Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Perfect Blue is a semi active member of the paranormal community who has experiences some strange and weird things in their time, and believes that there are huge areas that have yet to be rationalized with mainstream thinking that should be documented in a rational and logical manner, even if the areas themselves do not appear rational or logical.
However, Perfect Blue is also a natural born skeptic who has never:
Experienced anything sufficiently spectral for it not to be the product of too much X-Files late at night, or too much coffee early in the morning.
Seen any giant footprints in the snow that didn't look like half melted bear track.
Seen anything in the sky that didn't look a flock of geese, a boring aircraft, or drunken frat boy who's tied helium balloons to their scrotum and jumped out of a window in dorm opposite while wearing nothing but an ET mask (EEEEEWWWWWWWWWW).
Heard anything new age that didn't sound like it was thought up by somebody in possession of a water pipe and some particularly strong weed.
Core Tenets
When editing articles on the paranormal, Perfect Blue has several core beliefs that have, on occasion, brought them into conflict with other Wikipedians including that:
An occurrence that cannot be fully rationalized using both science and conventional wisdom is still an occurrence - All be it a disputed one with a possible alternative explanation (including that it didn't actually happen) – and should they should therefore be afforded the same editorial respect as an undisputed occurrence.
Leading words like alleged, so-called and supposed should be avoided as they create prejudice in the reader. If they are included they should only be used the first time that an event is written about in an article, and not each time that it is mentioned.
Because urban myths and beliefs based on bad premise can be a strong and influential force on people, it often as important to record evidence or links that exist solely in the minds of believers as it is to record actual empirical evidence. The same goes for pseudoscience, bad science, and crank hypothesis.
It can be a fact that somebody has said something or believes something even if the contents of what they said is a factually inaccurate (Or a downright lie). It can also be a fact that what they say is influential in other people's thinking, even if it appears to be plainly evident that it is not true to you (see above).
Every sections containing mainstream hypothesis about a paranormal occurrence should be accompanied by at least one section containing a fringe hypothesis, or a hypothesis that believes that the original hypothesis is wrong, if such hypothesis exist. And vice-versa.
Main stream scientist are usually quite concerned about remaining in the mainstream and maintaining their credibility with other mainstream scientists so they will often either avoid certain issues, or avoid making any findings that stray too far from the conventionally accepted wisdom of that issue. Therefore, the lack of mainstream opinion on a topic does not necessarily reflect its notability or credibility, OR make mainstream findings any more scientifically valid than those of similarly qualified fringe groups.
Equally, and especially in relation to the above, not everything is a conspiracy. Wacky stuff should be written so as to exclude the maximum amount of wackiness while maintaining the core of the account, and some types of opinions or account should be excluded in order to maintain quality standards of an article (if you must talk to a rednecks about Bigfoot, try to avoid the one holding shotgun and talking about how a Sasquatch ate his pappy back in 63).
.svg){kind=small}
