Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive 6

New category

There is now a new category for tagging non-mainstream proposals that the scientific community has ignored in the journals. Check out Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation and tag it to appropriate articles. --ScienceApologist 12:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For those of us who don't know where ot look for it, what is the tag's name?

perfectblue 12:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm Thats the first "NPOV" cat name I've seen for the real wierd topics we cover here. :) ---J.S (t|c) 15:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Critical scientific evaluation" is a loose term since the days of the invention of the scientific journal. Fort, above all, pointed out how often science tries to disspell or simply ignore much raw evidence in cases of strange or surreal events. Critical scientific evaluation, after all, has tried to cover up the bizarreness of what happened to the Soviet Phobos 2 spacecraft. --Chr.K. 15:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not up for Wikipedia to decide the motivations of the scientific community and why certain subjects lack critical scientific evaluation in the journals, but we are able to report it to the reader and let them decide for themselves the rationale. --ScienceApologist 16:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The name is a little too long, and the Fringe part is POV. Even if something is fringe, adding that word in emplies that it is kook's ville teritory. It just screams psudoscience. I would say "Unevaluated science" or "Unproven hypothesis" might be a more sucinct and less POV was of putting it.

It's just my opinion, but, and I'm not putting it into words in any articles, but in my time, I've found that many mainstream scientist appear to deliberately avoid tackling fringe science, and avoid finding offering it any for of credibility because they are afraid that they will loose credibility if they align themselves with it. perfectblue 16:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Fringe" is about as neutral we can make a label on these ideas. The definition of "fringe" is "outside the mainstream". Inasmuch as people dispute "outside the mainstream" ideas, it can be thought of as pejorative, but this is stretching it, in my opinion. Certainly calling these subjects "unevaluated science" or "unproven hypotheses" is lending them a credibility that is not necessarily shared by all, so those proposals are themselves POV, too assuming that ideas outside the scientific mainstream can be scientific. It's okay for editors to have their own private opinions about why mainstream scientists marginalize and ignore these subjects, but if it is not verifiable, then we cannot include these speculations in the encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 16:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that we have a basic disagreement of opinions over word usage here. We all know what the dictionary definition of fringe is, but I've heard it being used far too many times to mean Phoney or not worth the paper it's written on by people who are setting out to discredit something (like calling a demonstrator a protestor). I think that unproven hypothesis is a pretty neutral description. It's not judging its place in science (or in the garbage). Whereas fringe is already saying that it's outside of the norm, which would be bad as many such hypothesis are only currently fringe because the people who work on them don't have the publicity that they need to get research grants or journal reviews yet. Still, it's not worth fighting over. perfectblue 16:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the term has negative connotations. Come to think of it, why can't it just be named "theories without critical scientific evaluation" or some such? --InShaneee 17:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable. perfectblue 18:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not inclusive enough... "Articles without critical scientific evaluation" The word "theories" would leave out a lot of articles that were about a phenomenon and not a theory. ---J.S (t|c) 18:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As painful as it is to admit, this is dead on. There are a billion theories without "CSE," and anyone could conceivably put in one they just came up with under the term...and those, theories about ANYthing at all, at that: alien telekinesis causing the Pioneer anomaly could be entered, and it be accurate in the placing. At the same time, however, ARTICLES without CSE implies a degree of Wikipedian presence in scientific circles that obviously does not exist, nor should. Wikipedia reports on events, not interacts with them, last I checked. --Chr.K. 01:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that we need to lump these articles all together? There is no need to link UFO together with Ghost. We have category trees here... Category:Ufology and Category:Parapsychology can be put into the same parent category, but all the articles in each of those cats shouldn't be in the same cat. ---J.S (t|c) 03:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Umdhlebi

i've made an article for the Umdhlebi. y'all should check it out and see if it sucks or not. Idon'texist 21:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a plant can be a cryptid, or that it is paranormal at all. Or that it is notable enought to have a page.

Sorry

perfectblue 08:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a criptid to me. In fact, the article looks fine. Could use some more sources, but it's a decent start... assuming it's not a hoax. :) ---J.S (t|c) 08:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the cryptid page only animals can be cryptids.

perfectblue 08:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Then how come there's three plants on the list. Man-eating tree, Umdhlebi (it was there before i wrote the article), and Stone Softening Plant. either "cryptids" needs to be redefined or start a list of cryptobotanical stuff under the Cryptobotany section at the bottom of Cryptozoology. Idon'texist 12:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably because somebody thought that a cryptid could be a plant or an animal. I don't think that they belong there. perfectblue 13:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed all the plants from the cryptid list and place it under a seperate list under the cryptobotanical section of cryptozoology. That good? Idon'texist 20:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeti

I think the yeti article needs a lot of work. I have summarised some of my concerns on the yeti discusssion page but any changes I make just get reverted. It is completely unclear to me what the current editors take themselves to be doing but I think some of them want to try to exlude almost any talk of the yeti as it is commonly though of (i.e. as a himalayan bigfoot counterpart) and want instead to focus almost exclusively on notions of the etymology of the indiginous people's words for this/these creature(s). There is a place for all of this in the article but the way things are at present, I think, makes for a highly confusing article that tells the reader almost nothing they would want to find out about.Davkal 18:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok... I think the issues with the intro are basically solved. Should make it a little less confusing as well. ---J.S (t|c) 00:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Def. of Cryptid

perfectblue had a point about the cryptid article saying that only animals were cryptids and i removed all the plants from the list and placed on them on a seperate list in the "cryptobotany" section at the bottom of the cryptozoology article.

but should cryptobotany have its own article or should cryptid include more than just animals or is it all fine the way the way it is now. i mean what if there was a "Man-eating Fungus of Mobile" would that be crypto-fungusology? and some cryptids if they existed and we found them, we could just as easily find out they're not actually animals. So is it really useful to call something an animal, plant, etc., when we've never actually studied it? What do y'all think? Idon'texist 12:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

i think we should keep them in cryptozoology. there are only a handful of these mystery plants, and maybe that field 9sorry) is too small to stand on its own. Also, (to throw up some dust) fungi were once thought to be plants but are now given their own kingdom, while sponges were also assumed to be plants - but are now called animals. So some crossover is still going to happen. And is the Vegetable Lamb of Tartary an animal or plant? Totnesmartin 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps redirect Cryptobotany to Cryptozoology and leave a short mention of the term there? --InShaneee 16:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

ok, but what about the list of cryptids? should plants be included? or be kept seperate but equal? Idon'texist 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but in a serperate section. I could see how a "Cryptid" could be used for any of the Crypto__olgys.---J.S (t|c) 02:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that it's not scientific, but my vote goes towards moving the Plants to a seperate table in the cryptid section, and leaving an explanatory note to say whay they are there. On their own they are not notable enough to have their own page, and most people wouldn't know where else to look (Cryptobotony isn't exactly a commonly used world).

perfectblue 08:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

good idea. will do. Idon'texist 12:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A redirect from Cryptobotony (if it dosn't already exist) would be good. ---J.S (t|c) 16:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

cryptobotany already redirects to cryptozoology where there is a brief sectio non the topic.

perfectblue 16:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

i just started a seperate list underneath the cryptid list with an explanatory note and all that. and like perfectblue said, cryptobotany already redirects, so i'm thinking everthing's fine now? Idon'texist 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Skinwalker Ranch feedback

Recently I've been working on the Skinwalker Ranch article, which falls under the scope of WikiProjects Paranormal. There were several problems with the article (layout and content), and it was being targetted by some users for deletion and ridicule.

The main problems were lack of NPOV, use of lists, and to a much lesser extent use of citations. I've tried to address these, but would appreciate the input of others involved in this project. My hope is to get this article from a 'Start' class up to a 'B' class. On a related note, I'd like to introduce a paranormal places infobox on (e.g. see here), which I've already mentioned on this talk page, on this article. Thanks. --Careax 20:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

nice job on the article. about the infobox, i don't get why it needs a "grouping" and "sub-grouping". it works for the Paranormalcreatures template, but for a place wouldn't "grouping" be enough? Mabey its just my sleep deprivation. Idon'texist 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Moriori also made some improvements to the article yesterday. As for the infobox, yeah, getting rid of subgrouping is a good idea. I think I'll do that, thanks. Can we put a link to the relevant infoboxes on the project page (maybe as a separate sub-section of Templates)? I think that would encourage their use in project articles. --Careax 19:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

i guess. but how many paranormal infoboxes are there? I only seen the Paranormalcreatures template and your paranormalplaces. but i guess i can put the links on the project page, and if there's anymore we can add 'em later. Idon'texist 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

New Paranormal Topic: Reality Shifts

Hello! I've just started a new stub topic, reality shifts, and I could really use some support and assistance from this community on ensuring that the topic is covered fully and as objectively as possible. I'd be happy to assist in this WikiProject Paranormal project, so please let me know how I may be of assistance.

Cynthia Sue Larson 22:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who saw the earlier version of the reality shift page, it's much improved now, and I invite you to stop by and check it out... and consider giving it your support for expansion. Cynthia Sue Larson 00:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Scope proposal

Is this any better than what we have now? Zagalejo 20:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Subjects covered by this project include:

• Cryptozoology, the study of animals which are unrecognized by mainstream science but believed by others to exist (e.g. Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Chupacabras). In order for an animal to qualify as a "cryptid," there must be one or more claimed sightings. Purely mythological or folkloric creatures (such as Cerberus or the unicorn) are generally not considered cryptids.
• Ufology, the study of Unidentified flying objects, their purported occupants, and associated conspiracy theories.
• Parapsychology, the study of extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, and phenomena pertaining to life after death (such as ghosts).
• General Forteana, which includes

• Unexplained meteorological/geological phenomena (e.g. Lluvia de Peces, mistpouffers, Tunguska event)
• Locations on the Earth said to have unusual properties (e.g. Bermuda triangle)
• Apparent archeological anachronisms/OOPArts (e.g. the aluminium wedge of Aiud and the Antikythera mechanism)
• Mysterious appearances and disappearances
• Spontaneous human combustion
• Mysterious figures such as Springheel Jack and the Mad Gasser of Mattoon who have been the subjects of notable sighting flaps

• Writers, researchers, and organizations primarily known for their interest in any of the above topics. (This includes skeptics and skeptical organizations.)
• Non-fiction books, television series, films, and radio programs about any of the above phenomena. (This includes media that take a skeptical perspective.)
• Notable hoaxes depicting any of the above phenomena

Wow. I'd say so. --InShaneee 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think that setting a scope with example down in writitng is a bad idea. What we need is a policy statement of the kinds of things that are included rather than a list.

perfectblue 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer if the wording was changed to 'such as'? --InShaneee 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the "what is not included" list should not include geographic areas. Who's to say that Loch Ness or Lake Champlain aren't themselves possessing strange properties that allow for the life claimed to reside within them? --Chr.K. 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The the topics are related, but the lake is rarly claimed to be anything more then it's "home." ---J.S (t|c) 21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if the area is only worth noting due to the presence of paranormal activity? --InShaneee 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone claimed that they do? Zagalejo 00:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Also be aware that the unicorn is not universally mythological. It was reported that Genghis Khan was one to encounter one, in India, and took it as a heavenly sign to leave the land alone. Likewise, if we include such things as ghosts (which we should), shouldn't we also include things that might be held as either religious or occultic, such as purported encounters with angels or demons? (one such explanation into EVP is that it is recordings of the different sides, though with all the occultism that seeps into the subject, none of the pro-"communing with the dead" researchers seems to consider, or welcome, such prospects) --Chr.K. 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm I'd prefer to have a narrower scope then the name might imply. If we simply include anything paranormal our scope would be massive. ---J.S (t|c) 21:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything specifically you don't like in the proposal? (see also "what is not covered" above, essentially part two of this proposal) --InShaneee 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Project should be massive. "More in heaven and earth, Horatio..." should be our guiding principle (especially as Shakespeare is unimpeachable and all). As example, these are sample matters that should be within the project scope...though again, choice on whether to bring hoaxes in is personal taste (support, here) :

• Anomalous phenomena
  • Astronomical
    • Lunar anomalies and artifacts
    • Martian anomalies and artifacts
  • Historical
    • “Ancient astronauts”
      • The Sirius Mystery
    • Flying humanoids
    • Hollow Earth
    • Nasca lines
    • Noah’s Ark
    • Paluxy tracks
  • Meteorological
    • Anomalous rain
      • Rains of blood
      • Clear-sky rain
      • Colored rain
    • Ball lightning
    • Skyquakes
  • Maritime
    • Inland
    • Sea and Oceanic
  • Terrestrial
    • Crop Circles
    • Devil’s footprints
    • Entombed living animals
    • Falls from the sky
      • Ice
      • Matter
        • Organic
          • Pwdre Ser – “Star Jelly”
        • Inorganic
    • Moving coffins
      • “Restless coffins of Barbados”
    • Ringing rocks
  • Regions or locations
    • Terrestrial
      • Bennington, Vermont
    • Maritime
      • Inland
        • Lake Ontario
      • Sea and Oceanic
        • Bermuda Triangle
        • Devil’s Triangle
    • Undetermined
      • Magonia
• Cryptozoology – anomalous life forms
  • Atmospheric life
    • Avian
      • “Big Bird”
      • Thunderbirds
    • Reptilian
      • Sky serpents
    • Unidentified
      • Crawfordsville monster
  • Marine life
    • Anomalous lake monsters
      • Champ
      • Loch Ness Monster
      • Ogopogo
    • Giant octopus
    • Kraken
    • Lake Worth monster
    • Lindorm
    • Mokele-mbembe
    • Morag
    • Sea serpents
  • Terrestrial life
    • Biped
      • Almas
      • Anomalous North American apes
      • Bigfoot
      • Hairy dwarfs
      • Minnesota Iceman
      • Mono Grande
    • Canine
      • Beast of Gevaudan
      • “Hellhounds”
    • Feline
      • Anomalous black panther reports
      • Beast of Exmoor
      • Onza
    • Humanoid
      • Green children
    • Marsupial
      • Anomalous kangaroo reports
    • Reptilian
      • Dinosaur sightings
      • Pterosaur sightings
      • Reptile-men
    • Undetermined
      • Dover demon
      • Flatwoods monster
      • Jacko
      • Jersey devil
      • Momo
      • Mothman
      • Orang-pendek
• Mysterious figures
  • Spring-heeled Jack
  • "Men in Black"
  • Phantom attackers
    • Mad Gassers
• Psionics
  • Magnetokinesis
  • Psychokinesis
  • Pyrokinesis
  • Telekinesis
• Researchers
  • Anomalistics
  • Paranormal
  • Parapsychology
• Supernatural
  • Apparitions or ghosts
    • Hauntings
    • Poltergeists
    • Spectral objects
      • Aircraft
      • Automobiles
      • Ships
        • Flying Dutchman
      • Trains
    • Curses
      • Locations
        • Curse of Tutankhamen
      • Objects
        • Hope Diamond
      • People
    • Lifeforms
      • Fairies
        • Cottingly fairies and photographs
      • Leprechauns
      • “Little people”
• Top Secret/anomalistic-affiliated facilities
  • Area 51
  • Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
    • “Hangar 18”
• Unexplained appearances and disappearances
  • Appearances
  • Disappearances
    • Bennington, Vermont cases
    • Flight 19
• Unexplained deaths
  • Animals
    • Cattle mutilations
  • People
• Unexplained lights
  • Brown Mountain lights
  • Marfa lights
• Unidentified objects
  • Atmospheric
    • Airships
    • Green fireballs
  • Interplanetary
    • Phobos 2 incident
  • Orbital
  • Submerged
• Urban legends or hoaxes
  • Alligators in sewers
  • David Lang disappearance
  • Oliver Lerch disappearance
    

--Chr.K. 23:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm I must think about this. One thing I question is your inclusion of "Lake Ontario." I think when we get down to regions we need to use this rule: "Is the defining characteristic of the region paranormal?" - if yes, then include (Such as The Bermuta Triangle). If the region has paranormal stories about it, but it's primarly known for other things (Lake Tahoe has had stories about under-water tunnels connecting it to the sea for decades) then we will be better off either splitting off the paranormal parts of those articles or letting location projects take care of it. ---J.S (t|c) 23:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Urban legends... Hmmm... not all of them. "Spider eggs in chewing gum" and "pop-rocks and the exploding stomach" are certainly not paranormal but perhaps the "Say redrum in the mirror 3 times" is. ---J.S (t|c) 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty comprehensive. I think most of those would count towards our project, but I'm not sure if we want to include Noah's Ark - I'd prefer to leave the religious stuff to the religious projects. Zagalejo 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well, remove the Noah's Ark reference...I've just studied it enough, and heard the testimony of some very credible (people sought out, rather than seeking others out with what they saw) witnesses, to include it on my own list. As for Lake Ontario, the qualities of it as a site of more than average inexplicable vanishings is chronicled in the work Gateway to Oblivion, by Hugh F. Cochrane, which I'd give a six out of a ten on decency of the material. EDIT: (apologies for putting it at the wrong area before): And, in this re-edit, I'll be explicit: I do not trust "the other projects" to not attempt to debunk such events through irrational skepticism. Go look at the idiotic material in the Socorro, New Mexico page on Zamora's sighting, for an example. --Chr.K. 01:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd still prefer to restrict our scope for regions to areas that are noteable primarily for being paranormal, which Lake Ontario isn't. And really, "I don't trust other people" is hardly a good reason just to include something. Also, you put "leprechuan", and I think we need to be careful there; while I know there are some 'sightings' of leprechuans, they are primarily mythological creatures, which puts them in a tough spot for classification. --InShaneee 01:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of geographic areas, I agree that we should leave them alone and stict to the phenomena that happen inside them. The Bermuda triangle isn't actually a geographic area, its an arbitary marking made by a person writting a book that demarks a phemonena, so it's OK. The same goes for haunted houses/buildings/locations. We are recording the phenomena not the area.

perfectblue 07:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So just so I understand you...you think haunted houses SHOULD be included? --InShaneee 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but only if it is notable. For example, the Amityville house or Summerwind. That old place down the stret where I saw a ghost when I was 5 kind of places shouldn't be included. perfectblue 16:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's an example: The Winchester Mystery House. It's a location known almost exclusivly for it's connection to the paranormal. It wouldn't be subject to two seperate articles. Since thats the case, the article on the location should deffinatly be in our project. BTW, Perfictblue, national boundries are arbitary too... :) ---J.S (t|c) 17:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think haunted houses can be included, mainly because the ghosts themselves rarely get their own articles. Hauntings are a special case, because you're dealing with something so ethereal. It's often hard for people who visit a haunted house to describe exactly what they experienced; sometimes, all they can say is that the place has a creepy vibe to it. However, we should only include buildings that are primarily known for their hauntings, like Winchester House above or Borley Rectory. Something like the White House wouldn't be included, since it's much better known for other things (although articles that specifically address the White House hauntings, like Lincoln's Ghost, would count). Zagalejo 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Locations should be included; it could conceivably make it difficult for a wikipedia-user to look for, say, the exact ghosts/apparitions seen at the Hannah House in Indiana, after they've heard of the place. Likewise, apparitions are not always given names: the most famous of phantom ships may be the Flying Dutchman, but it is by no means the sole reported one; the Violet is a phantom ship reported off the western European coast, for example. In regards, as well, to not naming geographical regions themselves in the project, that gets us into the can of worms that many others (often pseudoskeptics but not necessarily) claim the region in question does not actually exist, save only in "sensationalist folklore." The Bermuda Triangle is the most-often fought-over example of just such this kind of thing, both here at wikipedia and many other places. Lake Ontario has strange things reported at it; just because there is no recorded name applied to the "strangeness within," does that take away from the reportedly surreal phenomena? I vote a resounding no, that the project should be as accurate and comprehensive an encyclopedia as possible for the unexplained. --Chr.K. 15:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No one's disputing that there may be paranormal activity in Lake Ontario; I'm just saying it shouldn't be included because the activity is not the lake's reason for notability. --InShaneee 23:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Then are we really trying to be totally comprehensive in our presentation of the unexplained, or merely talking about the most often-cited examples? Saying that "we can't reference Lake Ontario as paranormal until someone makes a ruckus about it" doesn't work not only because A) someone already did, but B) we're losing sight of the goal of what an encyclopedia on the strange (which is what this project is, right?) should be about: you look up something weird you wanted to know about, and there it is, concisely written and presented. And, as long as we're on this, let's expand the discussion still further: what is (AGAIN) "paranormal"? Take for instance a story from the family of one of my own associates: in their house, they've seen these things that are all black, have no eyes, and growl at the kids; nightmarish stuff. Aside from those qualities, is this A) a report of shadow people, or B) a report of demons. I find it ludicrous that it, some self-admittedly seriously weird ----, could be accepted only if it was the former, but is consigned to Wikiproject Supernatural, if the latter. The only way that would be a viable option is if ALL such projects were ALL working in CLOSE connection, to GET THE STUFF RIGHT, no? Wikiprojects in these areas, however...don't seem to do that, to say the least: "ANGELS are part of the truth, d/mmit, but your ALIENS are NOT!!!" "Have at you, vile religious kook! Our space brothers shall Join in our New Age of enlightenment, and YOUR kind will be done away with, and ReEducated for as long as it takes for you to Join as well in the Great Time of Aquarius!!!" Seriously, this kind of stuff happens in real life, so Wikipedia is then even more likely. Coming ALL the way back to the point: we haven't identified what paranormal is supposed to actually BE. --Chr.K. 16:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else have any more input on this? As I said, I'd really like to see this implimented. --InShaneee 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm ok with the extended scope here... but here's my philosphy... "Any article who's main notablity stems from it's connection to the paranormal... with the exclusion of religious/occult articles." - I think descriptive is better then perscriptive. ---J.S (t|c) 00:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I second the above. We need a mission statement rather than a list. perfectblue 11:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think of this as something that's set in stone; rather, just something to point new project members in the right direction. JSmith, I think your philosophy is completely correct, but also completely compatable with the extended scope. --InShaneee 14:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine: what happens when religious and occult intermix with anomalistic? Poltergeists smash stuff, leave physical traces...are they occult? Then shadow people are too, right? Several Christian authors claim UFOs, a Wikiproject Paranormal bread and butter if there ever is one, are occultic and Satanic-connected, so does that mean they're in the Religious section? Take this too far and all the subjects could fall under many different projects, sooner or later. --Chr.K. 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Phobos 2 incident

I'm willing to make a stub article for the Phobos 2 incident. Does anybody have any pictures of the actual anomolly that pass the wikipedia criteria for inclusion.

perfectblue 09:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The most sane article I've ever seen on the Phobos 2 Incident. Psuedoskeptics are probably going to at least demand that the information be put instead in the Phobos 2 article, however (likely so they can later on try to rationalize and/or debunk the mysteriousness of the event, but not the point here).

Another useful one found.

--Chr.K. 16:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I've found another copyright violation. Clophill has text copied pretty much straight from http://www.iopr.org.uk/4724/8402.html.

perfectblue 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was added with this edit. Everything past then needs to be deleted. :( ---J.S (t|c) 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I found that too, but since the admins have been notified we'd better leave the original article alone (as per instruction) and work on the alternate version of the page.

perfectblue 19:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason at all to get rid of the article, as the place is real enough, and the material need only be reviewed (by people like us, actually) as to what the information is about the place...then greatly reworded. --Chr.K. 15:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

According to wiki-guidelines, the article doesn't have to be deleted, it just can't be edited while the vio process is carried out. There is a link provided on the tag-box that allows you to draft a non vio article to replace the old one.

perfectblue 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Irish lough monsters

I'm planning to start an article on the above beasties (can't find a wiki article). Any recommendations for a good title? Totnesmartin 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain the name (I'm not familiar with the topic, so it's tough to come up with a good plural). --InShaneee 16:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Lough" is the Irish word for "loch" or "lake". the creatures themselves are called peistes. That's basicaly my dilemma: 'Irish lough monster' or 'peiste'? Or, indeed, piast, paystha, olphiast and ullfish... Totnesmartin 17:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if there is a term for them (peistes), I'd go with that. Note, however, that we do have Lake monster. --InShaneee 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We do have that article (I've helped edit it a little), but the monsters of Ireland appear to have peculiarities that make them notable. They come in a variety of shapes, and are seen on land more often than other lake monsters. I don't see a similar distinction elsewhere, except (possibly) China. Totnesmartin 17:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Budd Hopkins

Could somebody confirm whether or not Carol Raney is Budd Hopkins' wife.

perfectblue 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Paranormal People

I'm thinking about doing some special infoboxes for people involved in the Paranormal. It will be based on the standard biography info box, except that it will have special fields to deal with the paranormal.

For example an abductees box that says the date of and location of their first abduction and the type of alien that abducted them, or it might have. Or a paranormal researchers box detailing the field in which they work etc.

What does everybody think, and if you think that it's a good idea, what boxes/fields should I include?

perfectblue 18:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Although I don't know if it would create confusion or confict with the regular Biography infobox, if one already exists for that person. I expect such cases of both infoboxes being present would be very rare though. The fields would have to be fairly generic, as it would cover quite a range of event types. Maybe 'encounter type', 'encounter date', etc.

On a related note, what about an infobox for groups/organizations/companies involved in paranormal research, such as Skeptic Magazine, the AA-EVP, TAPS, the National Institute for Discovery Science, etc.? --Careax 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ditto. i like the idea for the paranorm. researcher box, too.

Idon'texist 22:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving of old topics no longer under discussion desperately needed

It's becoming very difficult to actively follow the discussions here. Simply going to the bottom has caused me to miss some important comments. I have asked for this before and I don't mean to be strident, but any conversation with no new comments in over 60 days should be archived. Agree? Lisapollison 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's archive anything that's obviously over. (when I say "let's", I mean "somebody who knows what they're doing", i.e. not me...) Totnesmartin 19:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Better? ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've requested an audience with the admin of the essjayBotII project talk page archiving bot. It should automatically archive all dead threads. It's not on the page yet, but it should help us with this overrun problem.

perfectblue 11:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, but it dosn't realy seem like a problem we need a bot for. ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it beats having to do it yourself right? The Kinslayer 16:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall anybody (including myself) rushing to archive things last time it needed doing.

perfectblue 16:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Shrug* ok, whatever. The archive bot seems to do a good job. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I need a bit of information before I can set up the bot; could someone please drop a message on my talk page with the following information:

• How old sections should be before being archived. (In whole days; the bot will archive when the newest timestamp in the section has reached the whole-day limit.) For example, 30 days; the bot would archive any section where there has been no new discussion in 30 days.

• A link to where the archives are located (for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive 1).

• How large (in KB) an archive should be before a new one is created. For example, 100KB.

Once I have that, I'll be happy to set it up to archive for you guys on a regular basis. Essjay (Talk) 01:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this page is currently 48k. So, perhaps a good target size is 75k? 100k starts to get a little unwieldy. ---J.S ^(T/C) 09:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Per the request on my talk page, I've set the bot to archive anything over 30 days old to the archives and to start a new archive at 75KB. The first archive by the bot will be Archive 6. The bot runs at 0:00 UTC each day, so keep an eye on it for the next couple of days and let me know if there are any glitches. Should you need to change any of the archiving specifics, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Essjay (Talk) 02:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

SFD notification

This message is to notify you that a couple stub templates and categories that are involved with this WikiProject ({{supernatural-stub}}, {{Cryptozoology-stub}}, Category:Cryptozoology stubs) are up for deletion at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Project Update

Hello again all! Just wanted to let you in on a few big project happenings. First of all, our first Collab, Roswell incident, went wonderfully (as this diff shows) and is expected to make GA in the next few weeks. Good job to all who put in the hard work to get it there! Of course, with a new month comes a new Collab, Electronic voice phenomenon! I can't wait to see how this one turns out! Nominations are now open for next month, and Charles Fort was automatically re-nominated for meeting the three vote threshold. Also, there seems to have been some confusion about the voting process; you may indeed vote as many times as you wish; this way, worthy topics that just aren't' the most worthy will have a chance the following month.

In other news, I've been working on new directions to take the project, and I have a proposal for you all: a project newsletter! Editors would be able to place it on their user/talk page (much like Template:Signpost-subscription), and it would act as a 'project digest' for busy editors (and really, who isn't?) detailing project events that month such as:

• The current collab
• New articles
• Open Peer Review requests
• New members
• GA/FA article promotions
• Major ongoing discussions of project-wide importance
• Project milestones

A record of old 'issues' would be kept as well, and could serve as a useful and interesting history of the project. Now, maintenance wouldn't be a huge deal, as I could keep it up-to-date for the most part. The real question is, would anyone be interested? --InShaneee 06:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm happy to get some help over at EVP. We actually have an expert EVP researcher on the talk page who has brought an invaluable insight into the subject. Now we just need to get those ideas onto paper.

Sure, sounds like a great idea. I've actually been thinking that we should spam the monthly colab... the newsletter is a better idea. We could also have a section noting the AFDs that happened during the month as well.

When we get this running, want me to spam an invite to the spam list for the newsletter? (spamming those who are members of the project that is)---J.S ^(T/C) 09:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, what'll happen will be that I'll add a link to the Newsletter page in the Navbox up top. It'll explain how everything works, how to subscribe, and where to find the archive. I'll post a notice when/if it's up and running. --InShaneee 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on the idea? --InShaneee 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

New Info box

I've written a new info box for abductees. What does everybody think, and what changes, if any, could be made to improve it?

{{Infobox encounter
| image_name    = {Image Name}
| image_caption = (Image Caption)
| name          = (Abductee Name)
| birth_date    = (Date of Birth)
| birth_place   = (Place of Birth)
| death_date    = (Date of Death)
| death_place   = (Place of Death)
| status        = (Single/multiple abductee)
| abduction_date= (Date of First Abduction)
| location      = (Location of First Abduction)
| taken_from    = (Where the Person was Taken From, EG Car'
| abductor      = (Supercatagory of Alien doing the abducting)
| artifact      = (Implants?)
| book          = (Book of the Incident)
| film          = (Film of the Incident)
}}

perfectblue 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

looks a bit POV to me - there's an assumption that abductions are real, and carried out by aliens. Or is this all my POV? It would be hard to carry the dispute into an infobox without making it look cluttered, and without having the old "supposed" and "reported" things stuck in it.

And is there a hard line between "aliens" and other mysterious abductors? Would Albert Ostman, abducted by bigfoot,[1] have one of these boxes?

Sorry if all this sounds too negative! I'm optimistic that you can do it (I have no idea how to make an infobox at all...) Totnesmartin 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, they're reasonable things to say.

"there's an assumption that abductions are real, and carried out by aliens."

I've actually specified on the infobox page itself that the box applies only to alien abductions. All other paranormal and conventional abductions are specifically ruled out there. I don't think that it matters whether an abduction is real or not as far as the infobox goes, that's for the entry itself to discuss.

perfectblue 13:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just curious as to why you made it so alien abduction-specific? I'd have thought it would be more beneficial to make it open, so one could define the phenomena encountered (aliens, bigfoot, etc.), and the degree of the encounter (e.g. witnessed or abducted). --Careax 17:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of all of the different possible fields that you could have if you make something generic, I feel that it's best to keep things on a single track, and to make new boxes for different kinds of things rather than to make things more general.

I think this might be a little too specific in some cases. For example, I think "abductor" would be better off served with a description in the article itself to prevent artificially imposed pigeonholing. --InShaneee 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Most fields are optional. If you can't describe the alien, just leave it blank and it won't show up. There are some strict usage guidelines on the template page to stop unnecessary pigeon holing.

perfectblue 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

its pretty good i think. though InShaneee's probaly right about the too spefic thing. Idon'texist 18:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Solution, make more infoboxes. I suggest

• Paranormal people; a biography box (researchers, ufologists etc)
• Paranormal organizations (as above, but for groups that are research/report the paranormal, or are paranormal in themselves, for example UFO cults)
• Sightings

perfectblue 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask, but how much usage will this/these templates get? Can we get a rough page count? --InShaneee 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Consider them to be an investment. If Paranormal pages look professional we're more likely to inspire people to participate.

perfectblue 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, creating templates for a small section of the site seems more trouble than help. --InShaneee 20:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

well, if it is more harm than help, couldn't we just delete 'em.Idon'texist 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that, I'm just trying to get more information. --InShaneee 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Who's it troubling? Until a month or so ago, the project had no templates at all. I think that they give us a more professional look.

perfectblue 21:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But still, creating and maintaining templates that will only be used by a handful of pages seems to detract from the work of the page content, IMHO. --InShaneee 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Still, templates only have to be created once and the maintenance is minimal. I see them as an investment. The more professional and credible the project looks, the more members we can attract. The templates might only be used a few times now, but in a year's time we could be using them on 50 pages.

perfectblue 08:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree with perfectblue. i think any time a new infobox or template is created its a investment, and like i said before, if it doesn't work out after a period of time, like say a couple of months, we don't have to maintain it. it could work or it could not work.

Idon'texist 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Enfield Poltergeist

The article on Enfield Poltergeist requires attention from somebody with an interest in this area. It appears to be a somewhat controversial subject, and has repeatedly been reverted/vandalised. Looking through the history, there are a number of fuller accounts of the incident, but it requires the intervention of somebody with an interest in the subject to sort it out. As of this revision, I have reverted it to a short stub which is not biased to remove potentially libellous comments. Bob talk 12:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do people do that? There was a similar revert war on Kasai Rex (although without the libel)... The EP article is now on my watchlist, I will try to improve it. The reverter might need to be contacted and asked for his opinion; it might even need mediation. Totnesmartin 13:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What's a Paranormal AFD Noticeboard?

Ninety^wazup?

• Alot of projects keep track of AFDs within their scope. It actually hasn't been used at all. *shrug* ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• What's an AFD? Ninety^wazup?

It is an "Article for Deletion" discussion. Its how we decide if an article should or shouldn't be kept on wikipedia. You can read more about it on WP:AFD. You can see anouther project that does the same thing here ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How do I join the group?

Well, how? Zerath13

just sign the participants page and you're in.

Idon'texist 12:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Zerath13

Update on my recent work within project

I haven't been saying much here in the big debates because frankly, I haven't the time and am willing to abide by whatever decision the rest of you make with regard to the scope of the project and what is or isn't within our concern. I just wanted to let you all know I've been plugging away here and there. I decided to do what I could for La Llorona and it led me down a rabbit hole to Deer Woman, Tunda, back to Crybaby Bridge and around to historical persons and legends related to those areas. And of course, one always gets side-tracked, right?

I will continue to be semi-active but request that someone with better in-line citation and photo experience please take on the Gloria Ruiz Aka The Toxic Lady article. It would be a nice addtion to the Mad Gasser article and is a good modern example of a confusing event that is likely a combination of a real poisoning and mass hysteria. The source on the case I listed in my original comments (now archived I believe) was written by an R.N. who granted free use of her material. A photo of the unfortunate Ms. Ruiz who be nice too to remind people she was not just the Toxic lady but wife and a real person whose death, while odd, hurt her family all the more because of it's oddity and the resulting illnesses of those who attended to her.Lisapollison 17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Gloria Ramirez? ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that's odd - when I googled on the subject originally, her name was given as Ruiz in what seemed to be the most thorough sources. But then, just to find info on her since I only knew her first name, I had to addToxic Lady to the search. That may have been what tripped me up. I'm sure that Ramirez must be correct since someone did a decent article on it with external links and all. Thanks for letting me know. The name issue may have been due to an early error that was perpetuated all the way down to my own writing. Sometimes the internet can be like a game of telephone. Thanks SO much for letting me know. Now that I do know, I'll work on linking it to appropriate articlesd and adding whaterver needs to be added. I am very grateful for the info and help. I have, therefore, deleted the request for an article on Gloria Ruiz.

This is a great example good project cooperation. I was wasting time on a non-starter due to an error and was saved from wasting anymore time on it by another member with better info. Much appreciated. This project has really come to life in the past few months and i couldn't be more pleased.Lisapollison 14:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually wrote that article per your request. :) It still needs some expansion, but I've collected links to all the related new york times/AP articles on the talk page. ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Photograph on Ganzfeld Page

I originally uploaded a picture for the Ganzfeld page. Since I couldn't find a reliable source for it, I recreated a new one from scratch. Since this picture was created by me, I am releasing it into the public domain. Feel free to use it in other articles, websites, whatever. Cheers--Nealparr 16:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not promote original research

The Tesla effect AfD was posted on the paranormal noticeboard inappropriately. As a member of this WikiProject, I am concerned. The Tesla effect as originally researched by User:Reddi is not relevant to the paranormal. It is just original research. Please don't abuse the scope of this WikiProject. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A well-writen article on the Tesla effect in my opinion would fall under our scope... since it's quoted by new agers and quacks all over the place. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but we need evidence that a well-written article can be written that is relevant to this project. Right now, there is no evidence to this effect. I think it is better to list only articles on the noticeboard whose content right now is relevant to the project. As such, I'm going to implore members that if they want to list articles make sure that the content of the articles at the time of listing reflects the point of this project. Otherwise we open ourselves up to people using this as a free-for-all listing of whatever subjects catch their eye. --ScienceApologist 01:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a bad idea for the project, and one that has been roundly rejected by the wiki as a whole repeatedly. If the topic is relevant to the project, then it really doesn't matter what the content is; its in our scope. --InShaneee 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We need to look at ahead. If projects cherry pick based on content rather than potential then we'd all be swimming in unclaimed stubs that nobody wants to take responsibility for improving.

perfectblue 07:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You can only judge potential based on research. If you do the research to indicate that an article has potential then it should be no problem for you to edit the article so it won't be deleted. However, listing an article on our noticeboard based on its assumed potential is very problematic because it will encourage people to make uninformed or under-informed comments. --ScienceApologist 07:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Better to have an uninformed entry that can be improved (or AFDed) than to have no entry at all. This is why we have Be bold and Don't bite. We encourage people to try and then we help them to improve. AFD should be the last part of the process if an article truly has no merit and no hope of having merit.

perfectblue 11:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's quite the "inclusionist" vision of Wikipedia. Since we'll have both inclusionists and deletionists in this Wikipedia project, it's best to be non-partisan and only list articles that are unequivocally related to this project. AfD does not have to be the "last part" of a process. It can also be the first part. --ScienceApologist 13:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah. i think they're right. even if an article sucks its still part of the project.

Idon'texist 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately my research didn't reveal any reliable sources SA. If it had I'd have added them to the article or the debate. (I'm actually leaning towards delete on that debate, and I'm thinking about changing my !vote.)

It appears rough consensus here is for inclusion of the debate on the project page. I'm going to put it back on the list. Please note, being on that list DOES NOT mean the project is endorsing the article. (I'll add a note to that effect, since it might not be clear) That wasn't my intention with starting the list anyway. The idea is simply to keep a log of AFDs for research purposes. Since paranormal is a fringe topic, it is useful to see what the precedent for inclusion is. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your determination of consensus on this, though I acknowledge it's a little difficult to tell. Most of the comments here are of the variety criticizing AfD itself and not commenting on the primary thrust of my point which is that only articles which have content related to this project should be listed. Otherwise we'd have no standard for listing. I'm going to comment out the listing again. --ScienceApologist 13:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the page either comes under physics or pseudoscience. Unless somebody claims in the entry that the Telsa effect is useful for contacting the dead, or that it is a possible explanation for a paranormal event etc, then it's not in our jurisdiction and shouldn't be mentioned on the project front page.

perfectblue 13:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't pseudoscience part of our jurisdiction? The same type of websites that talk about Bigfoot, UFOs and miracle curing powers of magnets talk about the "tesla effect." ---J.S ^(T/C) 15:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always been working under the assumption that it isn't. --InShaneee 15:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? I always worked on completely the opposite preface, that "Pseudo science is an attempt to rationalized something using bad or unconventional science" and that the paranormal was "Something that could not be rationalized using science".

I accept that some pseudoscience (for example Chi generators etc and pseudoscientific explanations for hauntings etc) falls within the realms of Project Paranormal, but in instances when the pseudoscience is making no claims regarding things that go bump in the night (in this case, it is/is masquerading as genuine physics) it should be considered out of our domain.

perfectblue 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the definition of paranormal has to include things that can be rationalised using science. For example, UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, possibly ESP and maybe even ghosts could all, in the end, turn out to be perfectly understandable/rationalisable from a scientific standpoint. In many cases science would not even have to extend itself very much to deal with these things (e.g, bigfoot), yet these are all topics that clearly fall under the paranormal project's scope fairly straightforwardly.Davkal 16:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While these things can be rationalized by science, science has yet to agree rationalize them. At which point they will cease to be paranormal and become normal (When/if somebody sees a Bigfoot eating out of their trash, blasts it dead with a shotgun, then takes the remains along to their local vet, it will cease to become a cryptid and become part of regular zoology). But I see where you are coming from (I still think that most pseudo science is not paranormal. A lot of it is just bad science).

perfectblue 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

this may or may not turn out to be a stupid question, but how do we tell whether its pure pseudoscience or paranormal pseudoscience?

Idon'texist 20:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty tricky question to answer as there are no hard and fast rules and a lot of different variables involved. Basically, each one is a judgment call.

For me personally, I guess that it would depend on:

• The person making the claim (For example if Bob Lazar or John Keel made a pseudoscientific claim it might be in because of their association with the paranormal, but if a conventional scientist made the exact same claim it might be out).
• The context in which the claim was being made (If somebody makes a pseudoscience claim about a new type of propulsion and says that NASA made it from scratch then its out, but if they say that it was recovered from a UFO, then it's in)
• If it crosses with any accepted paranormal field (for example if the item of pseudoscience relates to detecting ghosts, or if it is about harnessing vital energies etc)
• If it is used as the basis for a cult or contactee groups and is way out there

perfectblue 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been a very fruitful discussion and I'm glad that we've determined a level of consensus. Can we agree that while some paranormal topics are pseudoscientific not all pseudoscientific topics are paranormal? So using pseudoscience as a justification for listing an AfD here is not good enough. The topic should be directly related to the paranormal. --ScienceApologist 06:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how picky we should be about what articles are included, but if the theoretical goal is to have at some point a well developed article on a topic and it doesn't seem like there's enough verifiable information on that topic, paranormal or not, maybe that's the clue.

It seems to me that any article, even paranormal articles on fringe topics, should start with the theoretical assumption that one day it will become a WP:FA, you know the whole process and goal of Wikipedia:

• Start as a stub
• Add all the crap you can think of
• Remove all the non-neutral points of view
• Rewrite it for style
• Get it accepted as a good article
• Get it accepted as a featured article
• Get it promoted to the front page
• Receive the traditional redirect to a penis graphic

I mean that's the goal right? : ) That's what I would call the Theoretical Cycle of Wiki Articles.

--Nealparr 07:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get an article I helped build redirected to a penis graphic. ---J.S ^(T/C) 07:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why stop at Penis graphics? If you're ambitious you could go for Goatse.cx.

perfectblue 07:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

what if you start with penis graphics, then where d'you go? :) Idon'texist 20:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly a larger penis graphic, or one with herpes shaped like a celebrity?

perfectblue 20:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ouch! nice one! glad i'm not a celebrity!

Idon'texist 21:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting page

Does the Paranormal project have anything like this: Skeptic watchlists? Dreadlocke ☥ 22:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not in the same format... but we do have a quality assessment program that keeps track of all the articles in the project. (some 570ish) ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It is a bit of a different format, isn't it?  :) - Dreadlocke ☥ 06:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Archiving the rest of this Talk page really would be a help. DrWho42 08:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We've got a bot on it now, so it will soon enough. --InShaneee 13:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The bot has been ticking away nicely based on a 30 days without comment cycle (threads that aren't active for 30 days are archived). The last archive can be found here.

perfectblue 13:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Would conspiracies as those pointed out by Alex Jones (radio) and Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations? DrWho42 08:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Would they...be under our scope? I'm inclined to say no. --InShaneee 13:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say "Most certainly not".

The former is entirely political. Unless he drags in David Ike's lizards (who are blamed for the same kind of thing), or says that Aliens are involved, it doesn't fall remotely in our territory.

While some of the the latter (for example claims about space radiation) might fall under pseudoscience, none of it should not be called paranormal because nobody is making any claims in that direction. We should only handle conspiracies if they unequivocally mention the paranormal or something that falls significantly beyond pseudoscience (eg the Philadelphia experiment)..

If we let in either of these things, we might as well let in the Kennedy assassination and the stories about pop rocks and cola too

perfectblue 13:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

no, i don't think there's anything paranormal about them.

Idon'texist 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

GA: The Mad Gasser of Mattoon?

I think The Mad Gasser of Mattoon could qualify as a GA. What does everyone else thing? ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

i think so. it looks good.

Idon'texist 12:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, nice article. It would be nice if it had a photo or picture too. --Careax 18:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a photo of one the houses attacked here [2]. It's copyrighted to the cfz, but we could ask them for permission. I can't see it getting GA without a picture. Totnesmartin 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been told that you can use sections from newspapers as pictures as they are an object demonstration allowable under wiki rules. I'll add one and see what everybody else thinks.

perfectblue 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't satisfy fair use requirements. Please see if we can get permission to use the images. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked on the Wikipedia help page and was previously been told that its OK to use newspaper clipping to illustrate the point of an entry so long as it was relevant. I've added a book cover dealing with the gasser in too, and I'm pretty certain that on topic book covers are always OK (the book was cited several times in the entry).

perfectblue 20:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So is it ok to upload an image included in a newspaper article (online or print) which directly relates to a paranormal article, and include it in that article? Is that in compliance with copyright? Or would one still need to ask permission fro the newspaper/photographer? --Careax 07:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Click the image above and read the licensing information on it... (I pulled it off the picture which was linked from the West Coast air raid article:

Hope this helps! --Nealparr 08:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a slightly different thing in mind. A while ago I was told that you could use a section of a newspaper (rather than a picture from a newspaper) as an image so long as you could included a rational to say that you were using that image to illustrate an object point related to the page's topic. I posed the question on a wiki help board and that was the answer that I was given.

perfectblue 08:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Same thing would probably apply. The license reads "This image is of a scan of a newspaper page or article". That picture probably isn't the best example. I meant it more as a link to the license. A better example (though it's licensed improperly) would be the one on the Roswell incident page. I think the idea is to show that an article exists, or that a newspaper exists, without using it as a way to get around copyrights. I mean, if one was thinking, "OK, so copyright prevents me from copying and pasting an entire article, so I'll just take a picture of what I want to lift and do it that way," that's probably outside the spirit of fair use. A low resolution, almost unreadable scan like the Roswell paper would be more in the spirit of fair use. Of course, that's just my interpretation. I'm not a lawyer. --Nealparr 09:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the article is close to GA, let's nominate it! Totnesmartin 00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Great discovery

I've just been told that ALL of the pictures taken by the fake spirit photographer William Hope are now public domain because he died over 70 years ago.

I've uploaded the 6 pictures that I have to Wiki-Commons, if any of you have any more, please feel free to add them.

• 
  Mr and Mrs Gibson and the spirit of their deceased son (1919).
• 
  Paranormal investigator William Hope, and Friend (February 1922).
• 
  Reverend Charles L Tweedale, his wife, and the spirit of her deceased father (5 September 1919).
• 
  Mrs Hortense Leverson and the spirit of her deceased husband, Major Leverson (1931).
• 
  The annual meeting of the" Society for the Study of Supernormal Pictures". Including Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his wife (Center, Left) (1922).
• 
  Mrs Longcake and the spirit of her deceased sister-in-law.

perfectblue 16:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

France to release government UFO reports

Hey, I've just heard that France is to do what we've all been calling on Washington to do for years, to declassify most of their UFO records.

[3]

perfectblue 21:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Newsletter!

Before I say anything, I just wanted to thank each and every member of this project who helped make it what it is in 2006. When you consider that just nine months ago, this was us, you can appreciate just how far we've come together. You guys have put in a lot of hard work on a lot of articles, and help put together the systems to sustain and improve this project into the far future. Speaking from multiple conversations over the past few months, I can say definitively that it's because of all your effort that paranormal articles on Wikipedia as well as the people that work on them have gained a lot of respect from the community as a whole. So, thank you again everyone; I look forward to seeing what we can accomplish in the new year.

Now, the announcement: I went ahead and created a project newsletter! The instructions for 'subscribing' to it are all on that page, and I welcome any questions/comments you may have on it.

Oh, and also, the new Collaboration, Cottingley Fairies, is now live. Happy New Year! --InShaneee 15:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the "then and now" comparison very encouraging - I'm planning a wikiproject on my home county, and it's nice to see how fast a little acorn can grow! And i forgot to sign again... sigh Totnesmartin 16:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling all members

Paranormal Vanishing is getting a kicking in the vote for deletion section. Could members take a look at the page and try to bring it up to scratch in order to avoid deletion. I've done some work on it but it's far from perfect. It really needs some more hypothesis other than the 4th dimension stuff which really turns non-paranormal people off.

perfectblue 14:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good news, the nominator has changed to a 'No opinion' following the re-write of the article. DarkSaber2k 14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added what I think is a good reason to keep, but think the article could do with a a lot more good quality content given the extensive history of the subject. Davkal 15:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The folklore idea was great, but I don't know anything about folklore, would somebody care to start it off?

perfectblue 16:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I will try to sort it tomorrow, although the last time I checked, it had been deleted. Has it been reverted?Totnesmartin 19:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

some basic folklore added and some links, but i'm not a folklorist and can't do it justice. I'm also going to retitle it to "Strange disappearances" since that's what seems to apply best (see its talk page for web search analysis). Totnesmartin 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there cases of alleged UFO abductions where the subject disappears for several hours or longer? If so these would also be relevant to this article. I did some quick research and found no such examples on Google. But it's not really my field of knowledge. Also, what about the Bermuda Triangle? Would these two topics be mentioned under the Vanishing in Folklore section? --Careax 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Travis Walton springs to mind. Although it looks like a hoax, but could have folkloric elements. There are perhaps two strands there: folklore elements used in the hoax, and development of the story as folklore. We need a folklorist to look at it really, I don't know much about it.Totnesmartin 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfectblue, in the future don't campaign for votes here. It's ok to make a note about the article being up for deletion, but asking for a specific goal isn't kosher. ---J.S (t|c) 19:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of cases of disappearances linked to UFOs where the persons (and planes in some cases) have never been found. Valentich, currently dealt with in the article, is probably the best known but there are others -one happened in the Bermuda triangle - I will get details.Davkal 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that the flurry of rescue edits has ended, the main problem is its title. anyone interested may go to the talk page and offer their opinion. Totnesmartin 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC) This last question is now settled. Totnesmartin 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)