Revision as of 22:25, 28 July 2007

This page is not for reporting the paranormal, it is for discussing Misplaced Pages articles related to the paranormal.

Archives Old Supernatural Project March 31 - April 17 April 18 - May 8 May 9 - August 26 August 27 - October 6 October 7 - November 9 November 9 - December 14 December 15 - Present

Template:WikiProject Paranormal navigation

WikiProject Paranormal To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-08-05 This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Paranormal Project‑class This page falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. The current Paranormal Collaboration of the Month is Cottingley Fairies. Please improve the article any way you can. Every month a different Paranormal-related topic is picked. The candidate with the most support as of 31 March 2007 UTC will become the next Collaboration of the Month. The current time is 01:35, Friday, December 27, 2024 (UTC). The previous collaboration was Electronic voice phenomenon.

Bots

• i am not sure how to use Bots in wikipedia, but maybe someone here does ... what i wanted to do was use any bots to go through the Category:UFOs and clean up all the articles there and all the articles in its subcategories automatically ... i figure they need a good cleaning -Nima Baghaei 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Clean up"? What exactly is it you want to do? - perfectblue 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• get Bots to go through and fix any wiki links and inter-wiki links, grammer issues (example: typos), the format and style of articles, and whatever else is usually done during a cleanup -Nima Baghaei 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

maybe you could find a bot that does all that, go to its creator (should be linked on the bot's userpage) and ask them to set one up for you - perhaps just ordering it to sweep particular categories. They'd probably be pleased that someone likes their bot! Totnesmartin 19:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• i went ahead and requested on a couple of bot pages, hopefully I will get some results -Nima Baghaei 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do tell us if you do! Totnesmartin 21:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Question of scope...

Just passing through to ask a question... Is it within this project's scope to include articles that deal with the paranormal in fiction?

The reason I ask is that I've come across articles that seem odd to be included:

Etrigan the Demon: Dealing with the comic book character (a fictional demon) and the various comic book series in which it was featured in the primary character.

Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis: Dealing with computer game that used Atlantis as a setting.

I was wondering if like articles should have the project tag added, or if these cases should have it removed.

Thanks

- J Greb 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those articles fall under our scope. Feel free to remove the tags. Zagalejo 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

the Cryptozoology wikiproject used to (putting tags on The Little mermaid etc) but we don't, normally. I think we have enough to do as it is. Etrigan eh? Does he still talk in rhyme? Totnesmartin 21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that articles on paranormal fiction would fall under our project if they have a decided impact on society's attitudes or perception of the subject they delve into. Simply having reference to paranormal activity would mean we would have to include practically all Stephen King novels, for instance. Though I am a major fan of King, such should go instead to the Wikiprojects on fiction writing. --Chr.K. 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I strongly disagree with items of fiction being included under our tag. If something is fiction written as fiction (as opposed to an urban myth or a hoax which are fiction written with the intent of passing themselves of as fact) then it should be clearly demarked as being separate. We already have enough trouble as it is with the less than scientific of the neighborhood skeptics who accuse us of promoting fiction as fact when we talk about UFO sightings etc.

With this said, I have no problem with reference being made "to" works of fiction within paranormal entries. For example the page about greys includes a lot of details about their appearance an devolution in the public consciousness, which of course includes the X-files, outer limits and so on which are relevant as greys are as much a social/cultural object as they are anything else. - perfectblue 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Original Research instered into Crybaby Bridge article - could members take a look?

It appears a well-meaning skeptical editor has inserted some original research into the article. Their argument is fascinating and possibly worthy of conclusion if it can be found to be something other than original research. From what I see, it seems that they have done the old "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" routine also known as: WP:SYN. This is a wikipedia No-No. In their overhaul, they also deleted a lot of other unrelated material. On the talk page I requested feedback rather than just delete the OR material because it is an interesting argument. My issue with the proposed hoax theory is that as described, it fits the pattern of internet fueled folklore which is not the same thing as a hoax., it is merely another type of folklore. The term Crybaby Bridge may be traceable to the Shadowlands website as the editor alleges, but the folk tales of such bridges certainly pre-existed. Most were simply referred to as haunted bridges. Please take a look and weigh in with an opinion if you can. As always, this project welcomes documental skeptical viewpoints on such paranormal topics with the issue here being documented. My hope is that we can document BOTH the folklore about such sites AND the skeptical viewpoint that they are all just fruit of the Shadlowlands 'tree" so to speak.LiPollis 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Require him/her to document all the material presented. If it is not done, excise it, and explain that it must be referenced, whether for or against. --Chr.K. 21:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

NIDS marked for deletion

FYI, National Institute for Discovery Science has been marked for deletion as a non-notable corporation. --Careax 15:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not relating to this case specifically, but...... I sometime wonder what percentage is greater, the percentage of people who are unaware of the notability of a subject when they afd-notability tag if, or the percentage of people who are aware of the subjects notability who are afd-ing because they'd rather that the subject wasn't notable/know? - perfectblue 20:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalised articles

Another wikiproject (WP:MEXICO) has a small section listing frequently vandalised articles, and asks members to keep watch on those pages. Is that worth doing here? Or is the watchlist and semi-protection enough? Totnesmartin 08:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The types of edits that we have problems with are mostly POV pushing and skeptical content blanking/source removal. These are primarily opinion based edits rather than outright vandalism so they fall quite some way outside of edits that it is permissable to hate. Due to this, if we were to put up a list of the pages under our remit that we have the the most problems keeping clean we'd be open to claims that we were purposefully slapping WP:AGF in the face.

As for stereotypical vandalism, we don't really attract very much of that. Do we? - perfectblue 08:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A few articles do. Loch Ness Monster is my most edited article, and most of those were vandalism reversions. I do assume good faith (sometimes, I admit, through gritted teeth), unless someone replaces the page with THERE IS NO SUCH THING, or POOOOOOOOOP! Totnesmartin 08:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC) ((perhaps I shouldn't say that here?) Totnesmartin 08:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to find that instead of saying that there is no such thing, people tend to delete the sections about people who believe that there is such a thing, which falls outside of vandalism rules except where it's big enough to count as blanking. - perfectblue 09:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with List of paranormal subjects

I created a spin-off of the main paranormal page's "subjects" so that I can summarize the more notable ones in a more encyclopedic fashion. I don't really have the time to work on the List of paranormal subjects page as I'm focusing on the main page. It needs sources and descriptions, better intro, and so on. If anyone wants to tackle it, it'd be much appreciated. --Nealparr 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I would have to strongly contest your inclusion of topics such as Reflexology, Homeopathy and other alternative health beliefs/practices. Alternative yes, Pseudoscience maybe, paranormal no. They are to the paranormal what miniature golf is to professional cycling. - perfectblue 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not my inclusion. That's just what's accumulated on the paranormal page over the years. Part of the help that's needed is weeding out things that don't belong there and adding ones that were missed. To start, I copied over the list verbatim. I believe those entries originally came from Randi's list of paranormal topics in his challenge FAQs, so reliablitiy would be an issue. --Nealparr 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

join

how do we join?--Sonicobbsessed 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just sign the participants section. Happy editing! Zagalejo 05:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Killer Badgers

I'm thinking of doing a page on the Iraqi urban myth that British soldiers released man eating badgers (later proven to be honey badgers forced to shift habitats by human incursions) around Basra to terrorize the locals.

There is already a little about the story under Ratel, but I want to expand it out into a full urban myth/conspiracy entry. However, I'm stuck for a name for the entry as there appears to be no single name that I can use. What does everybody else suggest? I was thinking Killer badger (Basra).

It's a notable story in Britain and made the BBC news (The BBC is Britain's largest news broadcaster and is universally a WP:RS source).

perfectblue 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

killer badgers iraq gets 312,000 google hits, with a few from reliable news sources (and quite a lot from "hey wow" sites). Go for it (if I may use an eighties-ism)! It probably needs to be a different article, it would be silly in ratel and frivolous in an Iraq War article. Totnesmartin 08:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

RS opinion

Hi. I noticed that Fortean Times falls under the scope of this project and I wanted to get opinions on whether or not it was a WP:RS for Factual errors item #3, which is currently under dispute for volating WP:NOR, and we're trying to find an appropriate source for it. Here is the relevant Fortean Times article. The WP article is What the Bleep Do We Know!?. A movie. It's a looong dispute, but if you want to read up on it - it starts here. Fortean Times doesn't look too reliable to me- but I'm not that familiar with it. Thanks! Dreadstar † 08:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I get FT every month, it's pretty reliable - that is, it depends on news media for some of its material, and essays etc for the rest, so its as reliable as the news media and the people who write for it. But it's not a credulous "hey wow" magazine, often pointing out errors in reports etc. Totnesmartin 08:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Foretean Times should be considered a totally reliable source for ideas, opinions, the existence of belief, and for what people said that they saw (If somebody said that they saw a UFO then it can be taken as given that they believe that they did) and for the careers of skeptics/believers. I also personally believe that it is mostly reliable for science too (It's certainly reliable for reporting on pseudoscience), though I don't believe that skeptics would accept it as such and you would have a fight on your hands if you tried to proffer it as a scientific source near the pseudo-skeptics that sometimes show up. - perfectblue 17:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it..;) The editors want to use it as a source to debunk what seems tobe a paranormal claim:

“When the tall European ships first approached the early Native Americans, it was such an ‘impossible’ vision in their reality that their highly filtered perceptions couldn’t register what was happening, and they literally failed to ‘see’ the ships.”

..how South Americans could see the boats that the explorers landed in, but not the ships anchored offshore. Their shaman stared out to sea and by imagining what he was looking for, was finally able to make out the ships. He was then able to point them out to others, until at last everyone could see the ships. The shaman could do this because he alone was open to the possibilities of strange things from other worlds

Sounds like it's a good source, from the statements above. Anyone disagree? Dreadstar † 17:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

FT is certainly a reliable source to say that "this is X's hypothesis", which is all that's really needed. As for paranormal? This isn't a paranormal claim, it's a psychological one. It's not that the ships were invisible to the natives because their minds overrode their eyes through some kind of witchcraft, it's simply that they didn't recognize the ships as a threat or a usable resource (not an enemy, not food, etc) and so didn't register them as being important until somebody whose life didn't revolve around hunting and gathering (and so was able to take more time to contemplate things) pointed at them and said "hey, those shapes over there, they look interesting. What do you suppose they are".

Most suburban Americans will simply not see the odd fire ant about their yard until such time as they get bitten by one, at which point they will start to notice them everywhere. - perfectblue 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bet they'd notice those fire-ants a lot sooner if they were the size of those European sailing ships! (shades of...Them!...;) Dreadstar † 18:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, you can be sure of one thing; no matter what size the ant sooner or latter a pseudo-skeptic will come along and deny that millions of people not only believe that ants exist, but claim to have seen them. They may even claim that the lack of peer reviewed articles about fire ants found in astronomy journals proves that ants are not notable in popular culture. - perfectblue 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! That is splendid, perfectblue! Dreadstar † 08:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Fortean Times article itself relies on sources indicated by the numbers next to claims. For example, footnote "1" refers to "Candace Pert, Molecules of Emotion, Scribner, 1997" (the links are in the blue box to the right). --Nealparr 18:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a neat one:

“The ship passd within a quarter of a mile of them and yet they scarce lifted their eyes from their employment; I was almost inclind to think that attentive to their business and deafned by the noise of the surf they neither saw nor heard her go past them.”

Cook's diary 27 April 1770 at southseas.nla.gov.au

--Nealparr 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cook's Diary? Are you sure, I could have sworn that it was Joseph Banks (who accompanied Cook) who wrote that. - perfectblue 07:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology accepted as GA

Persistence pays. Parapsychology was accepted as a WP:Good --Nealparr 18:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, has anybody updated the project front page? - perfectblue 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I put it in the GA list, not sure where else it would go. --Nealparr 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Page hijacking

Somebody has hijacked the project's page about the Iraqi Killer badger urban myth and has redirected it to the page on the Ratel, cutting out almost all catagorizations etc that link it to our project in the process. They placed a merge template on it and redirected the page within 24 hours, completely insufficient for anybody to object. I create the page and I wasn't even notified, as the creating project a notice should at the very least have been placed here.

perfectblue 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, it was very quick. What was the rush? And i see your reversion has been reverted. Totnesmartin 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is the perfect situation to put up a de-merge/split tag. Under no circumstances should an entry about real life animal be merged so utterly with an distinct urban legend. It's like Merging the page about characters from the lion king with the page about lions. - perfectblue 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Feline Psionics

I would appear people in New England have encountered a new form of precognition. "Oscar the Cat predicts patients' deaths" I say we create an Oscar the Cat article on him. --Chr.K. 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Might be better at Telepathic Animal Communication, although that article is a bit crap at the moment. And what of all the other future-telling, mind-reading and psychic-danger-warning animals in the literature? Totnesmartin 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles on all of them, if I had my way, but for now, likely simpler to have additional sections for each such animal in an all-encompassing animal psionics page. EDIT: Btw, are you back? --Chr.K. 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Back from where? or what? Totnesmartin 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that there was already an entry on animal sixth senses? Shouldn't this be part of that? I don't believe that this is notable enough to have its own page and that it would be Afd on Notability grounds by skeptics. It has more chance of survival as part of something bigger. - perfectblue 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal preference would be a large article with lots of sections rather than a slew of stubs. It would also be easier to include examples that wouldn't justify even a stub. Totnesmartin 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

For some unfathomable reason, nobody has seen fit to mention that the arbitration results are in and can be viewed here.

perfectblue 07:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Friday night drinking is my excuse : ) --Nealparr 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Geographically speaking, it's still Friday night in some parts of the world. If you lived on the west coast, the good clubs would be getting ready to open. - perfectblue 07:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall, it's gone a little better than I expected. To summarize the good parts:

It' OK to call people contactees or psychics as these are cultural labels rather than statements on the existence/validity of aliens or psychic abilities. As such, putting so-called or alleged etc in front has been ruled against. Precedent permits the inclusion of beliefs that exist in popular culture and not science. Beliefs without scientific foundations/incorrect scientific (pseudoscientific) foundations exist and are a valid perspective for discussion. Saying that something is paranormal (or new age etc) is sufficient framing to set somethig apart from proven scientific fact. So, explicit statements about not being accepted by mainstream science, or not scientifically proven are unnecessary.

Probably the most important bit. Regarding epistemological status, if something is believed to exist but not proven to exist, discussion of the controversy and belief is the important part. The science forms part of the content, but it not the entire content.

perfectblue 07:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My analysis is mostly the same, but I'll add a few things for clarification.

• Contactees/psychics are cultural labels and need no other qualifier. Statements about someone's supposed abilities probably do. Ex. Sylvia Browne is a professional psychic. She is said to have the ability to... etc (or some variation on that).
• I wouldn't say "so-called" and "alleged" have been "ruled against", but rather that they don't necessarily add anything new to the discussion. The WP:WTA are guidelines rather than rules.
• Pop culture is a notable view and can be included along with the scientific view, even if the two aren't compatible.
• I didn't see anything about "explicit statements about not being accepted by mainstream science, or not scientifically proven are unnecessary". I may have missed that part. I do think they mentioned that the scientific view doesn't have to be the main view covered (science doesn't have much to say about unicorns), but I think it may still be necessary regarding the "epistemological status" of many paranormal phenomena, especially when science is invoked as part of the epistemological statement. For example, a statement that suggest that there is scientific evidence for EVPs would be framed heavily by the mainstream scientific view that the evidence isn't largely accepted.

One last thing, that is actually very, very important, and may cause the case to be reopened.

• Reverts are heavily frowned upon and they intimidate users from participating. Strong caution is advised on reverts, and edit wars aren't tolerated.

--Nealparr 18:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, most reverts were made by skeptics blanking the edits of project members. We aren't their keepers and cannot be held responsible for their actions. This is a matter between them and the arbitrators, it is not our concern so long as we keep our house in order.

As far as I am concerned, principles 1, 3, 6.1, 6.2 and findings 5, 11, 12 protect all valid edits by ensuring that popular culture and unscientific beliefs can be recorded "as believed" alongside side mainstream science because they are part of the framing of a topic and the discussion of it in total. - perfectblue 19:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars always involve at least two parties. --Nealparr 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if our house is in order then it will be obvious that we are not the inciting party. The arb validates the inclusion of correctly framed beliefs, urban legends and paranormal etc. If there are a few rogues in our ranks who add outlandish and invalid content, then they should be dealt with as individuals. However, if the skeptical community chooses to persistently begin edit wars over valid content then it is they who will get the raw end of it. - perfectblue 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators were very clear on their dislike of past edit wars and almost passed a one revert per week rule on all these articles, applied to everyone. This was for Rational Skepticism Project participants and Paranormal Project participants alike. They weren't particular on who incited the edit war, whose fault it is, or anything like that. They don't care who's right. They simply don't want any edit wars. It is highly advised that if even the most well founded edit is reverted, rather than revert it back, take it to the talk page or bring it up to the arbitrators. --Nealparr 20:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if edit warring was somehow justifiable in the past, we have bigger sticks at our disposal now. I've found that there are other ways to keep POV content out of articles. I think that if we behave ourselves, and do not edit war, then policy makers will take our side in the future, since our edits are, at the least, much more NPOV than many skeptical advocates. However, I also believe that if we take this ArbCom as an excuse to eliminate skeptical positions, we will not only be POV-pushers of the most hypocritical kind, but we will lose in the end. We want NPOV articles that present all notable, documented and sourced POVs, not ones which gloss over skepticism, even where that skepticism is not well founded in research.

Saying that something is paranormal or psychic, even if we have links, is not sufficient skepticism for an article. Where the subject is taken seriously by a significant number of people, as with psychics as opposed to unicorns, the skepticism needs its own section, and it needs to be explicitly mentioned in the summary.

We can say "Sylvia Browne is a psychic," as long as we present, with a special section in the article, her malfeasance, and so long as we explain, in the summary and criticism sections, (and on the Psychic page) that all psychics are said by skeptics, to not have the powers they claim (and explain the reasons sufficiently). The word "psychic," per the ArbCom, is a cultural artifact.

The ArbCom actually gave us more than I even thought we needed. We have to use that power responsibly, or we will wish the ArbCom never happened. We mustn't revert war. I, for one, have been getting along fine without the need, though most of the worst skeptical offenders have not been editing. We have other tools now, and our problems are known to those in high places. We should use those tools instead. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Project-Class paranormal pages
• NA-importance paranormal pages
• WikiProject Paranormal articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists