Talk:Eileen J. Garrett

Untitled
I AM VERY ASTONISHED THAT AN ARTICLE ON EILEEN J. GARRETT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE NOW in a number of my other eddits on demonology and the paranormal i list a book published by the H.S. Stuttman publishing house, this book is called "Togan's spirit guide" madame garrett here is listed as a contributing author in this book, perhaps this will allow some of you to track down a copy of the book. Tophatdan --Tophatdan (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

all those tags Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits (second edition) by Rosemary Ellen Guiley

Adventures in the Supernormal (1949) by Eileen J. Garrett (autobiography)

those are both reliable and near perfect sources for the information presented, i would prefer it if someone would remove atleast some of those awefull eyesore tags, asfor how its written, im interested to know in what way it sounds like an advertisment, i can show you a plenty of articles that have information on groups, people, articles and books written by the person, please elaborate or i will remove the tags myself--Tophatdan (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor who added the relevance tag can't be serious, she's one of the most famous mediums during the 20:th century.. I also took away the unreferenced tag, since there are references. They must be added in the text, though - and the "wall of text" may need some editing. Can't see The R101 case there in a fast glance - that's her best psychic feat & should be added. If I only had time.. Hepcat65 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Addition of unexplained numbers.
Regarding this edit I'm not sure why it's so important it be included. We provide a direct quote saying the results were "exceptionally significant". What does an "average of 10.1" signify? I ask because we don't say. It's gibberish to the article, and even if we did clarify (which would be out of scope for the article topic), we would still only be restating what we've already summarized... that the results were "exceptionally significant". I'm going to revert this addition, which Brian added recently, and now reverted to keep in. Brian, please participate in discussing the matter here before reintroducing those numbers. Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it may have been clearer earlier on but some explanatory stuff has been deleted. Go to the Zener Card page and you'll see that these are packs of 25 cards, each of which has one of 5 possible symbols on, so by chance you'd expect 5 right out of 35.  This makes scores of the order of 9 or 10 highly significant.  I'll try and patch up to clarify this but I'd prefer it if I don't have to take up too much time on this editing, but thanks for pointing out that there is a problem with that section in its present form. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The paragraph is sourced solely to an unreliable source, so I've removed it, Second Quantization (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The etiquette is that you explain yourself before taking such action so I will revert that.


 * Meanwhile ... I've done a quick patch now, which is far from ideal (it would be nice for example if the link to the Zener Card page were more visible, and I didn't put back the full figures).
 * Do you (Mann Jess that is) still have an objection to how it was originally, now that you understand (I hope) why the numbers are important. I did include a link to the Zener Card page which explains the expected numbers but I expect you didn't notice it.  Perhaps one can go back to the page and see if the situation could be clarified.  On another point, the fact that Garrett didn't do so well subsequently might have all sorts of explanations, one of which is the highly boring nature of card guessing if one has no feedback on how well one is doing.  It is common for people to do very well at the start -- I tried out Targ's psi trainer app and got highly signifcant scores at the start, which cannot be explained by the admitted problems with Rhine's methods (it is all automated and there is no possibility of interfering with the process). --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A few things because Dean Radin has posted about this on his blog there is going to be high traffic probably from trouble makers, especially fringe proponents promoting conspiracy theories that references are being "suppressed" from the article. This isn't true considering even parapsychologists were highly critical of Garrett and obtained negative results from her. Regarding the Arthur Hastings book it is indeed a fringe book, it could possibility contain false information the reason I say this is if you do a search for the numbers he talks about no other book mentions them, not in another single book. If the information can not be verified in a reliable source it should be deleted. The problem is I can't find any other reference that mentions those figures. But as it stands I don't think the numbers are wrong. There were sensory cues in the experiments so it's not surprising Garrett scored well, when those cues were later eliminated and she was tested in London all the results were negative. The same thing has happened with hundreds of other alleged psychics. I have had enough of this drama so will stay away from this one. Goblin Face (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The source appear unreliable and seems to suffer from WP:REDFLAGS in that it appears to be an in-universe source. Second Quantization (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * People must be really desperate if they have to resort to BOLD and REDFLAGS to block information from this page. 'Assume good faith'?  You can not be serious (a REDFLAG seems to be hovering over these pages).  Like Goblin Face I've had enough of this silly drama and am off to bed now. --Brian Josephson (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)