Talk:Man misdiagnosed as being in coma for 23 years
Review of revision 915626 [Passed]
edit  |
Revision 915626 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 915626 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Hoax Alert
editRom Houben isn't the one typing the messages on his computer. This is an instance of the "facilitated communication" fraud. Watch the msnbc.com video from 12 seconds to 35 seconds: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31388323/vp/34111007#34111007
Also see James Randi's commentary on this story: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/783-this-cruel-farce-has-to-stop.html
- I made a edit about this, but it was reverted, arguing that the new info should go into a new article. I am not going to start a war over this, but I am going to revert the revert, since I simply don't see how this small bit of extra info to a very specific story about a single individual could warrant a whole article of its own. It is not even confirmed that the original story is indeed a hoax, it is just that there is reasonable suspicion. At least until it is confirmed, it should just appear as a 'heads-up' in this original article. --217.157.165.109 (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that this info probably would have been relevant to the article, but per our article archiving policy, pages should not undergo significant content changes or additions after 31 hours. In this case, it's been well over that time limit since the article was published. As such, I've had to undo your edit, sorry. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)