Talk:Davenport brothers

POV
I reverted the edits to this article made by an anonymous contributor (65.12.112.62), who deliberately removed accurate information and substituted false claims that no one could ever demonstrate or describe in detail how the Davenport Brothers performed their feats. This is the only article this contributor has edited. The fact remains that the Davenports, and/or others on their behalf, claimed to exercise supernatural powers, instead of being ordinary illusionists. This aroused the ire of professional illusionists, who exposed them time and again. The impresario P.T. Barnum, who had no use for spiritualism, also published a detailed exposé of the Davenports, which I have read (I also added the Barnum reference). Edeans 08:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

William Fay link
I think that the link goes to the right name, but wrong person. 16:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Stan

I agree. Wrong person is linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.105.192 (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Claims of exposures and ‘Magicians ‘
Hello

The Davenport Brothers were never ‘exposed’ there were only claims of exposure by bigoted or biased individuals hostile to their religious beliefs.

They were confirmed Spiritualists not magicians.

The article should give their perspective and not undo weight to bigotry and pseudo skeptics.

All the Best

24.113.175.26 (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)An Editor


 * Based on your editing history you are on Wikipedia to peddle pseudoscience and other discredited nonsense and that is why all your edits have been reverted. Wikipedia runs on reliable references, you have not cited any. We have many references on the article debunking the Davenport brothers as frauds. The exposures were not by "bigots". Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Guy
 * Based on of your response you are here to cite your pseudo skepticism. Doyle/ Nichols accepted the brother’s sincere Spiritualism and Doyle endorsed their phenomena as genuine . The magicians of the era cited are unreliable hostile pseudo skeptics only making ‘claims’ of ‘exposure’ citing only their own bigoted opinions of Spiritualism as ‘evidence’. In the future don’t get cheeky with fellow editors as we are here to collaborate . Cheers ____An Editor 24.113.175.26 (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You missed the most crucial part of that contribution. I will repeat it here for you: Wikipedia runs on reliable references, you have not cited any. See WP:RS. Also a good read: WP:NPA. The spirits I summoned tell me that if you do not follow those rules, your future on Wikipedia looks bleak. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Hob
 * How cheeky of you to predict anyone’s future on Wikipedia. Your pseudo skeptic skirts are showing :-). The edit you are throwing a hissy fit over is drawn directly from sources in the article itself such as the cited Doyle/ Nichols references. Please read the article before making snide comments about ‘spirits’ and possible‘futures’. We are here to collaborate for a better article. Cheers—— An Editor
 * 24.113.175.26 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are clearly not well read in the history of magic or spiritualism. The Davenport brothers were blatant frauds, even most spiritualists today accept this fact. Above you seem to be claiming they were genuine because Arthur Conan Doyle believed they were genuine? Stupid. Doyle was a gullible fool who believed that the Cottingley Fairies were real. I have expanded the article with a lot of other exposures. It would be beyond ridiculous if you are still claiming the Davenport brothers are genuine because all the evidence indicates otherwise. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Guy
 * What appears to be stupid is you are beating a dead horse. Doyle is cited as an issue of sincere religious beliefs as Nickols also cites the surviving Davenport brother was a Spiritualist. Thus the brothers were American Spiritualist and suspected magicians…but perhaps you were ignorant of that perspective about Spiritualism. Cheers ____An Editor 24.113.175.26 (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between being a medium and a spiritualist but you obviously do not understand that. The Davenport Brothers did not claim to be mediums nor publicly admitted to being spiritualists, they were magicians. Ira Davenport was probably a Spiritualist in private as Joe Nickell has looked at his scrapbook but this means nothing. Just because Ira Davenport had a private belief in spiritualism does not mean he was a medium or his phenomena was genuine. It doesn't matter what Arthur Conan Doyle believed. You appear to be trolling this talk-page, like you have done on several others. It's not worth feeding you any longer. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Folks

Signing off here as it seems Guy is more interested in dwelling on personal accusations rather than actual improvements in the article. He is giving undue weight to what are just claims by biased pseudo skeptics rather than facts such as the Davenport’s were Spiritualists and Doyle deemed them genuine. Thus they were American Spiritualists suspected of being magicians. Cheers Everyone ____An Editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.175.26 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)