Talk:Bridey Murphy

Obvious hoax
This is an obvious hoax into the reincarnation realm. In all accounts that I have researched there has been some legitimate evidence. If it was truly a past life there would be proof of Bridey Murphy. As for Virgina being able to recall Ireland and irish folk songs it is possible that she did have a past life experience as an irish woman but I find it hardly unlikely to have been as Bridey Murphy. I believe that she subconciously came up with the two names and it came out as a whole. Shannon Elizabeth Rusch (20 October 2005)


 * Large parts of this article read like weapons-grade BS. Specifically, the use of the word "scientists" as a means of garnering imaginary support for this tale of easily-concocted escapism. Were there no maps in 1940's Colorado? No photographs? No libraries? Not even books? Also note the ready support for the idea that she was but a simple country housewife who couldn't have come up with bla bla bla. This is typically the defense mounted for such cases of the 'unexplained', ie, anything which could make it an explicable event is rubbish/defamatory/space-lizard propaganda. You may like to note that this is the way in which even today some people will defend, say, the Tidworth Drummer as being a real ghost, despite the facts - witness statements, court proceedings, first-hand evidence - clearly pointing us in the opposite direction... but they're only facts. Who needs factual evidence and reasonable conclusions? Not we. Hogarth was a fool to mock the existence of the drummer, and we are fools to ignore this 60-year-old lie story. Clearly if only we stuff-shirts believed all the world would come together under a banner of peace, and teach the killer whales to eat Watercress instead of baby seals.


 * Idiots. Learn the rules. --172.216.101.191 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal views
"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." The controvesey over Bridey Murphy is demonstrably between investigators (who tend to find evidence supporting the reincarnation explanation) and "debunkers" who emotionally attack Bernstein and Tighe while ignoring the evidence.

Especially see chapter 20 of "The Search For Bridey Murphy" in which reporter William J. Barker counters the arguments of the major naysayers of the day, the majority of whom had never even read the book!

Paul S. Cilwa 19:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Paul S. Cilwa


 * It`s interesting enough that things like Bernstein`s book are still linked to religious questions. Religion tells much about law, sexuality, morality, sometimes also about reincarnation. It would be wrong, nevertheless, to link the article "Penis" to religion.--Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Elaborate hoax
New: If the Search For Bridey Murphy is indeed a hoax, it may be considered to be the most elaborate, detailed, and convincing one in human history. I don't think it's a hoax at all, and the above references to an "article" (obviously the one in "Life:) don't carry water. If you haven't read the book, please don't express an opinion. I cannot understand why the most Christian of people who believe in an after life could not consider that a part of that after life could also be a reincarnation of the immortal spirit into another being. What are we supposed to really do after death -- stand around together doing nothing but singing Kumbaya? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barmil48 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking foreign languages
Absent citation, the sentence: "For instance, the subject can speak in a foreign language not used since childhood, and in which they would not be able to converse in normal conscious life..." should be excised. I, for one, do not believe it and without citation it reeks of sensationalism. 99.236.110.141 (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I read in early materials Bridey Murphy could speak in Gaelic. Only one word- Banshee.Kazuba (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My grandmother
To those who think this story is "BS": No matter what you believe, her story is true. I am not saying that she actually was the reincarnation of Bridey Murphy but, Virginia did exist. She was my grandmother. Our family never really talked about it upon her request. This happened in a time when it was taboo to have different beliefs about the afterlife. Her name was changed to "Ruth Simmons" for her own protection. She wasn't even sure about reincarnation herself. After her death, I remember clearing out her bookshelves. She had the Koran, Torah, Bible and numerous books on the afterlife. She clearly was in a search for truth. Who are we to judge? She did not profit from her story; in fact she disliked the idea of fame. So, was she reincarnated, I don't know. Was she a real person who really went under hypnosis? Absolutely. I have her book, the record of her hypnosis sessions and knew her personally. The truth will never be known but before you attack a story, person or their beliefs, do some research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.136.123 (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite
Once upon a time there was a promising article here. However, it's not very balanced now, has a weak lead and is lacking in sources. This was taken as an invitation by anon 99.113.220.39, who then doubled the length of the article by inserting his wordy, ungrammatical personal essay in which he essentially stated in exhaustive but confusing and contradictory detail that "it's all true" simply because he believes it to be so. The insertion was highly biased, completely unsourced, and he managed to mangle the preceding paragraph in the process. I've reverted his changes, which I'm sure will ruffle someone's feathers, but the fact is that as anti-Bridie as the article now sounds, 99.113.220.39's additions were 300% in the opposite direction. The article needs a rewrite, preferably from an expert on the topic (which does not mean unlearned individuals who insist "it's all true" or who maintain "it's all a hoax" and not a fit subject for an encyclopedia), to provide a balanced view of all the few facts, the many assertions, and counter-arguments. As it is, the overly negative "debunking" section does not clearly delineate the points it wants so badly to make. The Bridie Murphy story had a huge impact on popular culture at that time, yet the article delves into this aspect only superficially. What we need are the "facts" such as they are, followed by both the pro and con positions clearly and concisely laid out, plus some indication of how deeply this all infiltrated the public consciousness. Word of warning: you cannot say that reincarnation does or does not exist, as both positions are a matter of belief, not scientific fact. 71.200.89.119 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

On A Clear Day You Can See Forever
Wasn't this also the inspiration for the musical On A Clear Day You Can See Forever? MCHANCER (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the article about the stage musical, it was loosely based on a 1929 play, Berkeley Square.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion
The article The Search for Bridey Murphy is currently a very stubby stub about the movie -- I'd arrived there expecting it to be about the book, which would seem to be the more notable use of the title.

Since I actually wouldn't expect articles about either the book or the movie to ever include much more detail than is in this article, I propose that the title be used as a redirect to here.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, and since it's been over a month, I went ahead and WP:BOLDly did it. The movie's article was a single sentence and an infobox, so there was no copy-paste involved. It's easy enough to revert if anyone wants to have a go at the article about the movie. Grayfell (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, since it wasn't clear whether the article would be about the book or the movie, it redirects to the article, not a specific section. Grayfell (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Commentary moved from article
This was added to the article by 63.153.8.198; I've moved it here:

==
 * According to Morey Bernstein's book, Bridey said she was married in 1818, or at the age of 20 (page 186), given she was born in 1798. Later she is asked again how old she was when married, and she said 20 (page 226)
 * < ref "The Search For Bridey Murphy," 1968 edition >


 * Really too bad this article was written so negatively. Having read the book, the author of this topic has done a disservice to all researchers by being so blatantly prejudiced. Hopefully people will first read the book, then read this article rather than the other way around.

==

--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bridey Murphy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701133947/http://www.groireland.ie/history.htm to http://www.groireland.ie/history.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Irish Genealogy
"Bridey said she was born on December 20, 1798, in Cork and that she had died in 1864. There was no record of either event"

Welcome to the world of Irish genealogy! As I can painfully attest from looking for my own ancestors. We shouldn't be surprised by the lack of evidence for the first date in either circumstance, but perhaps more by the second. Irish records are notoriously patchy, and even their censuses have been destroyed in many instances. The article should at least reflect this fact. Do I believe this story? No. -213.205.241.112 (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)