Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Userboxes

You should see about adding the parnormal user boxes to the Interest Userboxes list. SkeezerPumba 21:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Could'nt find anything, and there is a userbox WAR going on. Martial Law 09:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)

How will the userbox war effect us? Mahogany-wanna chat?

It won't. It's only going against "polemical or divisive" templates. A small userbox for a wikiproject will not be polemical or divisive.--Toffile 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

New category proposal

I think Wikipedia could use an all-purpose category for non-fiction writers who have specialized in paranormal and anomalous phenomena (eg, Jerome Clark, Troy Taylor, Loren Coleman, Jerry D. Coleman, William R. Corliss...), but I'm not sure what we should name it. Would "Fortean writers" be okay? Zagalejo 05:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good Mahogany-wanna chat?

Radio shows

I've located these radio shows:

Coast To Coast AM

Jeff Rense's radio show. Martial Law 23:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Websites are www.coasttocoastam.com and www.rense.com. Both radio shows deal with UFOs, aliens, and other paranormal related material. The Coast to Coast AM radio show is currently seeking guests to discuss all manner of bizarre and paranormal related matter. Martial Law 23:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Yeah, they'll let anyone on those shows. Be careful about using them as a source; they've promoted a lot of known/suspected hoaxers. (Still entertaining, though.) Zagalejo 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. Art Bell and George Noory has tossed personnel, one for being incoherent. Martial Law 01:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC) :)

There hardly peer review, but they are the "pulse" of the paranormal community. ---J.Smith 17:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Online source of Radio shows....

The following is a website to "Psi Talk". This is Psi Talk homepage, which is about locating radio shows and/or stations that handle paranormal matters without the "Giggle Factor", officially sanctioned ridicule, that sort of thing. Martial Law 08:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Only problem is that the site allows spam, such as the usual mess seen on TV commercials, to come to YOU. Martial Law 08:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Also, watch for those "You have WON" scams. Do NOT mess with these @ all, unless you want a virus. Site itself is OK, the "Spam" is NOT. Use caution. Martial Law 08:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Convert to a WikiProject?

As I replied to User:Martial Law on WP:VPM, I suggest that you convert this into a WikiProject because your goal is to improve articles pertaining to a certain subject (in this case paranormal topics). Therefore, you should read the directions on WP:PJ, including how to set up and advertise a WikiProject. Of course, I would also recommend that if you do convert this into a Wikiproject, that you rename it to the standard "Wikipedia:WikiProject projectname" title. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll start on it but will need some help Mahogany-wanna chat? Can I help with anything? Zagalejo 00:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Yes if you want to just do it being that I'm doing other things at the moment but I'll get around to it. Mahogany-wanna chat?

All done!!! Mahogany-wanna chat?

Help

I'm doing some redesigning. Feel free to revert anything I do or rearrange it in any way, as these are only friendly suggestions. --DanielCD 02:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a slight name change: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal-related Article Watch. --DanielCD 02:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Need a WikiProject Banner

Need a WikiProject Banner, maybe one with a UFO or a Grey Alien ? Martial Law 02:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC) :)

• Made one. Based it off of the congress wikiproject's banner. We can make it better looking as we go along. ---J.Smith 18:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Similar project, don't re-invent the wheel

We are all aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, are we not, a similar project? Seems a waste to reinvent the wheel.

dino 22:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No. It is not. This is more open to paranormal matters w/o the insults, (Found a article in which UFO witnesses , investigators were called "UFO Fanatics". Tossed that abusive comment out for being "POV-Skeptic" and is a insult to those telling the truth. "Fanatic" implies that the person is crazy.) and abuse that is initiated by the US govt. upon UFO/Alien witnesses, investigators in these protocol: The Robertson Panel, Project Grudge, related protocol. I was in Fouke, Arkansas long ago, investigating the Fouke Bigfoot Incident when some idiot wanted to shoot me IF I was a "Skeptic". What happened is that on some major media, the skeptics flat out said that these people were lying, ignorant, drunken hillbillies. Martial Law 07:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

I agree with Martial Law Mahogany-wanna chat?

I think the two projects have overlapping "territory" but vastly different goals. We want to expand the coverage of paranormal article whereas WP:RS is more about expanding the "criticism" type sections. We ain't here to replace or compete with you guys... we just have a slightly different outlook on things. ---J.Smith 17:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Paranormal news"

If the "Paranormal news" section has a wiki-purpose, it needs to be made more clear. Tuf-Kat 03:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It has and does. The first item is about a mainsteam newspaper which has done some UFO stories w/o the disrepect and the "Giggle Factor". Martial Law 08:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC) :)

The newspaper source may have new info for the UFO article. Martial Law 20:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Problem with stubs...

Well, fist of all.. they are all pointing at the depreciated project space. That's easy to fix... I'll work on that latter. Secondly, none of them have categories! I'm not realy sure how to fix that, but there you go. ---J.Smith 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well any ideas for different categories, we do have some from the new merged group. A few more will need to be made Mahogany-wanna chat?

I don't realy know anything about the stub-cat layout. ---J.Smith 20:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Psychics

I'm jazzed about Sylvia Browne and Edgar Cayce capabilities. My wife is an online tarot reader and we're driving a car that tarot built & we're living in a house that tarot built. Ever since high school I've been intrigued with reading about the paranormal - that's been 40 years, now. The Amazing Randi and the other dishonest debunkers (who call themselves "sceptics") can go hang. Psychism works!! Mabe not for everyone. But, then, not every lawyer, nor every surgeon is competent. - Andrew Homer 19:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sceptics are extremely important. To create better understanding of the unknown believers and sceptics need to work together. Especially in scientific research studies such as EVP. Sceptics demand excellence and we should do nothing less then to oblige. We need to admit when we might be wrong and we need to acknowledge when there might be other explanations. Otherwise, we are no better then crackpots and "they" would be right in naming us so. ---J.Smith 20:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

EVP

So many to choose from. •Jim62sch• 23:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:POINT please.... or if you seriously don't know what one it is, then ask. ---J.Smith 23:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT has nought to do with this. In any case, I've responded on your talk page. When you're going to use a link, you should use the correct one. Assuming that the only people who will see this page are those familiar with EVP probably isn't a good idea.

Anyway, I've removed most of the post...take it easy•Jim62sch• 00:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry for responding snidely. ---J.Smith 00:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Reporting on the paranormal

These comments are originally from the main page, I moved them here on the request of others - I still think they are highly relevant (and controversial, I know).

I think an important part of such a project is to establish consensus on how to report on supernatural phenomenon. How do the relevant articles currently look with regards to this and what wikipedia guidelines are relevant. I believe that phenomenon that go against our current understanding of the universe should be reported as "some believe/report" and that all (or some typical) evidence for and against should be written up with a note on why the scientific community does not believe the phenomenon - these matters are what I wanted to open a discussion on, I hope you find it important too. In the spirit of honesty, I would like to ask the participants about their views on the paranormal and how they plan to/believe one should report on it. Lundse 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Lundse - I am skeptic, I have heard of no peer-reviewed nor reproducable experiments on paranormal phenomenon. On the contrary, there is still over 1,000,000$ up for anyone who can show any psychic, occult or otherwordly effects - no takers. I believe articles on the paranormal should be neutral, telling accurately what adherents believe and why - and why mainstream science (ie. applied common sense) does not buy into the phenomenon. Attempts to prove such phenomena should be reported, along with any methodological problems with these proofs.

Aside from that, reporting of paranormal phenominon should not be done anywhere on wikipedia, as any information posted here must have verifiable sources. And, as above, we must be neutral on any subjects presented, by simply writing about what we can verify (and any verifiably held positions) as we have it. --InShaneee 19:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

I do have a question, about Apport. Could it possibly be related to the experiences seen in twins, such as transmitted feeling (where one twin feels something, and the other does as well, even if miles away)? Other than that, I'll see what I can find on the subject. ThirdEye 19:46, 21 March 2006

Howdy. I'm super excited to be a part of a WikiProject on just an exciting topic. Kudos on getting this setup! One thing is stuck in my mind, however. How do we choose to differ between religious and supernatural? ProfMoriarty 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You tell the difference by searching for any religious person or thing in the artice, then read that sentance or paragraph to see if it sounds supernatural or religious. ~VNinja~ 19:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is "supernatural" the best term? No, "paranormal" is.

Note: My original title was Is "supernatural" the best term?. Someone else added the rest. Fuzzypeg 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In relation to occultism, witchcraft and magic, it is common for occultists to avoid using the word supernatural, since in many schools of thought magic is considered to be a part of nature, rather than some separate force (apart from nature). This is from philosophies that hold that everything is ultimately one, and there is no creator-creation duality. If the concept of God is considered, for instance, we are part of God, and God can also be termed the universe or nature, etc.

Thus "supernatural" tends to imply "fictitious", since a thing cannot be "beyond" or "outside of" nature. Instead other words are employed, like "paranormal" (note this term is used to disambiguate a few articles). This doesn't imply that miraculous things don't happen, but it does conveniently imply that the cause of these things may be within our sphere of influence.

I know this is just the name of a project, and in itself should cause no problems, but I want to make sure some care is taken with how terminology is allowed to creep into articles. Fuzzypeg 16:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein: I believe in God, but I call God by the term "nature". StarHeart 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between what is nature and what "scientists" are currently capable of explaining. Once upon a time, to state that "the world is round" would have been a "supernatural" claim. StarHeart 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You bring an interesting point. However, if I understand correctly, "supernatural" implies "separate from nature." I would presume this meant "nature as defined by science." If we recognize, as an encyclopedia that delivers unbiased and neutral information, that seperate from the definitions of science, an institution that definetly does not associate with the supernatural, does not equal invalid, I think we are okay. ProfMoriarty 18:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Supernatural literally means "beyond natural". 2. I would guess that the word "nature" is not precisely defined within any branch of science. That's the kind of definition that would be more likely (and more useful) within philosophy or metaphysics. 3. Occultists generally take the simplest approach and define nature as "everything", unless they believe in a transcendent deity – see my further comments below. The point remains that the term "supernatural" rankles with a lot of mystics and occultists because it implies fictitiousness. Fuzzypeg 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Once the latest research tools allows the "scientists" to EXPLAIN observed phenomena, then that phenomena is no longer referred to as being "occult" or "paranormal" or "supernatural". Maybe there would be less confusion to use the term "paranormal". StarHeart 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agreee that paranormal is the better term. Supernatural has connotations of "miracles", ie. things out of the order of the universe (which is really a nonsensical notion), and it implies that the universe has something "outside" it which can affect it (which is too POV, in my mind, and it is at odds with how many adherents of these beliefs view matters). Lundse 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The concept that the universe has something 'outside' of it which can affect it (normally God) is termed transcendence. It's actually quite common (most Christian churches follow this model), and provides an explanation of reality that allows miracles but also has laws of nature that don't allow miracles. This philosophical standpoint is not so helpful though, when it comes to actually interacting with this transcendent reality (God, whatever). Without going into a huge theological exegesis, suffice it to say that this philosophy is much less common amongst occultists. Fuzzypeg 16:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I know. I am an idealist myself, but still have huge problems with the notion (it either collapses to dualism or just plain collapses, IMHO). I would have thought a lot of occultists accepted it though, but then again, it does seem that holism (and hence moism) is the thing right now (which, oddly, aligns current science with current occultism...) I do think that most sciences (if not all) adhere to a (physical) monism, meaning that they define "nature" as "everything" (regarding your comment on it not being defined) Lundse 13:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I realize we'd have to make a statement limiting the scope of the project, I do believe that 'paranormal' is a more proper term. --InShaneee 01:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Scope of Wikiproject Supernatural

What is the scope of this project? How many ideas are you attempting to bring together? Are you interested in bringing things like Angels and Demons (mentioned elsewhere in the discussion page), Legendary Creatures, Ghosts, supernatural phenomenon, hauntings, ESP, telekinesis, etc? Or is it more focused on paranormal activity, or "real" experiences had by individuals? Exodio 04:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about that as well (and don't want to start tagging pages as 'project' pages until I'm sure). Anyone want to discuss? --InShaneee 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)