| Revision as of 17:15, 29 July 2007 editPuddytang (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users853 edits →Feline Psionics← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:14, 4 December 2024 edit undoFeoffer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,479 edits →Richard C. Doty: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| (827 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Paranormal}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 9 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 8 | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| |algo = old(180d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive%(counter)d | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {|style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 1px grey; width:100%; background-color: black;" | {|style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 1px grey; width:100%; background-color: black;" | ||
| |] | |] | ||
| |< |
|<span style="color:white;">'''This page is not for reporting the paranormal, it is for discussing WikiProject Paranormal and Misplaced Pages articles related to the paranormal.'''</span> | ||
| |] | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| {{Archives | search=yes | | |||
| }} | |||
| {| class="infobox plainlinks" style="width: 238px" | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal/navigation}} | |||
| |<div style="padding-top: 4px; text-align: center">{{{image|]}}}'''<br/>]''' | |||
| {{to do|target=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal |collapsed=yes}} | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- COTM can return when enough people show an interest. {| align=center class="ParanormalCollab" style="background: #F8EABA; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: .2em; margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 95%; width: auto;" | |||
| ---- | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| <!--All old threads now automagically archived by Essjaybot--> | |||
| |} | |||
| {{WikiProject Paranormal navigation}} | |||
| {| | |||
| | | |||
| =WikiProject Paranormal= | |||
| {{todo}} | |||
| {| align=center class="ParanormalCollab" style="background: #F8EABA; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: .2em; margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 95%; width: auto;" | |||
| | style="padding-right: 4px; padding-left: 4px;" | ] | | style="padding-right: 4px; padding-left: 4px;" | ] | ||
| | | | | ||
| Line 43: | Line 28: | ||
| | | | | ||
| | The previous collaboration was ]. | | The previous collaboration was ]. | ||
| |} | |}--> | ||
| |} | |||
| {{TOCleft}} | |||
| == 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: | |||
| ]: Dealing with the comic book character (a fictional demon) and the various comic book series in which it was featured in the primary character. | |||
| ]: 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 | |||
| - ] 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think those articles fall under our scope. Feel free to remove the tags. ] 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? ] 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. --] 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. - ] 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == NIDS marked for deletion == | |||
| FYI, ] has been marked for deletion as a non-notable corporation. --] 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? - ] 20:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalised articles == | |||
| Another wikiproject (]) 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? ] 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 ] in the face. | |||
| As for stereotypical vandalism, we don't really attract very much of that. Do we? - ] 08:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :A few articles do. ] 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! ] 08:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC) ((]) ] 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. - ] 09:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Help with ] == | |||
| I created a spin-off of the main ] 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 ] 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. | |||
| --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm afraid that I would have to strongly contest your inclusion of topics such as ], ] and other alternative health beliefs/practices. Alternative yes, Pseudoscience maybe, paranormal no. They are to the paranormal what miniature golf is to professional cycling. - ] 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Definitely not my inclusion. That's just what's accumulated on the ] 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. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == join == | |||
| how do we join?--] 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Just sign ]. Happy editing! ] 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 ], 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). | |||
| ] 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 ] and frivolous in an Iraq War article. ] 08:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == RS opinion == | |||
| Hi. I noticed that ] falls under the scope of this project and I wanted to get opinions on whether or not it was a ] for ], which is currently under dispute for volating ], and we're trying to find an appropriate source for it. Here is the relevant The WP article is ]. A ''movie''. It's a looong dispute, but if you want to read up on it - it starts ]. ] doesn't look too reliable to me- but I'm not that familiar with it. Thanks! ] <small> ] </small> 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. ] 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. - ] 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? ] <small> ] </small> 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. - ] 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...]...;)'' ] <small> ] </small> 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. - ] 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::LOL! That is splendid, perfectblue! ] <small> ] </small> 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). --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here's a neat one: | |||
| ::::<blockquote> | |||
| “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.” | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ::::Cook's diary 27 April 1770 at | |||
| ::::--''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 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. - ] 07:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] accepted as GA == | |||
| Persistence pays. ] was accepted as a ] | |||
| --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cool, has anybody updated the project front page? - ] 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I put it in the GA list, not sure where else it would go. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Page hijacking == | |||
| Somebody has hijacked the project's page about the Iraqi ] urban myth and has redirected it to the page on the ], 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. | |||
| ] 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :yes, it was very quick. What was the rush? And i see your reversion has been reverted. ] 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. - ] 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Feline Psionics == | |||
| I would appear people in New England have encountered a new form of precognition. I say we create an '''Oscar the Cat''' article on him. --] 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Might be better at ], 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? ] 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? --] 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Back from where? or what? ] 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. - ] 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. ] 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have made articles about psychic animals ], | |||
| ] . There was also a psychic goose but I couldn't get any info on it. ] 17:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration == | |||
| For some unfathomable reason, nobody has seen fit to mention that the arbitration results are in and can be viewed . | |||
| == Exploring the Paranormal Mysteries of Portal Fernández Concha == | |||
| ] 07:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Greetings, fellow enthusiasts of the unexplained and the mysterious, | |||
| ::Friday night drinking is my excuse : ) --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'm delving into the fascinating history of Portal Fernández Concha, a building that stands as a testament to Santiago's rich cultural and paranormal tapestry. This location is not only an architectural marvel but also a hotbed for paranormal activity, making it a perfect subject for our community's expertise. | |||
| :::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. - ] 07:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Why Portal Fernández Concha?''' | |||
| Overall, it's gone a little better than I expected. To summarize the good parts: | |||
| # '''Variety of Paranormal Phenomena''': The building is rife with reports of unexplained noises, such as marbles rolling in the dead of night, and sightings of apparitions, including the eerie "Hat Man" and the spirits of those who met tragic ends within its walls. | |||
| 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. | |||
| # '''Historical and Cultural Significance''': Beyond its paranormal aspects, Portal Fernández Concha is a microcosm of Santiago's societal evolution, housing a diverse array of residents from different walks of life and historical periods | |||
| * . | |||
| 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. | |||
| * '''Community Interest''': The building is a focal point for local legend and has been included in paranormal tours, indicating a high level of public interest and engagement with its mysteries | |||
| # . | |||
| ] 07:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Collaboration Invitation''' | |||
| :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 ] 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 ] would be framed heavily by the mainstream scientific view that the evidence isn't largely accepted. | |||
| I invite you to join me in expanding and refining the Misplaced Pages article on Portal Fernández Concha, with a focus on its paranormal aspects. Your insights, research skills, and passion for the paranormal can help us create a comprehensive, balanced, and captivating narrative. | |||
| :One last thing, that is actually very, very important, and may cause the case to be reopened. | |||
| '''How You Can Help:''' | |||
| :*Reverts are heavily frowned upon and they intimidate users from participating. Strong caution is advised on reverts, and edit wars aren't tolerated. | |||
| :--''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Research and Verification''': Help in gathering and verifying accounts of paranormal activity, ensuring we rely on credible sources and eyewitness accounts. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| * '''Contextual Analysis''': Provide analysis on how these paranormal phenomena fit within the broader context of Santiago's cultural and historical landscape. | |||
| * '''Article Enhancement''': Contribute to improving the article's structure and content, ensuring it meets Misplaced Pages's quality standards while captivating readers' imaginations. | |||
| This is more than just an article improvement project; it's a chance to explore the intersection of history, culture, and the paranormal in one of Santiago's most enigmatic buildings. I look forward to your contributions and insights as we delve into the mysteries of Portal Fernández Concha together. | |||
| ::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. - ] 19:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for considering this collaboration. I'm excited to see where our combined efforts will lead us in uncovering the stories hidden within the walls of Portal Fernández Concha. | |||
| :::Edit wars always involve at least two parties. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Best regards, ] (]) 18:15, 27 January 2024 (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. - ] 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Richard C. Doty == | |||
| ::::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. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Howdy! I've been editing Misplaced Pages for a few years, but most of editing activities have focused on ]. I've recently started perusing some UFO literature, and I've noticed that ] comes up repeatedly in a variety of sources, but he does not have a ] article. (The bluelinked article is a placeholder redirect I created after a recent RfD discussion revealed that there is a ] article on Misplaced Pages and consensus emerged to redirect ] there. End of sidetrack.) | |||
| 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. | |||
| I'm thinking about creating an article but my major concern is sourcing, particularly given that Doty seems to have acquired an unsavory reputation in the UFO community, mostly relating to ]. As this is a BLP article, I'm cautious of giving ] weight to ] views, or using information that has been debunked since its publication, which seems to happen frequently in ufology. To this end, I'd welcome any input on the following potential sources, in no particular order: | |||
| 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. | |||
| *''Project Beta: The Story of Paul Bennewitz, National Security, and the Creation of a Modern UFO Myth'' by Greg Bishop. Seems to be the most in-depth source of info directly relating to Paul Bennewitz, and it's published by a reputable company. My main concern is whether it's up-to-date and whether its content is disputed. | |||
| *''UFO Highway 2.0: Revisiting the Hidden Expanse'' by Anthony F. Sanchez. <u>Possible red flag:</u> clearly self-published; Strange Lights Publishing seems to exist primarily as a vehicle for Sanchez's work, and openly describes itself as such on . (At least it's forthright.) | |||
| *''The Trickster and the Paranormal'' by George P. Hansen. <u>Possible red flag:</u> published by Xlibris USA, reputed to be a self-publishing service with minimal editorial oversight. Furthermore, excerpts on Google Books seem to use lots of ], although they are extensively footnoted. | |||
| *''Mirage Men: A Journey into Disinformation, Paranoia and UFOs'' by ]. The documentary based on this book alerted me to the topic. Author seems legitimate, book published by a major, well-reputed house. Main concern is whether the information is up-to-date. | |||
| *''The Unidentified: Mythical Monsters, Alien Encounters, and Our Obsession with the Unexplained'' by ]. Author seems legitimate, book published by a major, well-reputed house. | |||
| *''UFOs and the Deep State: A History of the Military and Shadow Government's War Against the Truth'' by ]. Prolific author, reputable publisher, but some of his claims are disputed, particularly with regard to Roswell. | |||
| *''The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the Extraterrestrial'' by ]. Seems well-researched and reasonably objective (I have it in front of me) and the publisher is reputable, but it's also over 25 years old, so I'm concerned it's not up-to-date. | |||
| I'm aware that Doty himself is co-author of ''Exempt from Disclosure'' and that he's discussed in ''Alien Harvest'' by ], but the first is clearly a ] source and the second seems to be one as well, so I'm cautious of relying on them for anything remotely controversial. | |||
| Feel free to suggest additional sources or anything else that might be helpful. Additionally, as I'm new to this field, please let me know if there's a better place to post these questions. Thanks, ] (]) 20:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :Great project. I don't know if we can have a standalone BLP, but we certainly find SOMEWHERE to cover all the notable content about Doty, who is pivotal figure to 20th century UFO folklore. | |||
| 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. ''']''' <sub>(] Ψ ])</sub> 22:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The biggest roadblock is finding documentations about who "the real Doty is". Lots of books cover his notable UFO claims, but it'd be really important to pin down every autobiographical claim as well, rather than naively repeating a seemingly-innocuous claim. | |||
| :For example, do we really even know if he was in the Air Force? | |||
| :In terms of books, Project Beta and Mirage Men are both very high-quality sources as to the role he had played in cattle mutilation and UFO folklore, the stuff that we really should cover somewhere. Randle is fringe, but often notable fringe. ] (]) 21:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:14, 4 December 2024
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 |
This page is not for reporting the paranormal, it is for discussing WikiProject Paranormal and Misplaced Pages articles related to the paranormal. |  |
 Archives | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
Paranormal | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Exploring the Paranormal Mysteries of Portal Fernández Concha
Greetings, fellow enthusiasts of the unexplained and the mysterious,
I'm delving into the fascinating history of Portal Fernández Concha, a building that stands as a testament to Santiago's rich cultural and paranormal tapestry. This location is not only an architectural marvel but also a hotbed for paranormal activity, making it a perfect subject for our community's expertise.
Why Portal Fernández Concha?
- Variety of Paranormal Phenomena: The building is rife with reports of unexplained noises, such as marbles rolling in the dead of night, and sightings of apparitions, including the eerie "Hat Man" and the spirits of those who met tragic ends within its walls.
- Historical and Cultural Significance: Beyond its paranormal aspects, Portal Fernández Concha is a microcosm of Santiago's societal evolution, housing a diverse array of residents from different walks of life and historical periods
- .
- Community Interest: The building is a focal point for local legend and has been included in paranormal tours, indicating a high level of public interest and engagement with its mysteries
- .
Collaboration Invitation
I invite you to join me in expanding and refining the Misplaced Pages article on Portal Fernández Concha, with a focus on its paranormal aspects. Your insights, research skills, and passion for the paranormal can help us create a comprehensive, balanced, and captivating narrative.
How You Can Help:
- Research and Verification: Help in gathering and verifying accounts of paranormal activity, ensuring we rely on credible sources and eyewitness accounts.
- Contextual Analysis: Provide analysis on how these paranormal phenomena fit within the broader context of Santiago's cultural and historical landscape.
- Article Enhancement: Contribute to improving the article's structure and content, ensuring it meets Misplaced Pages's quality standards while captivating readers' imaginations.
This is more than just an article improvement project; it's a chance to explore the intersection of history, culture, and the paranormal in one of Santiago's most enigmatic buildings. I look forward to your contributions and insights as we delve into the mysteries of Portal Fernández Concha together.
Thank you for considering this collaboration. I'm excited to see where our combined efforts will lead us in uncovering the stories hidden within the walls of Portal Fernández Concha.
Best regards, TraceySear840 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Richard C. Doty
Howdy! I've been editing Misplaced Pages for a few years, but most of editing activities have focused on WP:AVIATION. I've recently started perusing some UFO literature, and I've noticed that Richard C. Doty comes up repeatedly in a variety of sources, but he does not have a WP:BLP article. (The bluelinked article is a placeholder redirect I created after a recent RfD discussion revealed that there is a Richard L. Doty article on Misplaced Pages and consensus emerged to redirect Richard Doty there. End of sidetrack.)
I'm thinking about creating an article but my major concern is sourcing, particularly given that Doty seems to have acquired an unsavory reputation in the UFO community, mostly relating to Paul Bennewitz. As this is a BLP article, I'm cautious of giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE views, or using information that has been debunked since its publication, which seems to happen frequently in ufology. To this end, I'd welcome any input on the following potential sources, in no particular order:
- Project Beta: The Story of Paul Bennewitz, National Security, and the Creation of a Modern UFO Myth by Greg Bishop. Seems to be the most in-depth source of info directly relating to Paul Bennewitz, and it's published by a reputable company. My main concern is whether it's up-to-date and whether its content is disputed.
- UFO Highway 2.0: Revisiting the Hidden Expanse by Anthony F. Sanchez. Possible red flag: clearly self-published; Strange Lights Publishing seems to exist primarily as a vehicle for Sanchez's work, and openly describes itself as such on its website. (At least it's forthright.)
- The Trickster and the Paranormal by George P. Hansen. Possible red flag: published by Xlibris USA, reputed to be a self-publishing service with minimal editorial oversight. Furthermore, excerpts on Google Books seem to use lots of weasel words, although they are extensively footnoted.
- Mirage Men: A Journey into Disinformation, Paranoia and UFOs by Mark Pilkington. The documentary based on this book alerted me to the topic. Author seems legitimate, book published by a major, well-reputed house. Main concern is whether the information is up-to-date.
- The Unidentified: Mythical Monsters, Alien Encounters, and Our Obsession with the Unexplained by Colin Dickey. Author seems legitimate, book published by a major, well-reputed house.
- UFOs and the Deep State: A History of the Military and Shadow Government's War Against the Truth by Kevin D. Randle. Prolific author, reputable publisher, but some of his claims are disputed, particularly with regard to Roswell.
- The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the Extraterrestrial by Jerome Clark. Seems well-researched and reasonably objective (I have it in front of me) and the publisher is reputable, but it's also over 25 years old, so I'm concerned it's not up-to-date.
I'm aware that Doty himself is co-author of Exempt from Disclosure and that he's discussed in Alien Harvest by Linda Moulton Howe, but the first is clearly a WP:PRIMARY source and the second seems to be one as well, so I'm cautious of relying on them for anything remotely controversial.
Feel free to suggest additional sources or anything else that might be helpful. Additionally, as I'm new to this field, please let me know if there's a better place to post these questions. Thanks, Carguychris (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Great project. I don't know if we can have a standalone BLP, but we certainly find SOMEWHERE to cover all the notable content about Doty, who is pivotal figure to 20th century UFO folklore.
- The biggest roadblock is finding documentations about who "the real Doty is". Lots of books cover his notable UFO claims, but it'd be really important to pin down every autobiographical claim as well, rather than naively repeating a seemingly-innocuous claim.
- For example, do we really even know if he was in the Air Force?
- In terms of books, Project Beta and Mirage Men are both very high-quality sources as to the role he had played in cattle mutilation and UFO folklore, the stuff that we really should cover somewhere. Randle is fringe, but often notable fringe. Feoffer (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)