Talk:Annabelle (doll)

{{Press | subject    = article | author     = Travis Pittman | title      = 'Annabelle' fans freak out after rumor that doll escaped from Occult Museum | org        = Fox | url        = https://www.fox43.com/article/news/nation-world/annabelle-doll-escape-rumor-musuem/507-774f2b22-cdf9-46f1-823e-0f6b7d0c6

Details
We must reduce sensationalized claims, it is best to maintain details with multiple sources, otherwise it would not be NPOV. Valoem  talk   contrib  23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * At the AfD, you have vigorously defended the factual reliability of the sources. There you invited comparison to The New York Times.  I hope you would agree that, absent a retraction published by The New York Times, the news content of that broadsheet periodical is generally regarded as factually reliable.  So, per the arguments that you advanced at the AfD, the article should be restored.  The information, that the doll had supernatural powers, was well-sourced, to news pieces that you believe are beyond reproach.  I think, absent any published retractions by the periodicals referenced in the article, that we must accept what is written in these ostensibly reliable sources as accurate, factual, information.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not how we edit Wikipedia, is it now? Especially since your doing this during AfD instead of after. You can always make a request for comment if you actually feel the tone in this version you restored is proper. Valoem   talk   contrib  21:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really see why you should get to remove lots of sourced content during the AfD. When that edit was reverted, you reverted back to your preferred revision.  Your revision includes lots of WP:ALLEGED violations, so not really acceptable as already pointed out by others.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article presents a host of content presented as fact which is clearly extraordinary claims and as such require extraordinary evidence. For instance, "The roommates have found notes with the messages like "Help Us" and "Help Cal" around the house in what looked like a child's handwriting." Is there any source of scholarly quality that supports this? The sources provided are not adequate to make the statement in an encyclopedia as fact. Likewise the following, completely unsourced, "The notes were written in pencil on parchment paper, despite the fact that the house did not have either item. The roommates began to suspect burglars, however it soon became clear the notes were not left by someone entering the house as there was no trace of their entrance." What actually reliable source identified the notes as parchment, there were no pencils in the entire house really, and according to what reliable source (unlikely any reliable source would state there were no pencils in the house). According to whom did it become clear? What reliable source reports the conclusions of what investigation of someone entering the house and what traces. Surely people entered the house, obviously the roommates did. Is there a reliable source reporting on some investigation by a reputable agency? This, "One night Donna and Angie came home to find the doll with what looked like blood on its hands and chest. Upon closer inspection, a red liquid suddenly appeared all over the doll." sourced to the interested primary source, the website of the owners of the "doll" and the "museum" where it is displayed. Is there any credible reliable source rising to the level of supporting such an extraordinary statement? This, "She was found dead in a field when she was seven-years-old." is this a fact or an allegation of the medium, attribution is required. Continuing, "The doll later became malevolent and attacked roommates' friend "Lou" (or "Cal") after he had expressed his dislike for the "evil" doll." to re-emphasize, if an encyclopedia is going to make a statement that a doll attacked someone that requires extraordinarily high quality sourcing. It should be removed until substantiated by reliable sources that state this happened and support that with evidence. This, "The next day Lou was at the house when he felt a present behind him, and when he sudden was cut and left with seven claw marks on his chest, three vertically and four horizontally. Although he felt intense pain during the attack, the wounds healed almost immediately." cuts and clawmarks and immediate healing sourced to a "Freaky Facts" junk news of the weird article, seriously this falls far below the standard of reliable sourcing required to support content on WP. This, "At the same time, a human spirit did not have the power to perform some of the acts that Annabelle had." no source and it seems to imply in WP's voice that human spirits have some limited power and demons have greater power. This content is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Identifying reliable sources states, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Clearly the sources fall far short of this standard for the current content. Some of the sources may provide information about the stories told about the doll but they do not meet fact checking and accuracy standards for such claims being presented as fact. Nonsense and garbage should be removed from the encyclopedia promptly. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there aren't really any reliable sources concerning the doll, just primary sources about the opinions of Lorraine Warren. However, at the AfD, the case was made that the sources cited in the article are reliable, factual sources, and that WP:REDFLAG was not relevant.  Instead, arguers there invited a comparison between the sources cited in the article and the New York Times newswire.  Since there is apparent consensus here that the sources are unreliable, except as primary sources of the opinions of Lorraine Warren, which should not carry much weight (WP:NPOV), I have removed the "story" section as primary source material (per WP:PSTS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NEWSORG, etc.)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a consensus here that the sources used in the article are not reliable for statements of fact, such as that the doll could move on its own and tried to kill people. I don't really understand Valoem's objection to the recent edit.  Both here and at the AfD, he seems to have conceded the unreliability of the sources for the "factual" statements made in the article.  Since it now seems 2-1, I suggest that Valoem should start an RfC if he wishes to include the full "story", as sourced entirely to Lorraine Warren.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I echo MrBill3's concerns and support Slawekb's edits to remove the massive WP:UNDUE weight on the WP:FRINGE supernatural POV, (i.e. the Warrens say demons can inhabit dolls, a doll can move, write notes, curse people, etc.) I reject the suggestion that because we only have sources that, for whatever reason (sensationalism, slow news day, trivia, entertainment, etc), choose to report only the Warren's fringe POV, that an NPOV article must be built by reporting everything they say, but throwing in a few "allegedly"s. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Valoem, could you please state plainly why you think the sources used in the article are reliable for REDFLAG statements. Three editors here have disagreed with you, yet you continue to push the same garbage. I've been commenting here, per your edit summaries. But no comments from you are forthcoming. In such situations, silence on your behalf implies that you agree with the very clear consensus here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Background. According to the Warrens, a student nurse was given the doll in 1970. They said that the doll behaved strangely, and that a psychic medium told the student that the doll was inhabited by the spirit of a deceased girl named "Annabelle". By London K

Removal of Legend section
Should there be a section discussing the legend of the doll? Is there enough in my draft where it clearly separates fact and fiction?--Deathawk (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to possibly re-open this debate. I, unknowingly, came head first into this debate when I decided to update the content to reflect the legend, not knowing that a similar section had appeared before. I say "similar" because I believe the section I made was written in a style where it was much more apparent that it was dubious if this actually happened. The original can be found hereile my version can be found here. My draft I would state is less detailed and focuses on the raw facts of the story. It also uses words and transition at every opportunity to make it clear that this is only what is alleged to of happen while the original seemed to of only included a handful of words alluding to such. I believe that the differences weren't fully taken into account when it was deleted and would like to re open this debate. --Deathawk (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The "legend" is apparently based solely on primary sources (Ed and Lorraine Warren). Generally speaking, Wikipedia is to be based on reliable secondary sources.   S ławomir  Biały  15:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources used to cite details of the "legend" would need to be reliable and independent, i.e. covering the material in a serious and in-depth manner. Right now all we have are infotainment pieces that uncritically list dubious claims made by Ed and Lorraine Warren. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I can kind of see your points, but at the same time, the only reason that this doll is famous and has an article is because of the Warren's claims, so it seems silly not to have a section in here talking about it. Furthermore events based on the the doll are featured in Two relatively popular movies, so there is clearly a pop culture influence here. It just kind of seems like a waste to not have anything summarizing these claims. --Deathawk (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So I'll try to explain it another way. Right now, the article summarizes that Ed and Lorraine Warren claim that, in actual reality, a Raggedy Ann doll is haunted. We mention that two popular films are based on their claims. As for specific details of the Warren's WP:FRINGE claims (a demon can inhabit a doll, a doll can stalk and kill people, exorcism really works, etc.), inclusion is a question of WP:WEIGHT: do we have sufficiently WP:INDEPENDENT sources that are more than mere WP:SENSATION that examine and discuss these claims in a serious and in-depth manner? The answer is no. Until such sources arise, putting weight on the Warren's fringe claims would be WP:UNDUE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is a really excellent summary.  S ławomir  Biały  14:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest adding secondary sources (good luck finding them) to the proposed summary and then we'd all agree to restore the information. Until then, it should stay off the page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a secondary source though, it was The International Business Times, that is what's confusing. Granted they were using the Warren's account as a source, but it's not like I went to the Warren's website and tracked down the case file, it was retold in a reputable third party source.  --Deathawk (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

After much digging, I found a couple of sources that don't approach the topic sensationally or merely repeat claims uncritically. I used these to create a short "Legend" section which I hope will meet with everybody's approval. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I must say, that is a spectacular improvement.  S ławomir  Biały  17:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work, I support! Meatsgains (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Annabelle_doll.jpg
The lead image is too dark, too poor quality, and too low resolution to be useful in an encyclopedic context. It was obviously copied from a non-free newspaper source and cropped and darkened for dramatic effect. I've nominated it for deletion at Wikimedia Commons, but there isn't any reason to keep it in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Annabelle doll.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2020
86.97.14.81 (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC) The Annabelle doll stood up on her two toes and smashed the glass with them, then she flew to somebody and possessed them! Congrats, we all thought 2020 was bad...
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 13:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Annabelle doll.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021
Simplest thing first, the article doesn't mention that the doll is a Raggedy Ann doll until the middle of the section describing the doll being used as inspiration for the Conjuring. I think the article would be better if it mentioned this earlier and linked to the page through the following change.

"According to the Warrens, a student nurse was given the doll in 1970."

can be changed to

"According to the Warrens, a student nurse was given the Raggedy Ann doll in 1970."

More substantially, I think that this would allow for the image to be entirely removed from the article. The image currently used is purposely creepy and gives the article a less than encyclopedic tone. Ideally a better image would be found, but in the mean time, I think the article would be better off with no image and a mention that is is a raggedy ann doll. Fleural (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The Raggedy Ann doll link used to be in the lead, but someone apparently removed it to place haunted doll as the prominent decription. I have reintegrated it. Re the image: it's a photoshopped and cropped version of a copyrighted photograph . Not sure why it wasn't removed as a result of the Commons discussion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with that the image seems purposefully creepy to the point of being unencyclopedic. Given that it looks to be copyvio as well, I've just removed it. Is there another image that can be used in its place? &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of alternative options on wikimedia commons. The first is this image of the prop doll from the Conjouring, which is a poor representation of the actual doll. The other option is just a picture of a Raggedy Ann doll, like this image. The only problem with this image is that it's not the specific doll. Other than that, we'd need to find an image that isn't on wikimedia yet. I checked other language versions of the same article and they just use the bad image from the English article. Of these, I think the Raggedy Ann doll is the best option short of finding a new free image elsewhere. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, but if I understand the Manual of Style for images well enough, it doesn't matter if it's actually the doll as long as it looks like it and the caption makes that clear. --Fleural (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I realized I hadn't checked all of the other language wikipedias. Most of them use the English image or none at all, but the Indonesian wikipedia uses this image of the specific doll. Apparently it's a non-free historical image hosted on Indonesian wikipedia. I don't know if that can be used on English wikipedia easily, but if it can, it's the best option. --Fleural (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Finding a suitable non-copyright image of the Warren's doll would be tough. An image of a generic Raggedy Ann doll with a caption such as "Generic Raggedy Ann doll" could work. Also bear in mind, this article has two sections. One for the toy the Warren's created a story about, and one for the character in the Conjuring universe. The character should probably have a separate article, e.g. Chucky (character) has. Posting a notice at WikiProject Film or WikiProject Horror might find an editor experienced at creating character articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't see image. Well, that would certainly be an improvement over the previous image. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that image looks good to me as well. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021
Change "occult museum" to "now closed occult museum" to avoid ambiguity for people looking to visit the museum 2001:56A:F885:A400:6DC1:6841:1D0:1A8E (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this. The doll would still be housed at the museum even if closed, so no need to specify the status of the museum. And if the museum is temporarily closed or out of business, we’d need a RS for that rather than the word of an IP on the talk page. Such detail wouldn’t belong in the lead per WP:NOTGUIDE, but if there is a RS discussing it in some detail, it might be included in the body text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)