Talk:Loudun possessions

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 February 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Escallaway.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Not well worded
This reads like a History channel report not an encyclopedia. The wording needs to be improved from scandal-accusing to mere reporting the facts. It sounds extremely WP:POV and WP:SOAPBOX. Student7 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article needs to be written in a less sensational fashion. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC).


 * If I was drenched with large quantities of holy water my words could still be heard! This is an oddly confused sentence.JohnC (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sourcing for most of this seems to be very poor, not to say dubious. Some of it seems to be taken from scandal sheets and is quite incredible.  Xan  dar   21:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Media section
It should be noted that in 1942 (1st ed. 1946) Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz wrote a novella Matka Joanna od Aniołów (Mother Joan of the Angels). The story of Loudun possessions is transposed to 17th century Poland and depicts the events after Grandier's death. Jerzy Kawalerowicz's film Mother Joan of the Angels is based on Iwaszkiewicz's novella. 2012-02-20 Papageno (My discussion page on plWiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.255.88 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Very poorly worded article. Could use an english translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.110.214 (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

An editor has been plastering citation needed templates over some of the article. If he were to study the sources provided, particularly Huxley, he would find answers to many of his questions. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC).

"Supposed"
We cannot "knock" ideas because they have fallen from favor. We must relate the facts and go from there. The possessions are not believed today. They were by some people at the time. pov adjectives cannot be used to slant the reader's opinion. That is journalism. We are writing an encyclopedia. Other wording must be used. Please see WP:CLAIM. Student7 (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * People supposed it at the time. What's the problem? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC).
 * WP:CLAIM states: "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable."


 * "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter."


 * In other words, we are saying that the possessions are false. We have no proof, only belief, with ephemeral matters such as possession.


 * Skewing facts by giving them pov adjectives is WP:POV and must be avoided. Student7 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * [ ] . Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

Not well worded part deux
Xxanthippe:
 * Regarding your recent revert: Please see the discussion above; Nine years later and it is still a very poorly written article.
 * Also n.b. the article prior to May 10 with twenty "citation needed" tags (a number placed by JoeHebda) and all totally legit.
 * Also the tone tag.
 * None of the information removed appears to have been sourced;
 * The material removed was not because of any POV, but because none of it was sourced at all; it was replaced by information from eleven different RS with a variety of views; the article is about the same length as when I started.
 * On the other hand you have deleted material from eleven reputable sources. ...Please clarify. Mannanan51 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)