This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reddi (talk | contribs) at 00:39, 22 April 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:39, 22 April 2007 by Reddi (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Template:WikiProject Paranormal navigation | ||||||||||||||||
| Contents |
|---|
|
Archives: |
The Wyoming Incident - anyone know if this is real or a hoax?
I'm considering doing an article on this purported incident of spooky-ooky TV hacking, but I think the whole thing's a hoax. I can't find any original source material and all the internet mentions say the same basic crap. It seems to begin in 2004. Here's a link to the alleged video and the story:
The Wyoming Incident at Google Video
It IS a creepy story and even if it is a hoax, it might deserve a small article. it seems to be playing on the Pokemon Panic as well as the Max Headroom hacking incident. Feedback? Lisapollison 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe anything ever happened in Wyoming. And before someone tries to ban me, it's a joke. Davkal 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- The information given on the right margin in that link is quite believable, even if it is fake. As it stands, it would probably be best to seek out sources for all known television hijackings in the United States, or the world. If this has been done, and it's not found, then I lean as well toward hoax. --Chr.K. 06:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Chr.K., I have done a number of searches and all the references to the Wyoming Incident appear to be based on the same second-hand report dating from 2004. Still, it's pretty creepy and it's remarkable how many folks believe it really happened. Don't you think that if it did, I'd be able to find a newspaper mention or something? I can't even be sure that the incident is alleged to have happened in 2004, just that this is when reports start to show up. My husband reminds me that in the second Hellraiser film, Pinhead says "I have such sightsa to show you" which is sort of similar to the video's statement "you will see such pretty things" but not similar enough. Also, there is the Videodrome connection. If any of you can find some original sources on this, please link me to them.Lisapollison 17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Currently looking. --Chr.K. 09:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Chr.K., I have done a number of searches and all the references to the Wyoming Incident appear to be based on the same second-hand report dating from 2004. Still, it's pretty creepy and it's remarkable how many folks believe it really happened. Don't you think that if it did, I'd be able to find a newspaper mention or something? I can't even be sure that the incident is alleged to have happened in 2004, just that this is when reports start to show up. My husband reminds me that in the second Hellraiser film, Pinhead says "I have such sightsa to show you" which is sort of similar to the video's statement "you will see such pretty things" but not similar enough. Also, there is the Videodrome connection. If any of you can find some original sources on this, please link me to them.Lisapollison 17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's already an article on the Max Headroom-interrupting-Doctor Who incident: WTTW#Hijack. DrWho42 19:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is also an article on that incident here: Max Headroom Pirating Incident which states that no further such pirating incidents have ocurred. Therefore, I'd guess the Alleged Wyoming Incident (AKA: You Will See Such Pretty Things) is a hoax. Even so, it might merit an article since folks viewing it claim to be effected in unnatrual ways kinda like the eBay haunted paintingLisapollison
- But the MHPI article might be out of date, or badly informed 9if I may insert a spanner into the works!). However, even if it didn't happen, it could be worthy of an article, simply as a hoax-about-a-hoax, or an urban legend. Totnesmartin 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is also an article on that incident here: Max Headroom Pirating Incident which states that no further such pirating incidents have ocurred. Therefore, I'd guess the Alleged Wyoming Incident (AKA: You Will See Such Pretty Things) is a hoax. Even so, it might merit an article since folks viewing it claim to be effected in unnatrual ways kinda like the eBay haunted paintingLisapollison
As above, a notable hoax is still a notable event.
perfectblue 08:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
] Puddytang 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is that the same information, though? All the references seem to be, so the question would be whether we can find a newspaper source on it to know for certain. --Chr.K. 09:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Dazeytweeter: It's a hoax. It was done by three people over at Something Aweful.
Posted by the Puppetmaster
I was reading one of the older incarnations in the creepy things series when I made up the story about the Wyoming Incident. I picked Wyoming and Niobrara because I knew them both to be rather sparsely populated. I then made some fake screenshots as well as the story of the hijacking. Brief interest developed in the incident, but I forgot about it pretty quickly.
IanJ brought the Wyoming Incident up in the Max Headroom thread. I decided to elaborate further on the story. People became even more interested, so I decided to make a video of it. I recorded the sounds from the WGBH logo (which I altered severely) and used a pitch generator for the actual faces part of the video. I did not use Poser. I used FaceGen Modeller. Frame by frame, I took pictures of the faces, animating them so that they moved a little. I then took the frames into photoshop, clone-brushed the SL logo off of them, and ran them through the reticulation filter. I then put them together through Windows Movie Maker. The text screens were done with courier in MSPaint.
Anyway, I posted the video to Google and then linked to it from SA. It became incredibly popular and appeared on a ton of blogs. The most intelligent discussion about it seemed to be at Unfiction.com. ViralDetector (The Detector) helped me by registering there and posting as a plant. I wrote most of the more literature-based stuff (GMiller's blog, The Masks We Wear, So Tired). Soon we released the second and third videos. They were made the same way as the previous ones.
We made up a huge mythology around the videos using stuff from Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore, Greek Mythology, Lovecraft, Modern Conspiracy Theories, Thelema, etc. OC_James worked on most of the mythology, though it became severely altered by the people "interacting" with the story. We pretty much played along with what the players seemed to want, and handed out some arbitrary tasks to people. It should be noted that me and OC_James live in Anderson.
Anyway, we wanted to do all nine videos, but interest in the videos and "game" were waning. We did Children stuff to knock up attention. When I noticed there were 59 people viewing the forums (a high for some time), I sent ViralDetector in to post "YOU WANNA KNOW WHUT" and "FARTZ". Truth be told, we were getting pretty bored by the end with everyone else.
A lot of the stuff we did was basic psychology. We're all goons (now), but OC_James has a name he will not give away to anyone and pretty much hates the internet. I think this was the longest he's been on the internet in about a year.
- Case closed. So should we make an article or what? Puddytang 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Despite its actually being an alternate reality game, I still think it is noteworthy enough to make for an article. DrWho42 05:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do believe it warrants an article because the video pops up a lot and folks who leave comments believe its real. They even say that they feel lightheaded or dizzy after watching it. It's as if the power of suggestion has gone haywire. If someone wants to take a stab at it, go for it. i'll help.Lisapollison 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it's known as the placebo effect, btw. --Chr.K. 10:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do believe it warrants an article because the video pops up a lot and folks who leave comments believe its real. They even say that they feel lightheaded or dizzy after watching it. It's as if the power of suggestion has gone haywire. If someone wants to take a stab at it, go for it. i'll help.Lisapollison 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Dazeytweeter: If you're looking for sources for an article inclusion look here http://happycube.wetpaint.com/
If anybody needs any additional information contact me at dazeytweeter@yahoo.com
I intend to create an article for this in the next few days. Could we leave this discussion up a while longer for source material? Thanks LiPollis 00:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, apparently at the website of this (is it an ARG??) thing, it gives plenty of reasons WHY the goons from SA didnt do it.
Heres the page.
http://thehappycube.proboards34.com/index.cgi?board=hackjobjohnny&action=display&thread=1174098036
Something to look into? --74.134.12.230 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, Case NOT Closed I'd say! See, this is why we should do an article. this is mysterious, spooky and controversial. if anyone else wants to take a stab writing the stub for the articvle, feel free. it will take me a few more days to finish some other work before i can get to it. I'd be happy to flesh out anything you write. I ask for help becuase i'm hopeless when it comes to uploading images. I'd like to see a screenshot or two from the video. This is a lot like the ebay haunted picture becuase people do report being upset and made ill by viewing the google video. LiPollis 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Mel's Hole
The Mel's Hole article needs some help. It's an interesting topic (regardless of its legitimacy), and I think Jaysweet has been doing a great job cleaning it up. But the subject seems to suffer from a lack of credible external sources. Does anyone know if it's mentioned in any other bona-fide media sources (aside from the onces already listed on the article page)? --Careax 16:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I took a look. Articles based almost entirely on Art Bell'show are always problematic. Looks like there's not many ways to improve the article becuase Mel is just waaaaay out there and is the only source for this info. There are some discussion groups and fans of Mel who are still looking for the original hole but it coul all be solved with a word or three from Mel himself. I do plan to add some discussion to the similarities to Mel's Holes (there are more than one now) and the delusion Charles Manson had about a similar hole he believed to exist out in Death Valley. In the words of the immortalEd Sanders oooh-weee-oh! LiPollis 00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've been working on trying to bring this article up to snuff and I could use some help. As with most Art Bell subjects, it's hard to dfind citeable sources other than the Art Bell show itself. if anyone can help me confirm that there were pre-existing legends of a bottomless hole in that area of Washington State, I'd be much obliged. Thanks.LiPollis 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of interest
Some of you may be interested in this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_18#Category:Purported_psychics. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is a done-deal. It's been voted on and archived. The discussion has been had before and we always lose. Chalk it up to skeptical Activism. Oddly enough, I am a skeptic, just not one who feels the need to push my POV on the entire world.LiPollis 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just amazed at how the skeptical POV always wins out - I don't think there's one paranormal article in Misplaced Pages that properly gies the view of the believers. It's all skepticism, all the time. I guess the number of believers, or their "focus" isn't as high - add to that the attacks that constantly go on, and it just wears us out. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you think motivates them, are they really interested in the issues, or are they simply trying to hush up things like the governments that won't permit a banned book to be discussed in the papers in case people start looking more closely at the subjects that it raises?
I wonder, are they motivated by religion?
perfectblue 11:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- perfectblue , as someone who was involved in the skeptical community for years, I would say that Skeptical activism is usually perpetrated by Skeptics who oppose any and all religion as ludicrous and the refuge of weak minds. They consider themselves superior to the poor deluded people who go to churches, temples etc.. I wish there was some common factor with these folks but there isn't. Some Christians like to pick on the fact that a number of Skeptics were raised in jewish households but that's not fair. There are just as many skjeptics raised in Christian households who push against all religious topics, mysticism and the paranormal. They don't care to accept the notion that adults can and do choose to look at the world through a non-rational or non-scientific lens. And this is all despite the resreach from people such as Andrew Newberg that suggest our brains are hard-wired to experience the mystical. I believe that hardcore skepticism IS a religion andf wordlview. It is often paired with libretarian views which are every bit as non-rational as some religions but since libretarianism is an economic/politcal theory, they can feel comfortable saying they have no religious views. Puhleeeze - Economic schools of thought and policitical parties are religions too. they just don't care to see it that way. Oh, and the skeptcial activists succeed in wiki arguements because they are willng to continue the harangue until others got tired and leave. They are also quite organized. See our archive for some funn stuff on that. They have hit lists of articles to hammer and so on. The spiritually minded seem far more willing to just let things go. Who wins in the end? I think the people who leave the argument win but that's just my POVLiPollis 23:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- My pet theory is that when spirituality is denied, skepticism, very literally, can take over the parts of the brain (literally the brain) and assume the general position in the mind which spirituality usually occupies. So what we are dealing with are fundamentalists. I see no difference in the thinking pattern.
- However, the skeptics have a point. It seems to me also that while paranormal believers are often very smart, skepticism (I mean a critical attitude which questions things rationally) and belief in the paranormal cannot easily reside in the same mind. The people who have veridical psychic experiences are usually either very ill, or they are uneducated or, um, someway gullible. Sorry, I just think that's true. That's why parapsychology is so important- 'cause rational people are otherwise denied any psychic connection. And that's why the skeptics are more numerous: because the paranormalists really are POV pushers. In order to experience the psychic, they literally have to suppress their rational minds in some areas. So not only do the paranormalists let go easier, they really are often less rational. That is not to say that the paranormal and skepticism cannot reside together in the same mind, or that the two are truly opposed or can't work together harmoniously. But it is very difficult. You have to spend a lot of time on it. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Cottingley Fairies
The article was just vandalised and I have no idea how to revert to the previous version, could someone take a look at it please?--Tascio 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well caught. I've reverted it back to the previous version. --Careax 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Careax! I must learn how to do some of that stuff sometime! :-) --Tascio 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we need to lock the Cottingley Fairies article? Looks like it is getting a bit crazy there... --Tascio 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would recommend reporting the vandals for action but first make sure you leave a note on their talk page asking them to stop vandalising or to be more polite, to stop making uncronstructive edits. An admin is more likely to take action only after an isp or user has had a couple of notes like that on their user page. in the meantime, you can semi-protect the page which is less drastic.LiPollis 23:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we need to lock the Cottingley Fairies article? Looks like it is getting a bit crazy there... --Tascio 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Paranormal arbitration
I think that very soon an arbitration will go on regarding paranormal topics at Misplaced Pages, especially with regards to Electronic voice phenomenon. You can find discussion about this impending litigation here. Please advise. --ScienceApologist 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Have we got a editor going bad ? OR is there something else going on ? 65.163.113.145 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not being offensive, etc. at all. What is going on ? 65.163.113.145 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's a user RfC involving EVP and other paranormal topics going on now, linked below, that may be of interest. Other than that I'm not aware of any other active DR (the EVP article had a proposed moderation but it seems to have fizzled out). --Minderbinder 12:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not being offensive, etc. at all. What is going on ? 65.163.113.145 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
RfC
Here's an RfC of interest: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Martinphi. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Psionics and Paranormal?
Who would even suggest those two projects merge? They're two totally different things! Somebody should read the article on Psionics...Lighthead 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Free Energy Suppression
I noticed the free energy suppression article had a link to this group. I just did a series of major edits on that article because it was, to put it plainly, horrible. I didn't see a link to it on your main project page, but I thought I'd give you guys a heads up that I did a major reworking of the article. Titanium Dragon 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Article suggestion
Despite the fact of my recent clashes with members of this project I want to suggest an article about one of the less cranky researchers involved. I was really surprised, that there's no article International Consciousness Research Laboratories, see http://www.icrl.org/history.php.
It's somewhat the step-child of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. Uggh. Seeing the mess there, I'm wondering whether this is good idea...
Pjacobi 11:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
New infobox
Given some of the recent trauma over page introductions where pseudoskeptics have added "alleged" in front of every other word and have refused to accept any intro that defines something in paranormal terms (eg "XYZ is the alleged phenomona in which alleged people who believe in the alleged paranormal have allegedly alleged that something that is allegedly paranormal allegedly exists, somewhere, maybe, though it's not be proven in more than 10000 peer reviewed journals yet"), I'm going to whip up an info box for general "paranormal phenomona" that includes a definition and a description in paranormal term, and all of the other stuff that pseudoskeptics want to keep out of wikipedia. Does anybody have any suggestions for fields?
perfectblue 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- You mean something like the Template:Perpetual motion machine, as seen e.g. on Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy? I'll allege it wouldn't work here, as an infobox requires that articles have something positive in common. --Pjacobi 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't work here?
- Infobox (as on the project pages) requires that articles have something positive in common. Paranormal research, fringe science, and proto-science articles each, respectively, have things in common.
user removing references and links
JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be removing references and websites that are related to this project. J. D. Redding 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
These need to be checked and history went over ...
- Homopolar generator
- Rolamite
- John Searl
- Andrija Puharich (note: bias in his comment of "kook")
- Harry Perrigo
- Aftermarket fuel economy device
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Master Magnet (Master Magnet - Delete)
- Migma
- Eric Laithwaite
- Coal
- Bergius process
- Karrick process
- Viktor Grebennikov
- 1Corentin Louis Kervran
- Gasoline pill
- Atmospheric electricity
- Robert W. Bussard
- Dmitri Mendeleev
- Mendeleev's predicted elements
- Alexander Procofieff de Seversky
- Bruce De Palma
- Möbius resistor)
- Andrew Crosse
J. D. Redding 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- rexresearch is a prime example of an unreliable source -- to be used only in a restricted set of cases:
- article about itself (doesn't seem to a good idea)
- when reproducing an otherwise not accessable source and there are no doubts about misrepresenting it
- In most cases rexresearch wasn't used as reference, but rather as an "external link". So removing it, wasn't even removing references.
- Pjacobi 22:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Rexresearch is a prime example of a reliable source -- to be used in cases that it applies to. External link can be used to verify information.
The information on rexresearch is usually cited and can checked
I did the Harry Perrigo article and rex research is the main information of him (that exists on the internet); I went to the KC library and have whole page photocopies of the newspapers that the library had (which are in portion at the rex research site. He is of interest .
The exact same information is at the Kansas City Public Library and Rex Research. The information from the Kansas City Public Library is on his site! I have the articles, now ... I wanted copies of the original stuff ... I went and verified them!!! They have the same information as rex-research! (you can do the same thing, goto the KC public library stacks and ask a references clerk to help look up the old newspapers ...)
It is only a POV that is bias in many of these cases.
New Cat and info box
I've added and partially populated a new cat "Category:Paranormal terminology" for paranormal and parapsychology terms, and I've created a new infobox for paranormal terms, too.
Template:Infobox_Paranormalterms
perfectblue 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Megalith
Why is the topic of Megaliths not covered in paranormal interest? Pjacobi removed it with the (not paranormal) edit.
J. D. Redding 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why isn't asking dumb rhetoric questions not a bannable offense? --Pjacobi 17:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Probably for the same reasons why making ad hominem is. We observe WP:CIVILITY here, which means WP:NPA - perfectblue 17:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the problem: isn't evolution subject to paranormal speculation -- especially with regards to the transhuman? If so, why isn't evolution claimed by this project? Just because a topic is obliquely related doesn't mean that the project should tag it as a relevant article. Megaliths are primarily archeological, not paranormal. What is paranormal would be New Age beliefs regarding megaliths, for example. --ScienceApologist 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Since there isn't much around suggesting that evolution is the result of ghosts and ghouls, I take it that you are referring to creationism and ID. Both faith issue which project paranormal doesn't really deal with (We don't usually deal with anything involving religious doctrine or scriptures). However, if you're referring to the Distant Origin principle (that human evolution was started by aliens), then I think that we already cover that. It's mentioned on several pages about contactees and UFO cults. Feel free to add our tag to the evolution page if you like, but it's up to you to defend your edit to the people already there. Personally, I don't think that the religious people or the biologists would take kindly to suggestions that the boogie man passes the notability criteria for that page. - perfectblue 07:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- WikiProjects do not "claim" articles, they maintain lists of articles that the colloborators of the WikiProject are interested in, and tag them accordingly. If the editors of WikiProject Paranormal consider megaliths (or evolution, or whatever) to be a topic of interest to the Project, who is to say "no, you're not allowed to be interested in that"?? --Stormie 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- There isn't a rule saying that it has to be directly related, in order to be under the scope of a project, unless I am mistaken. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Best to review it in the context of WP:PROJGUIDE Shot info 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it says "Many articles will be tagged by more than one WikiProject." Thanks for showing me that (: Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Re the evolution article. That could probably be tagged too. Not least because DNA is regarded by some (even it's discoverer I believe) as the ultimate oopart. Not to mention the fact that it has recently been discovered that the 97% (or whatever it is) of DNA that is referred to as "junk DNA" contains chemical "sequences" arranged in patterns and frequencies that are otherwise only found in human languages. That is, it is found to correspond with Zipf's law!Davkal 09:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wish you well finding a WP:V for that that won't be instantly rejected by the crew at Evolution on WP:RS grounds. Honestly, I find pro-evolution people can often be as much true-believers as as the Creationists. I'm not a fanatic by any means, but the way that they simply dismiss certain things or make certain leaps scares me. You'd have to pay me before I'd edit that article with any of this. - perfectblue 10:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Davkal, Pefectblue97, and Martinphi are unintentionally proving the point of Pjacobi. Stormie is in principle correct, but when certain groups make what we might call "perspective impositions" on articles that is very problematic. Whether we want to admit it or not, this particular WikiProject has become a vehicle for POV-pushing and the comments of many of the editors here indicate that if, for example, evolution were to be selected these editors would make it their business to basically disrupt the article. Scary stuff. --ScienceApologist 10:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Everything that you've said back at you with Paranormal swapped "Rational skeptic" etc. - perfectblue 14:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually perfectblue the systamatic mobbing of paranormal articles by editors objecting to th term would fall under Pseudoskepticism. Rational Skeptics tend to believe that it is NOT their job to supress belief in and articles about beliefs in spirtiual, religious, mystical or esoteric subjects. These same folks are mobbing the page on psuedoskepticism itself to try and get it deleted or merged into another article to take the bite of of criticism of pseudoskeptics from within the skeptical community itself. As an anthropologist, I and others in my field have written about the dogmas within extreme skepticism and how that end of the movement has taken on all the trappings of a religion. There are "sacred texts", "gurus" and even "apostate" skeptics who are maligned for advocating a more respecftful tone towards people's religious beliefs. Skepticism functions best when it seeks to provide alternative real world explanations, not when it seeks to destory and supress all other beliefs and explanations. Penn & Teller had great fun last night ridiculing people who believe in spirit possession. Some of their attacks were founded in science but they quickly veered off into viscious-land as they often do when covering religion because they honestly believe that only chumps would believe in God. Ask them! They'll be happy to tell you why theists are inferior, stupid and worthy of their contempt. it's hard to watch simply becuase it serves no real world purpose. They didn't disavow a single person of any belief, they merely preached to their insider choir and had fun calling people "A-holes", their favorite thing to do. Now I love Penn & Teller's show. It's entertaining. However, when it veers off into contemptious hatered for anyone not as enlightened as they are, it makes me squirm . I mention this because their attitude is mirrors that of a number of activists systematically running through all the paranormal tagged pages and challeneging first the project tag and if that doesn't prevail, then the move on to sources. If that fails, then they draw members of this project into edit wars or personal insult exchanges. Sounds an awful lot like the religious wars on wikipedia, eh?LiPollis 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Consensus needed
There's a "bit of disagreement" over whether Megalith comes under Project Paranormal's jurisdiction. Consensus is needed. Please make your feelings known here.
perfectblue 08:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Why? Because some consider megaliths to be actual examples of "paranormal" phenomena. For example, the Stone of the South at Baalbek is thought to weigh over 1000 tons - nobody has any idea how ancient peoples could have moved such a thing - so it is said. And this same, or a similar, story is told regarding many megalithic sites throughout the world. The megalith article should probably cover some of these points.Davkal 09:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Teslascope
- Finally got this article up! let us enjoy and expand this article hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei 17:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very nice work! it's rare to see a new article with both references AND a photo. Great job. I'll see if I can add anything to it. Thanks also for letting usknow about it.LiPollis 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Audrey Santo
I have recently revised this article to include the Catholic Church's findings (or lack thereof) regarding the alleged miracles said to have happened in her home or as a result of prayer to her. I have not tagged the article as part of our project out of concern that such an action might be met with hostility due to her recent death. However, it really is a paranormal article. She was alleged to have manifested stigmata, "Miracle oil" was said to seep from the walls in her room and healings were attributed to her acting as a victim soul. I'd welcome input from other editors. Her funeral is tomorrow and it is likely that a push for sainthood will start soon.LiPollis 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Carlos Castaneda
I have heavily revised this article to try and include facts and criticisms. A very long and revealing article in Salon appeared last week that summarized some of the more troubling aspects of Castaneda's apparant cult of personailty that appears to have led to the suicide of his closest followers follwing his death in 1998. Indeed, his books have been considered academic frauds since the mid 1980s but he remains a very popular new age figure or guru to many. I tried to strike a balance in the article. I would welcome input. I did tag this article with our project name because he referred to himself as a sorcerer and his philopshy as a method of magic.LiPollis 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations
I have been working on a number of articles related to this conspiracy theory and I would welcome input or a rating of the articles I have been trying to beef up such as: Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing and then main article itself, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. Thanks. LiPollis 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Directory
It this wikiproject listed in any of those sections? i could not find it (:O) -Nima Baghaei 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- We've been officially classed under 'philosophy and religion'. --InShaneee 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Michael Tsarion
This paranormal WikiProkect article is in danger of being deleted. Please cast your vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Tsarion. Thank you. -Eep² 09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you mean the article is up for deletion, not our project. This is one of the most active projects I know ofLiPollis 12:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, sorry for the miswording; I added "article". Thanks. -Eep² 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
List of Ufologists
I like this article alot and have spent some time on it, but I have only one complaint, there are to many people with no references showing they are Ufologist and also many of them are just red links (meaning no article on them). I have added Ufologist to the list who have articles and good references, but this article just has some other people I just dont know anything about... should we just remove unsourced material that have no articles on the person? (:O) -Nima Baghaei 18:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, these types of lists can become problematic, mainly because they become vulnerable to deletion. I'd suggest doing what The Kinslayer did on the List of allegedly haunted locations page. Move all unreferenced individuals to a "deleted content" sub-page. That way if someone finds a reference they can re-add them to the main list without having to sift through a ton of previous page versions.
- It seems like none of the individuals have in-line references on the list page itself. I'd suggest adding them wherever they are applicable. You could start off with the most prominent people in this field. Let me know if you'd like me to help you with that. I'd also suggest removing any "red links" and just emboldening those names. Links can be added later once the individual articles have been started. Hope this helps. --Careax 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- good idea, i will do that! (:O) -Nima Baghaei 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done ... finished cleaning it up (:O) -Nima Baghaei 20:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Template protection
shouldnt these templates be protected using some form of sprotect given the number of articles they are used on? if some nonregistered user came in and edited one of them, lots of pages using those templates may be damaged (houston we got a problem, if you catch my drift hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Paranormalcreatures
- Template:Infobox Paranormalpeople1
- Template:Infobox encounters
- Template:Paranormal-stub
- Template:WikiProject Paranormal
Template generally aren't protected, and protection generally isn't granted unless there has been several instances of vandalism.
perfectblue 08:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- these are high priority templates though given the number of articles that use them, just a thought (:O) -Nima Baghaei 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Fairy Mounds
just found this article, maybe of some interest (:O) -Nima Baghaei 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Teslascope deleteion?
ok someone just came around and asked that this article be deleted... the old version of the article was written by someone else and lacked sources so I went ahead and re-wrote the article and added great references (i mean come on who would like that time magazine and scientific america reference!) ... so anways what do you all think we can do about? (:O) -Nima Baghaei 20:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- They used {{db-repost}}, which isn't a valid speedy reason as the old deletion was a speedy. {{db-repost}} is only for articles deleted by AFD. I've removed the speedy and your {{hangon}}. If they want it deleted they can send it to AFD, but I think it stands a good chance of survival as it's quite a good stub. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- WOw! very cool! (:O) -Nima Baghaei 20:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration on the paranormal
There is an Arbitration request which may decide the future of most of the paranormal articles here. This may be highly important. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- This project (WikiProject Paranormal) has been introduced in the Arbitration request, so if you have an opinion about this project, you might want to at least check it out.
- --Nealparr 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- sigh... it's a sad day when ArbCom is used to push one side of a debate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Topics in ufology
well i created and have been really updating this article, problem is someone other does not agree that some of these topics should be listed in that article, so I have gone ahead and provided for those questionable topics they have removed but I put back into the article... what is everyone elses take in the matter and any suggestions on how we can solve this? (:O) -Nima Baghaei 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
KAZ 11
Right here and now, today. --Chr.K. 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I spotted the story about a day ago on a British website. Will do a page on it.
perfectblue 12:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Page now in place, see Kaz 11. Please watch for in case of skeptical AfD. They seem particularly irksome right now. Spring fever maybe?
Megalith
Just a note, this has been removed several times by User:ScienceApologist removed the project note @ top ] here @ Talk:Megalith. J. D. Redding 00:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Accusations?
Someone may find it interesting, the RfA @ Paranormal and Pjacobi statement @ 18:51 on 21 April 2007. J. D. Redding 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Categories: