Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:10, 21 March 2008

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

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 00:01, Sunday, January 5, 2025 (UTC). The previous collaboration was Electronic voice phenomenon.

May need Help

I seem to have a strange vanity bent vandal (work that one out). He is quite aggressive and determined. He has come back 3 time using diff ISP addresses 144.134.48.24 144.134.71.8 and 144.134.48.159. I have reverted the changes he keeps making and this time have left his link in to see what he does. But I may need some help on this one. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Australian_ufology&action=history. Regards Vufors (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yep will need some help... he came back aggressive and determined... even with his link in, he will take no quarter on this - He is looking for a fight. HELP! Vufors (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He is back again this time as 144.134.71.135. I have left his link in the code, but he is on a mission. Do we have any Project Paranormal Admin? Vufors (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, first things first you've both violated the 3 reverts rule. This is not good. You could BOTH be blocked for a set period for persisting in this manner.

Secondly, in order for an admin to get involved (they are general, not project based), or for anybody her to offer you worthwhile advice, it's best that you present a clear account of what's happening. For example, what is the crux of the argument? Why do you disagree with this editor's edits? Which policies are involved?

Thirdly, WP:NPOV requires that all significant arguments be addressed. If both of your arguments represent notable and verifiable perspectives then they could potentially both be included. Alternately, if neither of you can demonstrate notability then both of your edits could well be deleted.

Lastly, you're both citing blogs. This is strongly discouraged under Wiki-regs. Try to find book with good sales figures and a notable author.

perfectblue (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • Thanks perfectblue for the feedback. Firstly I reverted the ISP changes as per the Wiki rules and with the Wiki Warnings. Next If the unlisted ISP is not going to play the Wiki game, either in the comments section or at their own talk then how does a member of the Paranormal group keep the integrity of the original text in place until the dispute is settled. The only way out that I can see is to endlessly keep editing until the ISP gives up or talks?Vufors (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As it's an anonymous editor you could ask for the page to be semi-protected. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Call. That may be the way to go. Would you believe all is quite at this time? He may have taken the hint? I have been in a few semi edit wars and was able to get them into the talk area, but these encounters cause/create endless grief. The odd thing about trying to maintain the status quo against a determined edit freak is that it brings down the reversers credentials. On many occasions I have had no interest in the issue etc. It’s like a form of ego vandalism or pigheaded vandalism, the culprit thinks that he is absolutely right and will take no medium road or advice. Vufors (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Winged cat

Howdy folks, I accidentally stumbled on this article, and about died. Maybe someone here cares enough to add inline cites to it, and rewrite it so it doesn't seem to state that Winged cats actually exist? Murderbike (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, they may exist in so much as belief in them exists. Most things in the paranormal don't actually exist, not in the sense that you could study one in a lab. - perfectblue (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire! Winged cats exist as a rare genetic mutation. See this for details. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this just further proof of the myth? - perfectblue (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you prove a myth, doesn't that make it a fact? Anyway, the point about inline cites is good, so shall we do that instead of arguing? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, perfectblue...a lot of them do exist. --Chr.K. (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add some inline citations. In relation to the above, what I meant was that the link that you provided demonstrated that there was a myth and suggested a source for it. That's no the same as proving that a myth is fact. In order to demonstrate that this was fact you'd basically need to find a cat with actual wings (bone, muscle, etc). - perfectblue (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Poor dirty deformed genetically altered critters. The article isn't promoting the paranormal, looks to me. The opposite. And perfectblue, it looks to me like they have pics of cats with extra limbs or furr extensions. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can find pics of Bigfoot, but that doesn't mean that it's real. As ever the question here should not be whether winged cats are "real", but as to whether there is a real and sustained (verifiable and notable) myth about them, and 1) what the contents of the myth are 2) what it's origins are. Things would go much smoother if on Misplaced Pages if people stopped seeing things as to do with the paranormal as being things/object/happenings and viewed them more as beliefs/myths about things/objects/happenings. for example, it's near impossible to prove that somebody was abducted by aliens no matter how notable the story has become in popular culture (The hill abductions, for example), it's far more productive to record the fact that they believe that they were abducted and why/what happened in relation to it. The paranormal is 90% believing and 10% proving. - perfectblue (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Sourcebook Project has enough reports of unexplained hominids that something is real, alright. Also, your argument seems to be at direct odds with discovering things, objectively, via empirical science. By such science, I am quite convinced UFOs, for instance, do exist...as well as people believing that they've seen such objectively real things. Stating it to be, "well, someone's BELIEF that they did," is possibly the worst disservice to scientific exploration of the unexplained that could be possible. --Chr.K. (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain what your saying, but I can empirically demonstrate that 1) many people believe that they've seen UFOs (lights in the sky) and 2) that the many people believe that UFOs (lights in the sky) are really alien spacecraft. From where I'm standing this is what is important as far as Wikipeida goes.

"Are UFOs alien spacecrafts?" is a completely different question from "Do people see unexplained lights in the sky?" which is also a completely different question from "Do people believe that UFOs are alien spaceships?". The second and third questions are where we should be directing the majority of our attention. The first question is a wild goose chase run by scientists who deny everything that they can't see in a gas chromatograph, regardless of whether or not not it is real, and loons who believe anything that they read on the back of a cereal box.

Belief in UFOs has significant social, cultural and comercial implications (Just look at the impact of shows like the X-files) and is therefore notable and important to Misplaced Pages. Actual science surrounding UFOs as "alien spacecrafts" can basically be boiled down to a couple of short sentences that more or less read "People believe in them, but scientists can't find any evidence that they exists", which doesn't exactly provide much that we can use. We should be concentrating on the tangible impact that UFO beliefs have on our society and culture (not to mention on Hollywood's lots), and not what may or may not be hidden in a military storage closest near Roswell.

perfectblue (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, enough scientists found evidence of the existence of tangible, inexplicable craft operating in the atmosphere of this planet that they were dubbed the "Pro-UFO contingent" by the supposedly fair and balanced faculty of the Condon Research Committee; this occurred just before the former were surreptitiously kicked off of it in favor of...others...supporting the much more militarily-palatable "theory" that there was nothing to the subject other than either hoaxes, misidentified mundanities, or "mass hallucination" (much like the extremely massive hallucination that you and others like you use and update Wikipedian pages on a regular basis, eh? Just because there are tens of thousands of us doesn't mean anything, by such logic). All these theoretically "unsustainable accusations" I can quote from no less a source than UFOs and the National Security State, Vol. 1 by Richard M. Dolan, an Oxford graduate who became drawn into the subject via his research into Western (as well as Soviet) policy during the Cold War, and whose work, specifically, contains more than 100 pages of bibliographic material to back up his own studies. Officer Lonnie Zamora's calmly lucid testimony concerning an egg-shaped metallic craft was taken so credibly by scientific, and even more tellingly, military, personnel involved in investigation into the 1964 Socorro events that the military commander in question quite calmly stated his belief that it at least had to be an aircraft from the nearby missile range (if not something else; i.e., a concretely real, solid object), even though no schematics for a craft matching the dimensions he reported has ever been uncovered. I could go on, but it would be pointless; "scientists can find no evidence" is as believable a statement (propaganda) as the once-claims that the Spanish navy attacked the U.S.S. Maine in the late 19th century: it was believable until people actually bothered to stop and check...and some people still haven't checked. --Chr.K. (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, incidentally...since this section is supposed to be about Winged Cats, and all... --Chr.K. (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Misplaced Pages report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Misplaced Pages, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Misplaced Pages, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please comment

Reality shift and Anomalous phenomenon are both being redirected since they represent original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reality shift can be deleted as far as I'm concerned. It was added by a COI editor. Anomalous phenomena needs to be written because of the reasons I listed on it's talk page. --Nealparr 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite startled by this - you remove my post here on this claiming it is a poor comment and then present your own interpretation and conclusion. This is at the very least poor Netiquette and strikes me as your trying to stifle my legitimate (moderate and balanced) comment and request for input in resolving this situation. (Emperor (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

You are free to reinstate your comment as you see fit. However, I viewed that comment as advocating for meatpuppetry and inappropriate considering the audience and the tenor of our dispute. I removed it in good faith and will not object to you reinstating it. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Paranormal might be a better redirect target for anomalous phenomena. Zagalejo^^^ 02:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely there are anomalous phenomena which are not paranormal. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, but almost all the uses of "anomalous phenomena" on Misplaced Pages refer to the paranormal. There should at least be a link to paranormal at anomaly, since most people clicking on anomalous phenomena would be looking for a page like paranormal. Zagalejo^^^ 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That may have been where the entry stood at the time but that isn't really a reflection on what it could have been - a year or so back I left plans for rewriting and fixing the entry - that is the road we should have tried first. As I said on the talk page there is a process here and you try and fix things, if it then seems irredeemably broken you could propose a merger or put it up for AfD - basically involve the community in addressing the problem. Simply stating a possible policy violation as an excuse to turn it into a redirect seems to go against this and should rarely be used unless you've actually tried other fixes first. (Emperor (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Wait a minute, let me get this straight, SA, you censored another editor. Sorry, but that's 100% unacceptable. If another editor advocates meatpuppetry and requires sanctioning it is for an admin to decide, not you. If you have an issues with this editors comment then you should have politely informed them of your concerns and then gone to the admin if the editor had gone on to actively solicit meatpuppetry. There are those of us out here who consider many of your comments to be unacceptable, or at the very least uncivil, but you don't see us deleting them, and I'm certain that you'd take issue if we did

If you have an issue with an editor it is not your place to unilaterally take action in this manner. For the good of civility please follow procedures.

perfectblue (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to tell on anybody, admins are not authority figures: they are simply people that can push certain buttons and use certain tools. This is a Wiki. I can fix my own problems. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you believe that this is a problem and that you are fixing it? - perfectblue (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is - was it a problem? whenever I revert a couple of times when it isn't vandalism I back off and pass it on to the relevant project to sort out rather than further enflame the problem. That way we can actually work to consensus on an issue. I did exactly the same thing in connection with another project only a few days earlier and oddly no one read any sinister motivation into it.

Somehow imagining this is an invitation for meatpuppetry doesn't assume good faith on either my behalf or other members of the Project and given how public the note was it can hardly be seen as a very cunning way to somehow subvert the process. Equally, my RfA was pretty painless, suggesting I'm not the kind of editor to pull such stunts.

It does remind me why I (and I'm sure many others) are put off from editing such entries - with Believers and Skeptics pushing to get their viewpoint in and the editor doing their best to get a balanced viewpoint in gets it from one side or the other (and sometimes both). (Emperor (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

FYI - you can still access the talk pages: Talk:Anomalous phenomenon where I am suggesting we actually involve other people in discussing this and reach a consensus on how to move forward - which is the Misplaced Pages Way after all. (Emperor (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

UFO incidents

Does anyone have any idea what criteria need be met for a UFO incident to have it's own article, and what type of sources can be used etc.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Stay away from random websites and stuff. Stick with mainstream newspaper/magazine articles and levelheaded writers like Jerome Clark. Which incident would you like to write about? Zagalejo^^^ 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now the climate on Misplaced Pages isn't right for every notable incident to have an entry of its own, it's best either to pick only the most notable or to cover several incidents on one entry and then to spin them off if they become developed enough to survive on their own.

As a rule of thumb,you should concentrate on incidents that several notable authors (such as Jerome Clark) devoted an entire chapter to rather than which one or two lesser known authors have written books about. Multiple sources tend to be a better indicator of notability. Anybody with a typewriter can publish a 500 page book on a UFO incident, but if takes notability for 50 notable people to write 10 pages each.

When dealing with modern sightings it's also good to find ones that were reported on by several mainstream media outlets. The UFOs that buzzed that military jet in Mexico are a good example. There aren't that many books about it but it was reported on by CNN, ABC and the BBC (bigtime British network) so it counts as being notable and verifiable in a reliable source.

Avoid sightings that were only reported in local tabloids, or which got one-hit entries in UFO magazines or which were covered by seminars at UFO swap-meets but nowhere else. Also avoid sightings where the primary coverage is in a book written by the witness, which are barely covered elsewhere. Also avoid things that you can only cite to the Discovery Chanel or to cable TV documentaries. This isn't notability in the traditional sense and questions might be raised over their reliability.

It's also important to remember that a sighting doesn't have to be notable for being unexplained, or for being convincing. A sighting can also be notable for being debunked, or heavily written about by skeptics/pseudoskeptics. Notability is notability, it doesn't necessarily have to be from sources that agree with each other. Presenting the debate is a key part of what WP:NPOV is about.

Also, and it get under the skin of some of the editors that show up on Misplaced Pages, but a UFO sighting doesn't have to be related to aliens in any way. If the Military drop some flares and then handle it badly when somebody shouts "flying saucer", and this creates some headlines in both the UFO and mainstream media, then it is also notable, too. For example, Roswell has notability on grounds of the government response alone. - perfectblue (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the two I was thinking about first were Bob Taylor and the Belgian UFO wave. I don't see an article about Taylor and I did find the Belgian one but it has next to nothing in it.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put quite a lot of stuff in the Belgian UFO wave article but am a bit unsure how to do references. I have added two but would like to cite the same ref in more places without just adding it again. Can someone explain if or how this can be done.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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