This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Martinphi (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 22 September 2007 (→Colors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 16:48, Sunday, December 29, 2024 (UTC). The previous collaboration was Electronic voice phenomenon.

Rename request for West Coast air raid

I'm trying to get West Coast air raid renamed to Battle of Los Angeles; as nutty as the proposed new title sounds, it's what the media and historians prefer calling it. "West Coast air raid" seems to be an invention of Wikipedians. Whether you agree with my position or not, feel free to contribute to the discussion here: Talk:West Coast air raid. Ichormosquito 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support that request. If these claims are true then the case is good, but it's a surprising title to me. Often such renames are reversed a short time later, so I think some wider discussion would be good value. Andrewa 10:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Support "Battle of Los Angeles" is the most common name for the event. Zagalejo 18:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Support: most common name. - perfectblue 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, belatedly: the name was coined by newspapers in the aftermath of the event. I'll research it more in Dolan's work, for all pertinent information identifiable. --Chr.K. 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Los Angeles should be nominated for GA-status

It looks pretty detailed and deserving, now. Thoughts? --Chr.K. 11:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids (2nd nomination)

Black Eyed Kids is currently up for deletion. I don't know much about this topic myself, but if you do, feel free to come to the debate. Zagalejo 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've re-written this and sourced it to a third party, could a couple of people come by and attest to this. I'd hate for this page to be deleted based on comments made about the original version which no longer apply. - perfectblue 12:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, the more I see this kind of thing happen (the article was AD'ed), I think I'm coming to genuinely HATE several of the pseudoskeptic Wikipedians involved. I mean, real seething rage stuff...and I think I'm coming to be upset, as well, at other WP:PARAers who don't share this sentiment. --Chr.K. 11:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Damnation" is part of WikiProject Paranormal?, and other subjects...

Why? Especially since the article is more about the profanity "damn" than the concept of damnation. Even then, damnation would be better suited to a religion WikiProject, no? -- 12.116.162.162 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects aren't exclusive of eachother... but yeah, I agree... this does seem like an odd choice and I wouldn't really have a problem with it's removal from the project. ---J.S (T/C/WRE)

This is a faith concept, I've detagged it accordingly. Occasionally this comes up in the discussion of ghosts or myths, but even then it references faith roots. Having it here sets a bad precedents. - perfectblue 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this up again just because it is like acid to my mind: Xenu should NOT be part of the project, because at best, it is a religious subject based on...unique...novelistic premises (see possibly future article "Bad Science Fiction") by a man who openly stated that the "real way to make money start a religion." Other than Hubbard's dubious claims about souls getting sucked out (...or what the **** EVER...) through the use of prehistoric H-BOMBS (?!?)...what does the article POSSIBLY have to do with reported examples of the paranormal or unexplained (to ask once more)? That it's "something strange" could almost make it in, if only anyone has actually seen any actual evidence other than Hubbard's word for the stuff that's claimed. As it stands, if Xenu makes it in, what keeps the Islamic claim of Muhammad being taken up in a flaming chariot rather than dying from getting in? What about the information on the Chinese concept of Chi, which is connected to Taoist precepts, among others, about life? Xenu, as said, is at best a RELIGIOUS concept (if not cultic...), not a paranormal one, since paranormal, to even exist, has to accept scientific study of such claims as the backbone for anything, otherwise there'd be no concept of Normal in the first place.

PLEASE remove Xenu from the project listing. --Chr.K. 12:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Xenu can be dumped (and my impression is that it should be), but I wanted to comment on the demarcation of "paranormal", since it seems to be coming up quite a bit. The use of the adjective "paranormal" is almost always to describe a phenomenon, which is an "observable event". Putting the existence of actual paranormal observable phenomena to the side for a moment, and just assuming that such phenomena is real, it is still something that assumes an observation by someone. Theoretical concepts, like Xenu from millions of years ago, or the theoretical concept of a race of Bigfoots living on Venus, are not by themselves paranormal. Something has to have been observed (and it must lack an apparent scientific explanation). The concept of ghosts as souls of the departed isn't even paranormal until someone claims to have seen one. The concept of chi is not paranormal. Someone saying they have the ability to be able to use chi to heal someone would be a claim of a paranormal ability. Someone saying they met Xenu would be a claim of a paranormal vision. Concepts and theories are not by themselves paranormal.

Now I'm not saying that does or should limit the scope of the paranormal Wikiproject. That's more a matter of choice on the part of the community. Some topics have overlaps that may warrant inclusion eventhough the topic itself is not particularly paranormal. Stonehenge, for example, is not really a paranormal subject. Weird phenomena reported surrounding Stonehenge does make it related however. Same thing with the Pyramids and the Bermuda Triangle. It's a judgment call. I would personally borrow from the notability guidelines and consider whether the paranormal phenomena surrounding the subject is notable to the subject itself.--Nealparr 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. I vote strongly that Xenu stays in the project. Yes, Xenu forms part of a religious dogma, but Xenu "himself" is an alien (according to Scientology)and the story of Xenu involve aliens being brought to Earth and directly influencing the history of human civilization. Thus this is basically another UFO/distant origins/ancient astronaut conspiracy story. It should stay in the project for the same reasons that UFO cults and contactee religions stay.

I can't say that I understand your motives for wanting Xenu out. When von Daniken says that ancient Andean religion was started by aliens nobody blinks an eye at the idea being part of the project, yet when Hubbard says something similar its cries of out out out. As for Muhammad, Muhammad wasn't beamed up by aliens or ghosts. His story is solely concerned with religion.

perfectblue 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In Chariots of the Gods?', von Daniken makes the suggestion that angels and/or divine personages were/are in fact extraterrestrial intelligences with access to technology far beyond humanity of that (or even our current) age. This connection should therefore include all similar ancient mythological or religious stories, no? Muhammad's "religious" connections would, according to ancient astronaut theorist von Daniken, imply that Muhammad was an alien contactee. Now, from a POV perspective, I myself don't believe that, but if Hubbard's claims regarding his stories are taken as legitimate Paranormal rather than religious material, why not include all such stories of visitation by non-terrestrial beings, in any and all cultures? Be aware that Wikiproject Paranormal is now (and to my distaste) connected to other Wikiprojects on religions. Also, if we're going to have material that is not backed by scientific inquiry (unless, that is, we're going to include all the material by rational scientists showing how Scientology is not supportable), we need to divide it up into different sections, because I can only assure that the article that I recently nominated (the Battle of Los Angeles) has a H/LL of a lot more objective testimony to support its occurrance than Hubbard's does. --Chr.K. 01:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Muhammad was an alien contactee", then this would be on von Daniken's page as it would be his hypothesis. It would likely fail notability for Muhammad's page unless supported by a Koranic scholar or the subject of a big controversy.

What makes a Koranic scholar more notable for the page than von Daniken, and his own field? This is, obviously, completely subjective thinking, while purely objective thinking would quickly be capable of getting out of hand. --Chr.K. 12:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• "why not include all such stories of visitation by non-terrestrial beings" If it uses a warp drive or wears a spacesuit, then it's in. If they are divine origin, then it's out. That's my line.

Your line is wrong. I can claim right now that the aliens are of divine origin, not extraterrestrial...and I wouldn't be the first; theologian Chuck Missler states compelling evidence for such notion in a book called Alien Encounters (copyright 1997), showing how often different "alien" intelligences make the claim of coming all this way to state that Christianity is wrong. This is not a diatribe on the subject, as it is a point-blank statement that the subjects DO crossover, and not ludicrously (Jacques Vallee is another who has pointed out, though rarely if ever outrightly, that spiritual forces could be the source of a vast number of the reports). To take this crossover notion even further, The Bible Code is a paranormal, utterly strange phenomena if I've ever heard of one (I can only assure you that the Moby Dick comparison does not mirror even 1/100th of the level of the BC phenomenon)...but it's connected to a religious work, and is often clumped into "crazy Christian thinking," along with assertion that it is from God, rather than (as original author Michael Drosnin believes) simply an 'Outside Source.'

To reiterate: your line is wrong. --Chr.K. 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• "legitimate Paranormal" Paranormal is just the name of the project (see below), in reality we deal with aliens too (it's hard to find a short name for a project that deals with aliens, ghosts and legitimate branches of science, too), and Xenu is specifically named as being an alien in Scientology texts. ETs are ETS are ETs. Scientology doesn't even hold that Xenu had any religious powers, he was just a dictator.

Scientology holds that he attempted to blow souls up through the use of Super-H-Bombs. I'd like to see the explanation on how that works. In other news, we need to set down a list of precepts that divide legitimate sightings and reports (of which there are countless) from the outrightly outrageous and idiotic (Hitler's and JFK's Brains Were Brought Together for Secret Argentina Summit Meeting in 1983). --Chr.K. 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• "material that is not backed by scientific inquiry" The recent arbcom actually decided that scientific inquiry need not be a deciding factor as we often deal with thing where the science of the matter is irrelevant to in belief/the existence of the subject matter. For example most urban myths, all but the most notable hauntings, UFO sightings, Contactees. Put bluntly, scientific inquiry is irrelevant to a campfire story about an Indian burial ground, and no scientist worth their salt would risk damaging their reputation by trying to prove/debunk it, yet all that it would take was for a kid to get killed acting it out and it would be worthy of inclusion on grounds of notability alone.

In other words, it's fine to lump together into one big group the 1976 Tehran UFO incident and the Tale of the Hook, despite the fact that the one involved radar and visual confirmation of the unexplained, and the other being an urban legend based off the notion of teenagers being murdered by a psychopath while in the process of having sex in the backseat. Wonderful. --Chr.K. 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• "all the material by rational scientists showing how Scientology is not supportable" That's your call, but please do it on the Scientology page and not here, and be prepared to face the wrath of the angry Scientologists.

It is my fervent desire to give extensive nod to their troves of indisputable wisdom, but this inevitably requires that they actually show some. --Chr.K. 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• "we need to divide it up into different sections" That's why we have categories. We're too few in number to have a separate project for ghost, aliens, myths and so on and there are just so many cross overs. It's not practical. They'd be merged back together within a year.

Very well. We need a "Nutjob Cult Belief" category or subProjectg, and tag Xenu as such...after all, that was the summary given by TIME magazine in the 1980s, a rather notable source. --Chr.K. 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Battle of Los Angeles .... objective testimony .. support ...Hubbard's does" I'd have to say that the two subjects have very little in common apart from aliens being mentioned in both stories. BLA is about a real life event that has as yet unexplained factors (what was being shot at, if anything, for a start) and which has sparked many hypothesis. It is notable for being real and unexplained and for being the subject of conspiracy stories. Whereas Hubbard's case is that of a belief without proven foundation that is notable for its controversy and it's famous adherents. You're not comparing like with like. That's like comparing the mystery of who built the sphinx to a bigfoot sighting. - perfectblue 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Aliens have never been mentioned in the Battle of Los Angeles, ever; the source of the lights and/or objects remains undetermined to this day. Also, the Sphinx is actually sitting there, in Egypt, and reports of unexplained biped lifeforms are numerous on more than one continent. Please show me (or have someone somewhere show me) physical evidence that Xenu actually existed, other than the fact that nuclear physics does indeed allow for thermonuclear weapons, or that late-1970s jet airliners can travel trillions of kilometers through interstellar space. --Chr.K. 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr. I think that you've misunderstood the nature of Project Paranormal. We needed an all encompassing project name, and "paranormal" seemed short and sweet. However, the project does not deal exclusively deal with the paranormal, it deals with a great many things that aren't paranormal, too. For example it deals with hoaxes and perfectly explainable phenomona, as well as branch physics and pseudoscience. We also deal with debunking. Members such as myself delight in a good solid debunking, it proves that science works. In fact, maybe half of all pages tagged with our tag are actually about pop culture artifacts such as urban myths and legends or weird and wonderful claims by guys such as David Icke and Bob Lazar; Most of which are about bad science and bad history rather than spooks and ghosts, or stories such as that of Mel Walters. Basically, if it claims to fall out side of known science, or has aliens and things that go bump in the night in it, then it's fair game. - perfectblue 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All-encompassing is not in the project description/mission statement and really only represents the viewpoint of some of the project members. In any case, if that is to be the scope, the name would need to be changed. Perhaps Misplaced Pages:WikiProject SciFi or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fringe Science would be more appropriate. The name "paranormal" and the mission statement/description "having to do with the paranormal" causes confusion on talk pages of non-paranormal subjects. It should be somewhat limited in scope. Xenu is not really a paranormal subject just because it deals with aliens. --Nealparr 04:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we are on the same wavelength here. Project:scifi implies fiction (the fi in scifi is fiction) while much of we are dealing with is facts (facts as in "A real myth", not as in "the myth is true", an das in a proven hoax or a belief that it can be verified that people hold). Besides, most people would think that scifi means startrek and so on. Project Fringe science would be equally problematic. For example, how would you square fringe science with entries about mainstream science like archeology which can become entangled in the paranormal by association? or with things that exist in popular culture that are noting whatsoever to do with fringe science (the black eyed kid urban myth, the haunted ebay painting myth etc). As for Xenu not being in the scope because it deals with aliens, what about UFO cults and ancient astronauts, Xenu could be counted under both. - perfectblue 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep it just about the paranormal and not be all-encompassing. At the very least the topic should have a strong connection to the paranormal and not just a weak connection. UFO cults involve many paranormal-related phenomena and claims of appearances and abilities. Ancient astronauts involve evidence of past visits by extraterrestrials that is contrary to the accepted historical timeline. UFO cults and ancient astronauts are not by themselves paranormal, it's the peripheral phenomena that make them strongly associated with the paranormal (same thing with straight religion and mythology). Xenu doesn't have that same strong connection. 1) Because it (supposedly) happened millions of years ago, and 2) Because there's no evidence or direct observation left behind to be unexplainable by science. By comparison, it's just a story. The story of ancient astronauts is a mythology that the case makers believe is made through evidence. That's the big difference. It's the same difference that regulates unicorns and dragons to mythology and out of the realm of paranormal. Once a sighting takes place, or evidence is found that might suggest actual real unicorns, it moves from mythology to paranormal. Until then it's just mythology. Jesus turning water into wine is mythology until someone claims to find a cup that causes miraculous healing and is tied to Jesus and used to hold the water/wine. Paranormal is strongly attached to phenomena. Without phenomena, it's sci-fi, mythology, and so on. --Nealparr 20:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: The biggest connection between UFO cults and the paranormal isn't actually UFO phenomena. It's channeling phenomena. The paranormal aspect is that the cult leaders claim to be in contact, typically by channeling or telepathy, with extraterrestrial races. That's what makes UFO cults, alt-spiritual movements like Theosophy, Spiritualism, etc. paranormal-related. For the purposes of this project, I feel (and it's the written mission statement), that this project deals with the paranormal side of it. The rest is properly a mythology/religion project. There's some overlaps, to be sure, and some of these things belong under more than one category. But if it's not really strongly related to the paranormal -- biography of Madame Blavatsky for example, or the religious side of Wicca -- it doesn't really belong here. Blavatsky's psychic stuff, sure. Wiccan spellcrafting, sure. The "normal" stuff (Xenu mythology, etc.), not really. Hubbard channeling Xenu, sure. Xenu as an alien character in a religious movement's mythology, not really. --Nealparr 00:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is my belief, perfectblue, that this reality does a disservice to the legitimate anomalistical studies, such as ufology, cryptozoology and xenoarchaeology (the study of the weird structures found on Mars, etc). There should be a subdivision between the urban legendish material and the anomalistic or paranormal. --Chr.K. 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Except, that we don't just deal with science, we also deal with myth and popular culture. I stand by my position, Xenu is a myth/text about an alien impacted on the course of human history, therefore it should be included just like the modern myth about the pleadian aliens and so on. - perfectblue 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Pleidean story, on legal grounds, has more than one witness to its implied veracity. Xenu does not. --Chr.K. 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If two people were to claim have MET Xenu, here and now in the present, I would agree it should go here. Since they haven't, it should go in Religion only. --Chr.K. 01:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Von Danaken never claimed to have met an ancient astronaut. Do claims of race memories count? - perfectblue 17:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Veracity aside, the Pleadians are a good example of what I'm talking about above. Pleadians themselves, whether they exist or not, are not by themselves paranormal. What's paranormal is the host of psychics/channelers who say they are in contact with them telepathically and/or channel them. A Pleadian ship (UFO) wouldn't even be paranormal. A Pleadian ship that goes faster than the speed of light and delivers its passengers to Earth intact would be. --Nealparr 02:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So, the ghosts of the people whom Xenu is supposed to have murdered aren't paranormal, nor is the claim that people recover memories of past lives about Xenu? I'm surprised at that. - perfectblue 17:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A "find on page" search of the Xenu article returns 0 mentions of "ghosts". "Past lives" is only mentioned once. How notable are those paranormal phenomena to the actual Xenu story? --Nealparr 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what you might be looking for is a spin-off article that would be more closely tied to the paranormal, for example Xenu (paranormal aspects) which would cover the ghosts and whatnot. This would solve the question of scope in the same way that the Jimmy Carter article wouldn't be under the scope of the project, but Jimmy Carter UFO sighting would. --Nealparr 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, I can accept the notion given by perfectblue that a single overall name for the subjects is needed; however, I would've chosen the name to be Wikiproject:Unexplained, which is a pretty simple standard. In such case, the notion of Pleadians being claimed to be real, and the concept of channeling them, would both apply to the overall term. Then again, given that the very existence of Pleadians would at least give pause to many worldwide held beliefs, it could be argued that the term paraNORMAL is far too specific in modern practice. --Chr.K. 22:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Unexplained? but much of what we right about has been explained, which is the whole point of it, the skeptics would eat that title alive saying that it tried to lend legitimacy to anything under its auspices. What about photographic sprites, the William Hopes ghost photographs, the Carter UFO sighting, and so on. All of which have been explained and are no longer mysteries. Unexplained also implies that the subject is a real mystery which is simply not the case in the case of paranormal urban myths which are nothing more than spook stories that have become notable through their spread and duration. - perfectblue 17:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Psychic surgery

There's an interesting dispute happening on the Psychic surgery article. Since it was mentioned on WikiProject Medicine, thought I'd drop a note here too - since it has this project's tag as well. Dreadstar † 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The page seems to have attracted some fanatic haters. There's even opposition there to reordering the sections to put the criticism section after the history section, where it belongs. - perfectblue 10:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi notable myths

Does anybody think that Misplaced Pages has room for a page about urban myths spread over the internet that are not notable enough to have their own pages (at least in the minds of skeptics) but which nevertheless exist?

perfectblue 13:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? Zagalejo 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the list of deleted urban myths. Camp fire stories and so on, localized bigfoot/ape myths, myths spread through chat rooms and website, and so on. The Haunted Stitch doll would be a good example. - perfectblue 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a page on local Bigfoot myths seems doable. Are there any reliable sources that discuss the Haunted Stitch Doll? Zagalejo 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The crux of the problem here is "how reliable does something have to be to report on a myth?" From my perspective, so long as a myth is properly framed as being a myth it merely requires sources verifying its existence as a myth. Which can be anything from a peer reviewed journal about local lore, to a website reciting well known camp fire tales. Unfortunately, there are those among us who appear to believe that no source is reliable unless it is reliable to speak for the contents of the myth, rather than for the existence of the myth (they might, for example, ask for newspapers story covering The Hook or police reports of an actual hook incident in real life, then deny that the myth or sections of its content belongs on Misplaced Pages because such sources have never existed owing to the myth being nothing more than a myth). This tends to lead to them deleting popular culture sources. - perfectblue 10:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I share your frustrations. I think an article in Fortean Times or something similar should be reliable enough. Snopes should also count to verify the existence of a myth. Has anyone actually challenged these sources?Zagalejo 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortean Times and books by Charles Fort have been challenged more times than I can recall. As above, pseudo skeptics (the opposite of a true believer) bash sources like these constantly. The often claim that because they are not reliable sources for the science of a myth then they aren't reliable sources period. They simply don't accept the fact that we are trying to use them to prove the existence of a myth as a myth, not the existence of a myth as a fact of science or history. Some of them seem to be misguided and don't differentiate between proving the existence of a myth and proving the contents of a myth, while others seem to be intent on sweeping Misplaced Pages of any and all references that differ fro their world view. It's like an evolutionist trying to deleted a source showing that X million people believe in creationism simply because they feel that if it is shown that people believe in it then it must have some credibility. Alternatively, it's like a Creationist deleting sources saying that X percent of teachers refuse to teach ID because they think that it's harmful to science, because they are afraid that it will cause people to question creationism. It's silly, isn't it. There should be nothing wrong with presenting a myth as a myth and a pop culture artifact (EG the modern myths surrounding alien abduction) as a pop culture artifact. Yet some people simply can't stomach that beliefs and stories exist and persist independently from scientific and historic reality. - perfectblue 07:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue, you should know better than that. A pseudoskeptic is a true believer, while a real skeptic is the opposite of a true believer. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Er? (and I apologies if you were being sarcastic) but a True Believe will believe regardless of the evidence, while a Pseudo Skeptic will not believe regardless of the evidence. Therefore they are opposites. A real skeptic will not believe without evidence but will believe with evidence therefore they are not opposite of the others (the others are not evidence based while the other two are not). - perfectblue 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

real skeptic is somebody who won't believe without evidence but will change their mind when presented with suitable proof. Whereas

Entombed animal

I have created an article about entombed animals. If anyone has suggestions for improvement, let me know. Zagalejo 05:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Weeeellll, you've only got one peer reviewed journal entry as a source. I suggest that you find about a couple of dozen more, and maybe a signed affidavit from at least 2 serving Republican senators (or a serving 4 Star General), else the pseuodoskeptics will question its WP:V. - perfectblue 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It'd be better if there were some sources located in the page. --shade11 | (Talk • contribs) 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've cited four sources. What are you looking for, exactly? Zagalejo 05:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology made FA status

Parapsychology has received Misplaced Pages:Featured article status. Congrats to everyone who participated! --Nealparr 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Shooting Case

Got one for you for the Bigfoot article. It is hdbrp.com/Shooting%20Cases.htm - Police and hunters shoot at Bigfoot. Just some shooting reports. 205.240.146.131 03:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt very much that the pseudoskeptics would suffer that site as a source. I know I would object to it on WP:RS grounds. I suggest hat we avoid it in favor of more credible reports. perfectblue 16:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology FA dispute

As you might expect, there is now a dispute on the Misplaced Pages:Featured articles page over whether parapsychology is part of psychology or part of Religion, mysticism and mythology- in other words (in all reality), there is a dispute over whether it is to be given the status of science. Your opinions would be welcome. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: This is getting big. What I at first assumed to be the usual paranormal-hater turned out to be a member of the Arbitration Committee! He kept edit warring parapsychology back into mythology and religion, then when I flagged the article, he reverted that also, and protected the page.

Link to the FA page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe some of the silly arguments that are being put up there. Parapsychology as religion; Would that would make James Randi a cleric and PEAR a seminary? Parapsychology as mythology? Well, I guess that would put Edgar Cayce on par with a Unicorn, and would make William Hope some kind of legendary figure. - perfectblue 12:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The functional issue was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The issue of abuse of power by a member of the Arbitration committee was never resolved, however. I asked that it be explained how such a dispute could be taken to the next level, and by the silence which greeted this request, I assume that the Arbitrator -an individual editor- has total power on that page, with no recourse. He is also willing to edit, revert, and protect the page based on his POV regarding the paranormal. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Latin America

Has anybody got anything good on that story about the impact in Latin America that apparently made loads of people ill. As a current event it can be sourced from new sources rather than academic sources. - perfectblue 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found This which I think would be a perfect source. It passes WP:V and WP:RS and includes a skeptical analysis from named experts. The only issue, what to call the article itself. If only we could get a good fair use image. - perfectblue 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Natural events usually get titled (eg) 2007 United Kingdom floods, so 2007 Peru meteorite strike seems fine to me. Does this remind anyone else of Backwater by Brian Eno? Totnesmartin 10:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the tabloid approach (pop culture style naming), for example Carangas incident, but I guess that's not to everybody's tastes and I can see it drawing the ire of the pseudo skeptics like a magnet. - perfectblue 17:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it's on In The News at the mo (yer tis me dears), so we've been beaten to it. Still, we can go over there and add our tuppenyworth... Totnesmartin 16:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Badbilltucker

Lately User:Badbilltucker has been adding the project paranormal banner to a lot of pages. While I commend this effort, I've got a few issue with some of their choices. For example, putting the banner onto Archaeological forgery and Etruscan terracotta warriors, Tiara of Saitaferne. As these pages stand, these pages and a number of others that have been tagged make no real mention of the paranormal, either in popular culture or in research controversy, and have no visible links to the paranormal at all.

I don't think that it would be very helpful to round behind the user and second guess (Wikistalking?) them so I've dropped a quick note on their user page. Does anybody here feel like dropping buy and saying hi, thanks for the assist, but ...., or should we leave it for the wider community to vote with their edits?

perfectblue 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Colors

It's come to my attention that the colors used in some of the project stuff -the white print on black background- isn't as lovable as it could be. I don't know where this stuff is set, but I'm wondering if maybe there could be some better colors? I've thought it needed improvement for a long time, and now another editor took out a box and called it ugly, so I know I'm not alone. But it seems to be set project-wide, so I can't just go change it. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"lovable?" We're talking infobox for the paranormal here, not kittens and bunnies. Black is there perfect color. All of the infoboxes, the main logos, and so on use black. Changing the project colors would require that they all be re-written, too. Which would not only create more work, but would also risk breaking the consensuses that we have already established on appearence and suitability.

You should also be aware that infoboxes and taxoboxes for different projects have their own colors so as not to create confusion between them. If you use the colors used by another project you risk blurring the lines, which should be doubly avoided in a project like ours which places its template on so many different pages that are covered by other projects, too. For example, you wouldn't want to have the cryptozooology infobox being confused with a zoological taxobox. One is about myth an dthe other is about Science fact, having the same colors would be "problematic". The same goes for geography, history, biography taxoboex (Not to mention creative fiction projects). We can't use a color already taken by anybody else whose ethos (fact or pure fiction, etc) clashes with our own, which sharply cuts down our choices.

Also, by making the project "lovable" rather than Gothic we run the risk we not only risk loosing our identity, but we also risk the ire of those who disapprove of the project. I can just imagine what they'd saw. They'd accuse us of trying to use a light and airy scheme, or more serious looking one, to try and make the paranormal seem like science or "harmless fun" (graphical POV pushing, if you will). Efforts to introduce a "lovable" mascot were met with consensus against for similar reasons.

We are the X-Files of Misplaced Pages, and black is the most appropriate color. I for one wouldn't take an entry about MID or spooks seriously if it were pink or pastel.

perfectblue 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really look like X-Files to me. By "lovable," I just mean a little less unpleasant to look at. As far as being afraid of POV-pushing from others on Misplaced Pages, I had no idea X-Files fans were so darn lilly-livered. They can hang themselves: we can do whatever we want graphically. In terms of Gothic, I don't see anything appropriate about that in particular.

As far as it being too much work, now that's a good reason (:

For a mascot, I suggest your Wikipetan, or something spooky: lovable or unlovable.

I'd like to suggest to members of this project that they shouldn't modify their behavior based on the trollishness, POV-pushing or accusations of others. I've been all the way through ArbCom in defense of NPOV on paranormal articles, and if that's what it takes to prevent the kind of silly snarking you're afraid of, that's what we should do. ——Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

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