for your thoughtful and intelligent input. I have to say I have been won over. A comment added by User:Gwen Acorah that was reverted made me think about it and "cancelled due to unforseen circumstances" was the wording of the theatre and in all liklihood is the generic wording they use for any cancellation, not specific to this event. Also excellent of you to point out the specific logical fallacy.
Thanks also for the reference. If I do some significant editing on the article based on that reference and one already in the article that has content not included in the article at this time, I want to make sure any changes follow WP:BLP and the article retains WP:NPOV.

As I did the original edit and no other editors seem to think it is necessary/appropriate if there is no further comment for some time, I will remove the section. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI, WP:NPOV Facts, sources, balance, conflict of interest

A balanced article reflects the factual material about a subject that has been found noteworthy through coverage in reliable sources. Factual material that is properly sourced should not be removed without discussion on this talk page. Repeated editing of the same material without discussion here is not appropriate. Persons with a direct connection to the subject of an article should carefully follow WP policies as detailed at WP:COI. A discussion of repeated edits without discussion on this talk page by an editor whose username implies some connection to the subject of this article has been started on the WP COI Noticeboard [|here]. MrBill3 (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Kreed Kafer Incident

I would like to know if it would be possible to move the Kreed Kafer incident out of the middle of his television work. Maybe put it in a section titled Controversy or something like that. I'll do it myself if other agree it would be a good idea. It helps make the page look a bit more tidy. I'd also like to remove the line "often casting doubt over his legitimacy as a medium" from the opening of the article. This too can be added to the criticism section. JamesWarrender (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Separate controversy sections are not encouraged on Wikipedia, it is better to incorporate criticism into the other sections where appropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask for it to be cut down? It seems to take up a great deal of that part of the article and isn't up to date with latest information. I'm just aware that there are people who insist on keeping it in the page. JamesWarrender (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the criticism can be edited so it is more concise and flows better. I think it does deserve some prominence as Derek is "best known for his work on Most Haunted" and there was substantial controversy about his part in the show. Material from this source should be expanded and this source is relevant and contains content that could be considered important. I suggest keeping this article in your watchlist and commenting here based on biographies of living people policy, neutral point of view policy and undue weight policy if you feel the article doesn't follow those guidelines. I also invite you to provide reliably sourced "latest information" and content. Articles that present notable information about the subject, book reviews etc. can also be used to provide a more neutral point of view and balance what some feel is a undue weight of criticism. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort whose purpose is to create quality encyclopedic articles on notable subjects your contributions are appreciated. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

My only worry that when it is cut down, someone will instantly remove it and put back all the original criticism. There seems to be some people who watch Derek's page and won't allow many positive edits. I will source the latest information - which I believe comes from Haunted Magazine Issue 6. I feel it should be on the page, but it should stand out like it does and almost take over the entire page. It mentions at the top and in the middle about people's doubts he is a medium but up until recently only a few of his successful TV shows were listed. Thanks for your help. JamesWarrender (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you put your suggested edit here (on this talk page) and wait for some comment, perhaps having another editor actually perform the edit on the page the changes would have a strong basis for inclusion and preservation. Once content has been discussed and a consensus has been reached on a talk page a reversion would be considered vandalism and a number of editors would undo any such reversion. I have to say that it seems to me most of the existing criticism is valid and some additional criticism is likely to be added. Neutral point of view and balance reflect the notable (published in RS) material about a subject. However, as has been said, Acorah has a significant body of work, and may be considered an important figure in his field. To include that information please find a RS that discusses him in that way. Reviews of his work by notable people in the field or notable critics of the medium (form of content like TV, stage or books) would probably be the strongest. I also think the existing criticism is not written in a compelling or encyclopedic manner. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Archive this Talk page?

I suggest this talk page be archived using User:MiszaBot II set to archive sections with no new comments for 90 days per example 2. If there is no objection I will add {{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(90d) | archive = Talk:Derek Acorah/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 70K | archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 4 }}

This will create automatically named archives in increments that will be listed in and searchable from the talk header. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Footballer?

Lots of football and sportsperson cats at the bottom of the page, not a single hint of anything in the article. Judging by other comments here there once was something but I've gone back through 2 pages of history and can't see where it was removed. danno_uk 10:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The material referring to Acorah participating in football was removed by Tgeairn (talk) as unsourced material in a biography of living person on 11 June 2012 here. Unless a reliable source can be found to support it being put back in the sportsperson and football categories should also be removed. Good catch. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
See WikiBlame results. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Replacement of cn tag in lead, unverifiable material subject to removal

The citation needed tag in the lead was removed in this edit with the edit summary, "no it's not". The statement, "He is best known for his work on Most Haunted, broadcast on Living TV (2002–2005)." was challenged by the cn tag and thus requires a citation to support it or it is subject to removal. Any content that is not verifiable is subject to removal, the placement of the cn tag allows editors the opportunity to provide verification before content is removed. I have replaced the cn tag. If the statement remains unverifiable I will remove it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wholesale changes without sources or discussion here

User:martinjcooper has repeatedly removed substantial portions of this article without citing any sources or discussing these changes here. Notifications have been placed on his talk page. I have raised concern about the image added recently on the Commons talk page of the uploader. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Since User:martinjcooper is claiming that he took the photograph currently used in the infobox (File:Derek Acorah 2013 2013-11-21 01-05.jpeg), and since that photo came from a professional photo shoot, it looks like the user has a conflict of interest with Acorah as well. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Information to be added

I wish to add the fact that Derek Acorah appeared in a Dr Who episode. The link and info to the episode appears http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Ghosts Would I need any other information in order to have it added? Thank you. 145.255.240.145 (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Actor?

Actor has been added to Acorah's professions in the infobox. Is he an actor or a celebrity who has made appearances? Does an RS describe him as an actor? Has he portrayed a character in his appearances or appeared as himself? - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Excess unsourced detail

The section, "Television work" includes non notable unsourced details. If no RS has covered this minutia it should be removed. WP is an encyclopedia and should cover material found by RS to be notable. I will place cn tags pending discussion here or addition of sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

i think it is all verifiable from IMdB. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
IMdB really? Even if verifiable from IMdB does every appearance of a celebrity warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article? If a RS finds the details of his career important enough to elaborate then it belongs in the article but IMdB will list every single credit being a database (as opposed to an encyclopedia). - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Car crash

I've repeatedly tried to put information on this page about Derek's car crash for which he has been arrested - why is this information deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdevil44 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, two policies keep getting cited as reasons for removal:
  • WP:UNDUE, which states "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."
  • WP:BLPCRIME, which reminds us that a person is innocent until proven guilty, so we should enter material carefully while there are just allegations and charges of a crime but not a conviction.
So, it looks like the other editors' concerns were that the car crash only relates to charges against Acorah with no conviction yet, and that discussion of the crash takes up too much of the article. Based on that, it's best to leave the information out of the article, at least until discussion leads to a consensus about how to present it, possibly in a shorter version. —C.Fred (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree with C.Fred. Until there is a conviction and some RS finds it a notable aspect of the subject and reports on it as such, per both cited policies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Its back in, supported by news of a conviction and a newspaper article on it. But is this due? - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
there would certainly need to make a case for why it is relevant. I have removed it pending rationale. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The rational is that Acorah is a celebrity and a public figure. The information is adequately sourced, of interest to people wanting to know more about Acorah and therefore relevant to this page. You will find similar information appearing in countless other pages on Wikipedia, and removing removing it from this particular article gives the impression of censorship.Obscurasky (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
We are not a red top tabloid as your source is. That people have prurient interests is not our obligation to fill. Simply having a source Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion . And the fact that the source is a tabloid is yet another strike against your claim of "sourced"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a tabloid, but neither is it a place for censorship. The information is relevant, and has been widely reported, not only in tabloids. You have not demonstrated why such information should not appear in this particular article when similar information is found right across Wiki.Obscurasky (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
your assertion that it is relevant has not been support by anything other than your assertion. There is lots of crap that gets "widely reported" yes, even in reliable sources that is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, I have again reverted your censorship of information in this article. Your justification, that there is no consensus on the talk page, is meaningless in this context. Please stop treating this page as your own personal property. Obscurasky (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
its not fucking censorship. it is removing irrelevant content for which there is no consensus to include. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
It is censorship, and in my opinion it's relevant and should be included - why do you believe your opinion should hold presedence over mine? This page does not belong to you. When you can demonstrate there's concensus for removal you can remove it. Obscurasky (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
with potentially controversial BLP content, the onus is clearly on you to indicate 1) why its relevant and 2) that there is a consensus that its relevant. You have neither. (and no "I think Acorah is a slimy faker and think we should do everything we can to trash his rep" is not a valid rational.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, It's hard not to interpret your swearing at me and putting words in my mouth as intimidation tactics, but that aside, I have already made the very reasonable point that the information is relevant in the context of Acorah being a celebrity and a public figure. In addition there are countless examples of similar information appearing on other celebrity pages. Obviously you're not happy with this information appearing, but the fact remains that this is not your page, and you don't have the right to impose censorship upon itObscurasky (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
"hes a celebrity and a public figure" well no fucking duh. thats why he has an article. Thats why everyone who has an article has an article and yet we still have Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion which states that even if there is an article and even if there is a source that doesnt automajically justify that content will be included in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be trying to bully me into accepting that you have the right to dictate the contents of this article and I'm not in the least bit happy about that. I think what's needed here is some kind of arbitration, but I am not familiar with the process; I would appreciate it If you could initiate that process. I have again reverted your censorship as you have not demonstrated that the information should't be included - it's just not enough to quote wiki rules at me, please demonstrate that the information really does contravene something that warrants its removal. Obscurasky (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
No, i to feel that our policies of WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS and WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion take precedence over "he's a celebrity" when dictating what to include in an article. And at this point, none of the actual policies support inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
And now you've posted a edit war warning on my page! You've made more reverts than me; did you post a warning on your own page? Please refrain from intimidation tactics and stick to the issue in hand;
I notice you have also added an 'undue' tag the article, while at the same time removing some of the information. Who says This article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies? I don't think it does. What gives you the right to impose that opinion on the article? As a compromise to this situation, I will accept your edit of the information, but the 'undue' tag is an expression of 'your' own opinion and has no place in the article without concensus. Obscurasky (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Conviction

"In March 2014 he was convicted of driving without due care and attention and failing to provide a breath sample following a car crash. He was banned from driving for 28 months and fined £1000." This is a well reported well known relevant fact. His rather dubious behaviour in first having a test then refusing a later one alone is alone worth mentioning as at goes to the character of a man involved in what some would see as a dubious job. As far as I can tell the concensous is that it should stay.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

'Self identified' medium

Surely all mediums are self identified; this would be better termed as simply 'psychic medium'. 92.41.112.224 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No no no no no. Per WP:REDFLAG the extraordinary claim of being an actual clairvoyant medium would need to be presented by an extraordinary source before we would even think about making such a claim in Wikipedia's voice as a fact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Concur with TRPoD. Extraordinary claims such as "psychic" or "clairvoyant" require extraordinary evidence. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism on this page

The guidelines relating to biographies has this to say about negative content:

"If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Critics of Wikipedia are sometimes the subject of biased editing and it is important not to allow pro-Wikipedia biases to influence editing.

Views that are relevant to the subject's notability, are based on reliable sources, and are not given undue weight are usually appropriate content."

How much more reliable can you get than video evidence and interviews with members of the Most Haunted crew? The Kreed Kafer story appeared in the national newspapers, with interviews from Mr O'Keeffe. I can understand how Mr Acorah and his supporters would prefer to forget these episodes but it is relevant to Acorah's notability, it only appears in one carefully labelled paragraph and it is backed by evidence. As such, it belongs on Wikipedia.

Said someone, sometime... - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Derek's Age

Surely he wasn't born in 1977? This makes him 29 years old! Griffin147

Said Griffin147 sometime... - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Dull

Recent edits (most of which were concealed by describing them as 'minor') have made the article dull and tedious to read. The biography now reads like a timeline without bullet points. Public criticism and his driving ban should not reasonably included in that section either. Obscurasky (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is his driving ban included and not the "Kreed Kafer" incident? The reasons behind his driving ban (refusing to give a sample ) is an illustration of his dishonesty, but is of little relevance to the reason why he is well known. Surely the way the "Kreed Kafer" incident illustrates his dishonesty is of more relevance to this article? Ceiniog (talk)
Apologies for not being clear. I wasn't saying it shouldn't be included in the article, I was saying it shouldn't be in the Biography section. And, I see no reason why the "Kreed Kafer" incident shouldn't be included too, so long as the information is presented in context and in an encyclopedic fashion. Why not add it yourself? Obscurasky (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Changes

Each time I correct personal life or add more information or correct incorrect statements, the changes get reverted.

This page should not be designed to be negative and should reflect the correct information. Please add the following:

Derek Acorah (born Derek Francis Johnson on 27 January 1950) is a Spirit Medium. He is best known for his television work on Most Haunted, broadcast on LivingTV (2002-2010). As is the case with any medium in the public eye he has received criticism casting doubts over his legitimacy as a medium. He is arguably the world’s most renowned Spirit Medium having demonstrated to millions of people in theatres throughout the UK, America, Australia, the Middle East and Europe over the past 25 years.


PERSONAL LIFE Born Derek Johnson in the Bootle area of Liverpool, he is professionally known as Derek Acorah. Derek lives near Southport in the North West of England with his wife of 20 years, Gwen Johnson. Derek has a son, a step-daughter and three grandchildren. He is a keen animal lover and shares his home with a German Shepherd, two Standard Poodles and two Main Coone cats. He has chickens and ducks and is a keen fish keeper, having owned Koi carp for many years. Derek is an ardent supporter of Liverpool Football Club. Together with his wife Gwen, Derek is a passionate Patron of Pathfinder Guide Dog Programme, a registered charity which provides seeing dogs for blind people. He has also raised many thousands of pounds for The Anthony Nolan Trust, Zoe’s Place and Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool.

BIOGRAPHY In May 2012 and following being badly misrepresented by an article in The Sun, Acorah apologised to the parents of Madelaine McCann for an article which appeared in that newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.195.108.238 (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Each of the sentences above will need a reliable source before even being considered for inclusion. Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Derek Acorah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Derek Acorah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derek_Acorah/Archive_1&oldid=1140139672"