Talk:Ed and Lorraine Warren

Book....
...called The Dark Sacrement, ISBN 978-0-06-123817-8. Says that Ed Warren is the world's only lay demonologist to be trained by the Vatican. Book was published/Copyrighted in 2007. Can this be used as a source? Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The book talks about some of the worst demonic possession incidents and mentions that Ed Warren was indeed trained as a lay demonologist by the Vatican.Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The referral is in some kind of Appendix. Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This book? No, it's not a WP:RS for factual data. Even though published by Harper-Collins, the author is definitely pushing fringe beliefs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Might be better to take this the wp:rsn, it does not look like an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The question would be, is this book a reliable source for the fact that Ed Warren was the world's only lay demonologist to be trained by the Vatican? Certainly such a claim, if true, would be verifiable in a number of reliable independent sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Its also an extraordinary claim. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2023
None of the three citations at the end of the second paragraph relate to the previous sentence. 2601:1C0:5082:DBF0:A0F4:699D:3880:DA6C (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. Shadow311 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Annabelle date
The source being cited gives a date of 1970. Unless I am reading it wrong. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why AGF sometimes failes, as I assumed whoever put that date in had read the source, and the IP did not say that the source said 1970. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw the date had also been fiddled with at the main Annabelle (doll) article, which you have thoughtfully fixed. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep as this time I checked the sources. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The Occult Museum
In regards to the Occult Museum section of the page, the date of the museum opening could be added and examples of the paranormal things (especially the Annabelle doll) can be added to this section. Also, additional information regarding the reasoning for the closing and the state of the shed now can be added. I intend to add this information to the page. Tess.studley (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

——-

What should be included is there is no such thing as ‘haunting,’ the doll is incapable of being ‘haunted,’ and it is being used to scam idiots. They weren’t psychic, connecting with ‘spirits,’ they were scammers and frauds of the worst kind, as indicated by the research into their fraud. The fact wiki doesn’t address their fakery and scamming shows us how little you can trust wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BDEB:4700:1CDB:5C06:FA80:F99 (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)