Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

"Taking everything that I know of Mrs. Piper into account, the result is to make me feel as absolutely certain as I am of any personal fact in the world that she knows things in her trances which [she cannot possibly have heard in her waking state], and that the definite philosophy of her trances is yet to be found." I suggest this statement by William James is a very good clue to Piper's method of gaining information. What really happened in those sittings? Why the selection of words: she cannot possibly have heard in her waking state? Why isn't it what she possibly could not know in her waking state? I hope to return to Mrs. Piper at a later date. Kazuba (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Quote was puffed and misquoted. Kazuba (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reply: William James gave many accounts of things that Piper could not possibly have know.

The aunt who purported to “take control” directly was a much better personation, having a good deal of the cheery strenuousness of speech of the original. She spoke, by the way, on this occasion, of the condition of health of two members of the family in New York, of which we knew nothing at the time, and which was afterwards corroborated by letter. We have repeatedly heard from Mrs. Piper in trance things of which we were not at the moment aware. If the supernormal element in the phenomenon be thought-transference it is certainly not that of the sitter’s conscious thought. It is rather the reservoir of his potential knowledge which is tapped ; and not always that, but the knowledge of some distant living person, as in the incident last quoted. It has sometimes even seemed to me that too much intentness on the sitter’s part to have Phinuit say a certain thing acts as a hindrance.

Mrs. Blodgett, of Holyoke, Mass., and her sister, devised, before the latter died, what would have been a good test of actual spirit-return. The sister, Miss H. W., wrote upon her deathbed a letter, sealed it, and gave it to Mrs. B. After her death no one living knew what words it contained. Mrs. B. not then knowing Mrs. Piper, entrusted to me the sealed letter, and asked me to give Mrs. Piper some articles of the deceased sister’s personal apparel, to help her to get at its contents. This commission I performed. Mrs. P. gave correctly the full name (which even I did not know) of the writer, and finally, after a delay and ceremony which occupied several weeks on Phinuit’s part, dictated what purported to be a copy of the letter. This I compared with the original (of which Mrs. B. permitted me to break the seal); but the two letters had nothing in common, nor were any of the numerous domestic facts alluded to in the medium’s letter acknowledged by Mrs. Blodgett to be correct. Mrs. Piper was equally unsuccessful in two later attempts which she made to reproduce the contents of this document, although both times the revelation purported to come direct from its deceased writer. It would be hard to devise a better test than this would have been, had it immediately succeeded, for the exclusion of thought-transference from living minds. My mother-in-law, on her return from Europe, spent a morning vainly seeking for her bank-book. Mrs. Piper, on being shortly afterwards asked where this book was, described the place so exactly that it was instantly found. I was told by her that the spirit of a boy named Robert F. was the companion of my lost infant. The F.’s were cousins of my wife living in a distant city. On my return home I mentioned the incident to my wife, saying, “ Your cousin did lose a baby, didn’t she? but Mrs. Piper was wrong about its sex, name, and age.” I then learned that Mrs. Piper had been quite right in all those particulars, and that mine was the wrong impression. But, obviously, for the source of revelations such as these, one need not go behind the sitter’s own storehouse of forgotten or unnoticed experiences. Miss X.’s experiments in crystal-gazing prove how strangely these survive. If thought-transference be the clue to be followed in interpreting Mrs. Piper’s trance-utterances (and that, as far as my experience goes, is what, far more than any supramundane instillations, the phenomena seem on their face to be) we must admit that the “ transference “ need not be of the conscious or even the unconscious thought of the sitter, but must often be of the thought of some far away. Thus, on my mother-in-law’s second visit to the medium she was told that one of her daughters was suffering from a severe pain in her back on that day. This altogether unusual occurrence, unknown to the sitter, proved to be true. The announcement to my wife and brother of my aunt’s death in New York before we had received the telegram (Mr. Hodgson has, I believe, sent you an account of this) may, on the other hand, have been occasioned by the sitters’ conscious apprehension of the event. This particular incident is a “ test” of the sort which one readily quotes ; but to my mind it was far less convincing than the innumerable small domestic matters of which Mrs. Piper incessantly talked in her sittings with members of my family. With the affairs of my wife’s maternal kinsfolk in particular her acquaintance in trance was most intimate. Some of them were dead, some in California, some in the State of Maine. She characterised them all, living as well as deceased, spoke of their relations to each other, of their likes and dislikes, of their as yet unpublished practical plans, and hardly ever made a mistake, though, as usual, there was very little system or continuity in anything that came out. A normal person, unacquainted with the family, could not possibly have said as much; one acquainted with it could hardly have avoided saying more. The most convincing things said about my own immediate household were either very intimate or very trivial. Unfortunately the former things cannot well be published. Of the trivial things, I have forgotten the greater number, but the following, rarce nantes, may serve as samples of their class: She said that we had lost recently a rug, and I a waistcoat. [She wrongly accused a person of stealing the rug, which was afterwards found in the house.] She told of my killing a grey-and-white cat, with ether, and described how it had “ spun round and round” before dying. She told how my New York aunt had written a letter to my wife, warning her against all mediums, and then went off on a most amusing criticism, full of traits vifs, of the excellent woman’s character. [Of course no one but my wife and I knew the existence of the letter in question.] She was strong on the events in our nursery, and gave striking advice during our first visit to her about the way to deal with certain “tantrums” of our second child, “little Billy-boy,” as. she called him, reproducing his nursery name. She told how the crib creaked at night, how a certain rocking-chair creaked mysteriously, how my wife had heard footsteps on the stairs, &c, &c. Insignificant as these things sound when read, the accumulation of a large number of them has an irresistible effect. And I repeat again what I said before, that, taking everything that I know of Mrs. P. into account, the result is to make me feel as absolutely certain as I am of any personal fact in the world that she knows things in her trances which she cannot possibly have heard in her waking state, and that the definitive philosophy of her trances is yet to be found. The limitations of her trance-information, its discontinuity and fitfulness, and its apparent inability to develop beyond a certain point, although they end by rousing one’s moral and human impatience with the phenomenon, yet are, from a scientific point of view, amongst its most interesting peculiarities, since where there are limits there are conditions, and the discovery of these is always the beginning of explanation.

P.S.P.R, 06, pgs. 656 - 659. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ROMOVI (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the historical school that firmly believes in the footnote. Source materials should be named and if possible page numbers specified, so others may backtrack and verify. This does not make the footnoted materials authoritive or true but it does show the author tried to leave their tracks.

See: Primary sources: Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death by Deborah Blum. William James letters to Richard Hodgson girl friend after Hodgson's death. Wasn't Hodgson told she was dead by Mrs. Piper and he accepted it? Piper consulted with Hodgson about his life? SPR pays Piper $200 a year for exclusive sittings? What cost $200 in 1910 would cost $4566.03 in 2008.

Science and a Future Life by James Hyslop [1] Chapter 8 personal experiments and results. Page 213 Wearing full face mask but has had sitting Piper 6 years earlier.1892 now 1898 Now has beard, sits behind Piper, Mask is removed while in trance? Piper fishing: Names: Mary, Elizabeth. popular names of the time.

The Life of Richard Hodgson by Alex Baird

Willam James on Psychical Research by Murphy and Ballou James disappointed in Phinuit and Hodgson controls. Notes similarities. James took no on the spot transcripts or notes got too rapped up in readings, until Hodgson control. James cannot recognize fishing. Ignorant of conjuring methods. SPR did or did not hire stenographers. Money problem. Though James has set up experiments that use deception for exposing physical mediums, he does nothing here with a trance medium. James believes in Mrs. Piper there is a subliminal self. The subliminal self does not recognize the memories and actions of the outer Mrs. Piper. The subliminal self is immortal and able to contact other immortal subliminal selfs.

Sealed letter tests that failed. Characteristic readings, a slender, dark woman, etc. without names.

See direct transcripts of ALL Hall and Tanner 6 sittings, notes, etc in Studies in Spiritism by Amy Tanner 1910. Examine Hyslop's very emotional 98 page review of Studies in Spiritism. What is and not valid? Journal of the ASPR vol. 5, January 1911.

See: Secondary source: Search for the Soul by Milbourne Chistopher Chapter 15, Souls and Mrs. Piper, much material. Fishing, Correct and incorrect answers.

See: Christopher's and Tanner's primary sources: Proceedings of SPR volume 6 436-659, 13?,16 pt?41, 23? Essential

See: Primary Source: The Evidence for the Supernatural by Ivor Lloyd Tuckett 1911

See Primary Source: The Life and Work of Mrs. Piper by Alta Piper 1929 (daughter) Alta gives different version of tests performed on her mother by G. Stanley Clark? This version and not Amy Tanner's was accepted by Deborah blum. Odd.

See Primary Source: Past and Present with Mrs. Piper by Ann Mannings Robbins 1922

See Secondary Source: The Night is Large by Martin Gardner, Chapter 20 Williams James and Mrs Piper, St. Martin's Press, 1996, Essential data, Primary sources?

See Primary Source: Find Materials written by William James about spiritism and Mrs Piper, Proceedings of SPR, letters, lectures, essays, etc. Find change of view from positive to negative. Negative includes Piper?

See: Primary sources Proceedings of ASPR ? volumes. Course of action contact ASPR and SPR. Copies of Proccedings

See Primary source VI., 1890; ^ A Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 1889-1890, 6, 436-659.Frederic W. H. Myers, Oliver J. Lodge, Walter Leaf and William James. ... Miss X, SPR 6

In 1888-89, Hyslop joined the investigation. On the first two or three occasions he took the extraordinary precaution of putting on a mask before he got out of the cab, removing it only after Piper was entranced, and resuming it before she awoke. Twelve sittings were sufficient to convince him of the untenability of the secondary personality hypothesis. He declared, without hesitation, that "I prefer to believe that I have been talking to my dead relatives in person; it is simpler." His first report was published in Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research (vol. 16, pt. 41) and concluded: "I give my adhesion to the theory that there is a future life and persistence of personal identity." Something WRONG here with Vol 16 pt 41 and 1888-1989?

See: Secondary source: The Night is Large by Martin Gardner, 1996, Chapter 20, William James and Mrs. Piper. Find Martin's ALL of primary source: New York Herald, Sunday, 20 Oct 1901, Piper's article in newspaper, 2 1/2 pages, Piper personally calling it quits with ASPR tired of being "automaton." Usually find only very short edited version that is given to Piper's positive fans. The Night is Large by Martin Gardner, Chapter 20, Williams James and Mrs Piper, St. Martin's Press, 1996, page 234 Five days later in the Boston Daily Advertiser. Piper complained some of her words, Spirits of the dead speaking through her etc, were misunderstood. Found. See below.

What are Piper's right and left hand? doing during sittings? Unclear. Automatic writing when? When do spirits? speak through Piper? Unclear. First time sitting materials. Many controls and speaking voices at beginning. When-dates? Kazuba (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helpfull additional materials:[2] [3] [4] [5] Page 79 [6]" Complete record of whole investigation has not yet been published" page 13 Michael Sage 1904 [7]Michael Sage 1904 [8] biography Life of Richard Hodgson seeking the goodess of the cosmos. [9] Page 424, "Mrs Piper's Plain Statement" by Leonora E. Piper written in "first person" in the New York Herald 20 Oct 1901 is not short. It is very revealing of Piper's private thoughts on Spiritism. She says she is quiting being an automaton. This letter contains priceless info. She was a very intelligent lady. [10] page 470 Boston Advertiser 25 Oct 1901. Now Piper not leaving. "Pay no attention to what she (Piper) says?" [I suspect Richard Hodgson offered Piper more money. But I do not know if this is true.] Kazuba (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Leonora Piper. It's nice to see someone take an interest in her other than myself. It is great to get conflicting data. It makes things more interesting. I work as slow as a snail on the Wikipedia. Mediums have always intriqued me. From what I have so far seen on the work already on the Wikipedia the data on Piper is basically copied from one web site to another. Rarely are the original primary sources of the material cited. Let's see if you and I can remedey this. Your material on Miss X DOES SAY this is a FIRST sitting. Please accept my error. It seems odd to me that all Piper's readings are always done in the light never in the dark and there is no mention of covering her eyes, Piper having her back to the sitter..(maybe with masked Hyslop), or the placing a partition or a curtain with an arm sleeve between Piper and her sitters, that I have come across so far. Have you seen any of these? Do you actually have these old SPR and ASPR journals in your possession? Please reply here. Let's see if I can do this right for a change. Kazuba (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's nice to see someone take an interest in her other than myself. - Сheeky, seeing as it was me who's actually created this page and written a good deal of it, too :) -- Evermore2 (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reply: Yes, I actually have the SPR journal in my possession, but not the ASPR journal. The following is extracted from Hyslop' report (PSPR, 1901):

As this report will probably be read by some who are not familiar with either the whole record of the case or the difference between Mrs. Piper's mediumship and the modus operandi of other alleged "mediums," I shall briefly characterise the conditions under which the results are obtained, so that there shall be absolutely no excuse for the reader to study the present account with any erroneous preconceptions of what is meant by Mrs. Piper's mediumistic performances. The first important step in the study of her case is a definite conception of the exact way the facts are secured, and a recognition of points of important difference between this case and those which have determined the popular idea of mediumship.

(1) Mrs. Piper goes into the trance in the following manner. She seats herself in a chair in front of a table, upon which are placed two pillows for a head-rest when the trance comes on. She mayor may not engage in conversation while the trance approaches. In my case she generally talked to Dr. Hodgson about various domestic matters, the weather, etc. The approach of the trance is characterised by various indications as described in my notes at the beginning of each sitting. Finally when the head falls upon the pillows, it is arranged by Dr. Hodgson, or other sitter, so that the right side of the head lies on the palm of the left hand and looking off and away from the table upon which the writing is done. This second table is at the right hand, and upon it is placed the writing pad. In a few minutes after the trance occurs, the right hand shows signs of animation and slowly moves toward this table for the writing, when a pencil is placed between the two fore-fingers and the writing begins.

(2) Mrs. Piper's normal consciousness, as the past evidence goes to show, knows nothing of what she has done or communicated in the trance. She also remains ignorant of the communicacations until they are published in some form, except, of course, when a sitter chooses to tell her something, which I need hardly say in my case was nothing. Hence we do not have to reckon with any views of Mrs. Piper's in estimating the nature and value of the results, so that the facts have to be studied from the standpoint of the sitter or investigator.

(3) There is no mechanical apparatus whatsoever in the experiments, except the writing-pad and pencil which you furnish yourself. Hence there is no excuse for comparing the case to slate-writing and cabinet performances generally. Absolutely nothing of this sort is connected with the sittings and experiments. They are conducted in open daylight, in a room without any special arrangements for them, except the tables as indicated, and this room, in so far as living persons are concerned, might be any one that the sceptical inquirer might wish to choose in any locality whatsoever, and not confined to Mrs. Piper's home.

{4) In all cases of so-called independent slate-writing, that I ever witnessed (which were clearly fraudulent), I was either in the darkness or the phenomena were produced out of my sight ; the slate-writing was done nominally by a spirit directly and not by the hand of the "medium," and I was not an eye-witness of the writing. But in Mrs. Piper's case, in addition to the daylight and absence of mechanical apparatus like slates or cabinets, the writing is done visibly with her own hand, and on paper and with a pencil of your own furnishing. That is to say, we can actually see as much of the modus operandi of the "communications" as we can see of any normal human act. Nothing is concealed from our view, except the physiological processes that are equally concealed from us in our own writing as well as all other human affairs.

(5) The whole scientific and evidential importance of the results thus gets its credentials and value solely from the content of the " communications," and not in any special way from the manner of obtaining them, except as detective frauds are excluded from the matter.

(6) I should also indicate briefly the manner of making the record. Dr. Hodgson sat near the table on my right where he could see the writing as it proceeded. This he copied, reading it in a low voice as an indication to the trance personality that it was intelligible, or sometimes with a tone of interrogation and doubt which would be followed either by the word " Y e s" sometimes written out, or assent by the hand, or by the repetition of a word or phrase not rightly read at first.[1] He was unable to copy the whole of the automatic writing at the time, as it was necessary for him to record his own or my questions and statements made at the time and to describe certain mechanical features of the process not expressed in the writing, leaving room for the insertion of the omitted portions of the writing afterward. When a question was to be asked or a statement made to the " communicator," Mrs. Piper's hand was spontaneously raised toward the mouth of the sitter who addressed the hand, and it then immediately proceeded either to present the message to the " communicator," often extending itself out toward some " invisible presence," or to write out a reply. After the sitting was over, usually in the afternoon of the same day, Dr. Hodgson and myself went over the record together, completing the copy of the automatic writing. From this record type-written copies were made and sent to the printer. The printed proofs have been compared first with Dr. Hodgson's copy, and then once more with the original automatic writing, so as to secure the utmost possible accuracy.HODGSON COPIES PIPER NO STENOGRAPHER COULD NOT COPY ALL.

[1]After I became more familiar with the writing I often made attempts to read a,loud portions of it instead of Dr. Hodgson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ROMOVI (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source of this line? "Mrs. Piper was able to identify "mystery sitters" in their first sitting. One example of this was the sitting of December 7th, 1889." is this also from quoted source? Or have you added it? Please reply Kazuba (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reply: The line "Mrs. Piper was able to identify "mystery sitters" in their first sitting. One example of this was the sitting of December 7th, 1889." is mine. The report of the sitting is extracted from the original report.

24. Miss X. December 7th.

Miss X. was introduced, veiled, to the medium in the trance state, immediately after her arrival at Mr. Myers’ house. She was at once recognised, and named. “You are a medium; you write when you don’t want to. You have got Mr. E.’s influence about you. This is Miss X. that I told you about.” She was subsequently addressed by her Christian name, one of similar sound being first used but corrected immediately.

A large part of the statements made at this and the following sittings were quite correct, but in nearly all cases of so private and personal a nature that it is impossible to publish them. Only fragments, therefore, can be given, with the proper names omitted. But these sittings were perhaps the most successful and convincing of the whole series.

"You know that military-looking gentleman with the big coat on and the funny buttons on the pads here, on the collar. It is someone very near you in the spirit." This is a correct description, so far as it goes, of a near relation.

"Howells speaks; he tells me he knows the Martins, your friends; they know one of my books." These names were not recognised.

"You see flowers sometimes? (Asked, “ What is my favourite flower? There is a spirit who would know.”) “Pansies. No, delicate pink roses. You have them about you, spiritually as well as physically.” Miss X. has on a certain day in every month a present of delicate pink roses. She frequently has hallucinatory visions of flowers.

"There is an old lady in the spirit wearing a cap who is fond of you— your grandmother. She is the mother of the clergyman’s wife’s mother. (Not correct.) She wears a lace collar and a big brooch, bluish-grey eyes, dark hair" turned greyish, with a black ribbon running through it ; rather prominent nose, and peaked chin ; named Anne,” This is a correct description of a friend of Miss X., whom she was in the habit of calling Granny.

On two occasions Dr. Phinuit desired that witnesses should leave the room, a request which as it happens was quite justified by the very personal and private nature of the facts which he quite correctly com¬municated. Intermixed with these were the following, which Miss X. supplies from her own notes, made on each occasion within two or three hours. Dr. Phinuit described an entertainment at which Miss X. had been present, her position in the room, the appearance of her companion, including a marked personal peculiarity, and its cause, giving the Christian name of the same friend and the subject of their conversation, and the circumstances of Miss X.’s return home—all with absolute correctness, except as to time, which was said to have been “last evening,” whereas it was the evening before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ROMOVI (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Special study of medium in the neighborhood of Omaha, Nebraska, USA similar to Piper. The Spiritualists by Ruth Brandon, pages 210 & 211, Primary source Open Court magazine March 1907

Statements about the dreadful Mrs. Piper. The Spiritualists by Ruth Brandon, page 208, Primary source The Will to Believe by William James, introduction, page 37

The introduction of Miss X is mistakenly proceeded by the methods of Richard Hodgson. This connection should be severed. They have nothing to do with each other. Miss X is not in America with Hodgson. Kazuba (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC) phenomena.)[reply]

by Carlos S . Alvarado, M .S. Some of the cases, like that reported by Despine (1838),were observed in patients that showed one of more personalities when hypnotized . For example, Lucie, a patient of Pierre Janet (1887), suffered from a variety of somatic problems, including absence of tactile and kinesthetic sensations. During hypnosis a personality named Adrienne communicated with Janet through automatic writing . When Janet pinched Lucie, Adrienne reported feeling sensations that Lucie did not feel. Similarly, under these conditions Adrienne was able to recognize objects by touch, a task Lucie was unable to accomplish. Janet measured the tactile sensibilityof his patient with an esthesiometer and found that while Adrienne 's sensation was normal, Lucie's was not.

The case of Blanche Witt, studied by Jules Janet (1888),showed similar phenomena . In her "primary" state Witt showed several sensory and motor deficiencies such as total anesthesia, lack of muscular sense, deafness in her left ear,color blindness in the left eye, restricted visual field, low visual acuity, and hysterogenic and erogenic points. Under hypnosis, however, Witt's secondary personality did not exhibit these problems. Finally, Bruce (1895) reported another case in which systematic tests were conducted . His patient, a 47 year old Welsh sailor showed two different states : one in which he spoke Welsh (was left handed, and had weak circulation and constipation), and another in which he spoke English (was right handed, and his circulation and bowel movements were normal) . According to Bruce : "Occasionally when changing from the Welsh to the English stage, or the reverse, this patient passes through an intermediate condition, in which he is ambidextrous, speaks a mixture of Welsh and English and understand both languages" (p . 62) . Additionally, the patient's pulse had a higher rate in the English state than in the Welsh state. The interpretation of these phenomena was problematic, Kazuba (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In trance she rose from her chair, walked to a table in the centre of the room, picked up a pencil and paper, wrote rapidly for a few minutes, and handing the written paper to a member of the circle she returned to her seat. The particular member was Judge Frost, of Cambridge, a noted jurist; the message, the most remarkable he ever received, came from his dead son. The report of Judge Frost's experience spread and Mrs. Piper was soon besieged for sittings.[11] Have yet to find primary source or repetitons of this data else where. Kazuba (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Directed by the SPR to the essay: Mrs. Piper and Geoge Pelham, A Centennial Reassessment by James Munves, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, October 1997 Volume 62, pages 138-154, No. 849 Mrs. Henry Sidgwick took over the Piper case after Richard Hodgson's death and collected his materials. She wrote Hodgson's work was sloppy. He had lost objectivity. Hodgson became obsessed with Leonora Piper, and talking to his deceased lover. He shut himself off and talked to the dead in his room. Too bad. Persons who deeply desire and believe they can contact their deceased loved ones in order to "prove" immortality to themselves and others are not objective. They make poor psychical investigators. Complex secondary personality preferred over simple deception. Only magicians and their brother con artists enjoy being "fooled." Kazuba (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Mrs. Henry Sidgwick, A contribution to the study of the psychology of Mrs. Piper’s trance Proceedings S.P.R. Part 71 Vol 28, Pages 1-657, December 1915

This is the final "clean-up" of Piper case. "For her Study is a very fine piece of work, and by reason of its thoroughness, candour, calm and open-mindedness a model for all inquirers into these perplexing phenomena." [12]

Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research Vol.22, part 57, October 1908., 1908. 398 pages + 23 pages of Sidgwick's Incident in Mrs Piper's Trance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.145.5 (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidgwick, Eleanor. "Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper." Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research (1899).

SPR has no record of Mrs. Piper's ears ever being stopped or covered in any test or observation. The claim that Mrs. Piper heard through her hand was never tested.

Piper has house servant.

Eleanor Sidgwick http://books.google.com/books?id=FRArAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA39&dq=mrs.+piper&lr=&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=mrs.%20piper&f=false page 16 Sidgwick, Eleanor. "Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs. Piper." Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research (1899). page 16 Andrew Lang thought Phinuit was a dishonest secondary personality. "She saw ink blot on my fingers and stated I was a writer"

Hyslop uses stenographer for Hodgson spirit 3 Feeb 1907 NY times http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F0DE2D7153EE033A25750C0A9649C946697D6CF

Mrs. Piper runs down her sitters by calling them "niggers." Science and Psychical Phenomena & Apparitions by G. N. M. Tyrrell, University books, Inc, 1962, page ? forgot to note, orginally published in 1953 by S. P. R

ARTICLE OF INTEREST; Sidgwick, H. (1894). Disinterested deception. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 6, 274-278.

Notice Hodgson is copying automatic writing. LOOKS LIKE long hand. No stenographer. Still low funds Hodgson arrived in Boston with an assistant and a typist. No stenographer? Are Piper's ears ever covered and stopped up? In USA? In England? Mrs. Sidgwick never doubted Piper could hear. Book review of Studies in Spiritism in SPR Proceeding 25.Kazuba (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"According to psychologist G. Stanley Hall...Leonora Piper is the most famous trance medium in the history of Spiritualism." It appears to me that Hall's actual opinion [13] [14] is being intentionally misrepresented in the lead. If this is any indication of the level of accuracy in this article, we need to excise huge swaths of it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The lead is also contradictory and full of flowery, misleadin, language at the moment. I was going to remove all except the lead, but even that needs a significant rewrite. Verbal chat 17:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie and Verbal since this data is cited I believe it is against the rules of wikipedia to remove it. Edit it without removing the cited sources. The lead is not misleading it is a historical fact. Verbal and I have been through this before. Have you taken the time to examine these primary sources? Or have you acted without examining them? Kazuba (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC) There is no such thing as a copyright violation when one is quoting for the sake of historical research.Kazuba (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie Read the data, G. Stanley Hall's actual words before you conclude it is misleading from a brief book review. Studies in Spiritism by Amy Tanner, first introduction by G. Stanley Hall, page XViii, Prometheus Press, 1994, orginally published by D. Appleton, 1910. Here is a link to Studies in Spirtism.[15] Kazuba (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC) "She (Mrs Piper) is without a doubt the most eminent American medium in this field." 2nd paragraph. Sentence 2 Kazuba (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal You deleted EVERY word supposedly spoken by Mrs. Piper which were recorded by William James in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research (A Scholarly Journal) Wow! Now that is censorship. Isn't that going a little too far? Kazuba (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC) This same material (and a lot more) is copied in William James on Psychical Research compiled and edited by Gardner Murphy, M.D. and Robert O. Ballou, Viking Press, 1960. If Murphy and Ballou can copy it from the S.P.R. Proceedings I would think there is nothing wrong in reproducing part of it again in the Wikipedia. It would be nice to see some of those tags eliminated.Kazuba (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're aware of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, so please try to follow them. The tags will be removed when the issues are addressed. The minimum changes that need to be made to the lead are the fixing of the contradiction, the removal of unreliable sources, the removal of peacock terms, and the removal of opinion and original research. The writing style is also very poor. And that is just the lead. Verbal chat 07:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kazuba. Sorry, I can't remove the tag because there are problems with this article. For example, Hall's quote in the lead. It cherry-picks a statement that enhances Piper's status and ignores his other, critical opinions of her. I'll try to identify the other problems with the article for you, time permitting. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie The reason G. Stanley Hall wanted to investigate Mrs. Piper was because of her fame and reputation. Otherwise he probably would have ignored her. Hall ignored a lot of other mediums that he visited and never specifically wrote about. If you read the Piper entry you will see that Hall attempted to have sittings with Mrs. Piper when Richard Hodgson was still alive, but Hall was refused. I do not know the correct answer to this, because I never followed up on it; you can not do original research, but it is possible Clark University put up the money for Hall's investigation of Leonora Piper. Other universities investigated mediums, Cambridge University investigated Palladino. Leonora Piper was big time. She was the favorite of William James and widely accepted as being genuine, even today. Piper is the only medium to receive a pension from the Society of Psychical Research. And that is a fact. Kazuba (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying she isn't notable. Or that a certain subculture of people did view, and still view her as highly significant. But the article does not appear to include much perspective outside the small group that finds her amazing, baffling, enigmatic, etc. Right now it is a less a biography and more of a WP:COATRACK for promoting the views of psychical researchers and paranormal enthusiasts of that era. And there's still the problem of choosing to lead with a laudatory statement by Hall rather than his criticism of her. If you are still unclear about this issue, I'll try to explain more later, as time permits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie The text says Leonora Piper was the most FAMOUS medium... There is nothing here about amazing, baffling, enigmatic, etc ONLY FAMOUS. You are adding adjectives that are not there. Bruce Willis is a FAMOUS actor. Donald Duck is a FAMOUS cartoon character. David Cooperfield is a FAMOUS magician. kazuba on the wikipedia is not FAMOUS. Kazuba (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were directed at the article as a whole, not just the lead. She was famous in her time among a small fringe of "psychical" researchers. That I concede. Yet, I find it astounding that Martin Gardner apparently wrote an entire essay entitled "How Mrs. Piper Bamboozled William James", yet we're using Gardner in this article only to establish Piper's fame. (Oh wait, he's allowed one brief 'speculation' in later text, and it is immediately refuted.) Whew. This article has POV problems, my friend. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. No contemporary perspective. Excessive number of quotes lifted from text. etc. etc.

It's clear to me that you do not (or are not willing to) understand WP policies and how they relate to the problems in this article as they have been explained to you. I'll see if I can help fix the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]