Talk:Ghost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghost article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Peer review Ghost has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
To-do list for Ghost: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Don't be scared its just a ghost by the way my friends house it haunted
  • Needs References and In-line citations, especially for assertions and reported hauntings.
  • First paragraph of the "Beliefs" section immediately makes claims and assertions regarding ghosts. For those of us who do not give much credit to such phenomenon, this has the appearance of bias.
  • I think I'd also like to see an expansion on the topic of ghost researchers.
  • Skeptical analysis desperately needs to be expanded, for the sake of balance.
Priority 1 (top)
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive

Archives
01: Dec 2005- Oct 2006

Contents

[edit] Not every culture has ghosts

The opening paragraph claims that every culture in the world has stories of ghosts, but this is not the case. There is very little that can be said to apply every culture.

In a somewhat famous essay [1] an athropologist attempts to tell the story of Hamlet to the Tiv of Africa, and among other things they do not understand the concept of a ghost. Pantocyclus 01:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

        • Having read this story, it appears they did in fact have a belief in "Omens" which have ghost-like traits. Although the full-blown ghost traits we know of are not known as present in their society, according to this author, they clearly did not have any trouble digesting the idea of an apparition, even if only an inhuman image. This warrants further investigation before being used as contrary evidence.

The other contention that is frequently brought up about this particular story is that Bohannan was speaking among the elders -- the ones who were supposed to already know all that is to be known about the supernatural. Being brought new information about the nature of the supernatural would be considered a sign of ineptness, so they were obliged to "correct" this information, as per the story. Would this experience have played out the same way if speaking among a family of commoners?

--Tk

[edit] Have the authors even investigated a haunting?

Contrary to the impression given in this article, there ARE serious researchers doing scientific work on ghosts. It is quite obvious from such research that people DO experience SOMETHING that they interpret as a ghost. The point is, what do they experience? In many cases there are mundane explanations but sometimes there aren't. That is not to imply that there is a paranormal explanation, merely that no natural explanation has been found yet. The subject is complex. It is clear that 'seeing ghosts' involves a complex interplay of perception, cultural background and the local environment.

The skeptic/believer 'analyses' of ghosts are pointless. People have been 'investigating' using such 'models' for over a century without meaningful result. With the paranormal, you find what you want. Believers go out with mediums and, unsurprisingly, 'find' spirits. Skeptics, generally go as far as the need to find the first 'natural cause' (frequently wrong!) they come across. It is time to dump such fruitless approaches and follow an unbiased, scientific way forward, which a few are doing. This article COULD be encouraging such an enlightened approach.

I think the whole entry, down to 'Notable Ghosts' could be rewritten from scratch. Much of it is incredibly vague and lacking in detail and just maintains the whole sterile believer / skeptic 'debate'. It needs to be neutral, detailed and informative with citations throughout. Ghost79 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is no place for neither original research nor wild speculations, we'll have to stick to the facts and reliable sources we have. For the record, I have investigated a haunted location (a well documented one at that), but my findings are totally irrelevant for this article, since it is original research. /M.O (u) (t) 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I get the bit about original research - fair enough. I'm not sure about the 'wild speculation' bit. Can you enlarge please? Ghost79 18:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I linked the phrase about speculation to the policy page about verifiability, I suggest you read it. /M.O (u) (t) 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, I will not trouble you further. I was just a little surprised, having been used to the normally excellent, factual and neutral approach adopted throughout much of the Wikipedia to come across this entry where 'points of view' (e.g. 'skeptical analysis') are so clearly evident. I wish you luck in finding 'reliable sources' in this field. I can think of very few.Ghost79 06:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste any time making good suggestions to the deaf. This entire entry is an advertisement for one website. If you submit an external link, it gets deleted and your IP is banned - legitimate researchers are routinely kicked out and denied a voice, so this entry becomes ever more remote from reality.

[edit] Ghost Fiction: Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

I think this book by Douglas Adams should be mentioned in the 'ghost fiction' section, since it has a somewhat unusual treatment of ghosts (which are central to the plot). CarrerCrytharis 23:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] One Sided

This article is not fair and balenced. This article leans too much on the skeptic point of view, this article DOES NOT offer both points of view.

This article is designed to benefit the self-appointed editor's cronies - try providing a new external link and see how swiftly it is taken down (you'll be banned too). It is NOT a public resource because input and viewpoints from others are simply deleted. I have asked for explanations - but the editor is too gutless to do anything but delete contributions and ban IP numbers. Wikipedia is anti-British and in the hands of small-minded people who can only impose their beliefs through force and not through logical discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.12.187 (talk • contribs).

You're only p****d because the link you've been trying try to add over and over again keeps getting removed. And guess what? It will be removed the next time you add it as well. Either you start playing by the rules and accept that the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia applies to you as well as anyone else, or just go away. First of all, you could start by getting yourself an account, and by signing your posts on this page(using four tildes, ~~~~), so that the rest of us can see who you are and what you've written. That might earn you some credability. But if you prefer to be treated like some anonymous spammer, you could keep on with what you're doing now. Ie adding links to nonencyclopedic resources, as well as following those post up with plain bogus to hide your tracks. /M.O (u) (t) 18:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Since you persist in your efforts to add this link - and I assure you that it will not stay for long - despite the fact that it is against the policies and guidelines, as well as totally unencyclopedic, I have proposed it for blacklisting om meta-wiki. /M.O (u) (t) 22:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New resource

I think we should add in the link http://www.thesupernaturalworld.co.uk, it has a huge amount of resources regarding ghosts, and stories going back since nearly 2000 on ghost news. There also a huge discussion forum, and a huge image gallery full of pictures and ghost stories. The site isn't commercial, it doesn't sell anything, and I think it would be worthwhile to add as a resource

Yes, great idea - you can add your friend's site and then delete all the other external links as fast as they are submitted. What's that? You've been doing exactly that for ages already? Wikipedia seems to be run like a private club for selfish anti-socials.

[edit] British and American spellings

An unregistered user changed the spelling of "sceptic" to "skeptic." I have no preference for either spelling, but I believe a given article shouldn't see-saw back and and forth between American and British spelling. Therefore, I reverted it to the 'c' spelling in order to be consistent with other instances of British spelling in the article, e.g., 'colour'. Rivertorch 05:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the user probably just assumed that it was a mispelling, rather than a deliberate attempt to convert the article from International English to American English, so I would continue to stick with the former. - 81.178.102.118 17:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's take a vote on it so we'll have a consensual discussion to refer back to if anyone has a problem. V-Man737 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please vote whether to use Oxford spelling or American spelling in this article.

  • American as it's easier for me to keep track of. V-Man737 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC) User:Rivertorch made an excellent point, and now I feel ashamed of my apparent laziness. If "ghost" is something that pertains to British concepts (at least, historically), then my vote is changed to Oxford. V-Man737 01:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oxford, american may be easier and make more sense, however i think the international and original way of spelling should be kept, after all though if its skeptic or sceptic everybody still knows what word it is. Divad89 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • American, in America sceptic might be confused with septic. Septic refers to sewage, as in septic tank is a sewage-disposal tank in which a continuous flow of waste material is decomposed by bacteria. While it might be fun to refer to skeptics as raw sewage, I don't think they'd appreciate it too much. : ) --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oxford, for the reasons below (although I still think 'sceptic' might be confusing).--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 14:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oxford because the written history of ghosts in England predates that of the written history of ghosts in North America. Rivertorch 02:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Citation? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The etymology of the word "ghost" goes back to 1385 in England: "Modern sense of "disembodied spirit of a dead person" is attested from c.1385"[2]. The first English-speaking settlers came to America in 1607, so the British use of the word predates the American use by at least 222 years (assuming the Jamestown colonists talked about ghosts). Yes, maybe Native Americans had a word for ghost and maybe they even wrote it, but they weren't speaking English. DBlomgren 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Strictly speaking, though, isn't the spelling of ghost the same in American as in Oxford? What we are really talking about is other words such as colour and sceptic, the latter of which might be confusing for some readers.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Quite right. But I don't think we can claim ghosts are more related to the U.S than the U.K, so I go for the longer written history argument. I doubt Seicer needs an explanation of why English has been written for a longer time in England than in the U.S. I'll ask him/her if s/he meant something else. DBlomgren 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the heads up. I was referring to a citation or some clarification on "Oxford because the written history of ghosts in England predates that of the written history of ghosts in North America." and it seems to have been answered! It seems, after looking for a source while at break today, that the term from 1385 predates the American term by many years. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll throw my vote in for an in-depth British history section. One cross-over area that could be explored is that concepts of ghosts in contemporary times, both in England and America, is largely based on the Spiritualism movement that originally kicked off in America and migrated to England. A lot of our modern notions of ghosts are based on mid-19th century British authors like Charles Dickens, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and other Spiritualist writers.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Undecided because the reasons provided above are insufficient. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oxford, for the same reason given by Rivertorch. DBlomgren 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

With the apparent consensus, Oxford spelling will be applied to this article. V-Man737 11:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words in Notable Ghosts

I tagged that section, as it contained quite a few "likely"s and "probably"s. It should really be cleaned up. 199.126.137.209 03:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This article has expanded and people have put in a lot of work. So perhaps it is time to start editing with a view toward having acceptable sourcing. I'll be looking at that in the next few days, possibly deleting what is not sourced. If there are objections to this, let me know here.

Martinphi 06:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hudini [sic] and "haunting versus publication of ghosts" sections.

I was reading these two sections and noticed the horrible punctuation, spelling and syntax of the paragraphs. I attempted to edit the sections, but they show up as blank pages. It's like they are not there. Like they are "ghost" sections. Weird.

141.106.17.71 09:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)S4M F1SHER

Nevermind, they are gone now.

[edit] Vandalism December 15, 2006

I noticed earlier this article got vandalized to just a sentence with a website advertisement in it. I appreciate whoever rewrote it and we should try to get it back to its regular size again. Gunmetal2k4

[edit] neutrality

This article should make explicit that ghosts are supernatural and do not exist (it seems to entertain the opposite possibility). I know that this is obvious, but an encyclopedia article should suppose zero prior knowledge of the subject and therefore state the obvious. --JianLi 07:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no knee-jerk skeptics! Wikipedia is NPOV. See Parapsychology page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
Some people believe that they exist, and some don't...Whether they do or not is unknown to man. 70.162.66.142 11:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Considering "ghosts" are an unproven phenomena (can you name a single scientifically undisputed case?) it is fair to say that a healthy dose of skepticism is not only warranted, but should be required. Treating paranormal claims "neutrally" does not require credulity. It's not "knee jerk skepticism" as you say, but an honest attempt to keep the entry -accurate-. Note, I haven't made any edits to the live article and don't actually intend to.
Bagheera
Um, unless I'm missing something, how about we just apply the same rule of thumb we do to pages on religion or folklore? Use phrases like "Some believe..." or "In European folklore..." or "According to legend...". Runa27 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Length

Is it just me, or does this article seem a LOT shorter? I visited a while ago, and found it rather interesting. Now there is barely more than a presentation and a conclusion, with the "skeptical analysis" section being nothing more than a barely-relevant paragraph. Was somebody offended? Where has all the article gone? V-Man737 21:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look a few sections up; User:Martinphi decided to enforce Wikipedia's rule on sources by removing every unsourced statement (I'm not saying that's a bad thing; just stating a fact). If you click on the history tab you can see previous versions. I expanded it a little yesterday; but am currently concentrating on some other articles. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Given Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources, any article about the paranormal would be a mere paragraph. ;_; "Facts" in this area are in this area because they are not checkable - they are paranormal. Of course a news reporting agency is not going to make a report on the nature of ghosts! There should be an exception here to allow for what paranormal might be out there but isn't published. There is so much in this area that permeates our culture, but who would think to make an entry for it in the JAMA? V-Man737 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not exactly true. Take a look at Spring Heeled Jack, which is a featured article about a parnormal topic. It's more than a paragraph. There is a Journal of Parapsychology, which can serve as a source for paranormal articles, just like JAMA serves as a source for medical articles. I'm currently working on List of haunted locations, trying to add sources to it. It's no where near done, but look at some of the sources I've added to it, especially the ones for the Sunnyvale, CA haunted Toys-R-Us. There are a couple newspaper articles serving as sources for that. I don't know where you live or what t.v. channels you get, but where I am we have a travel channel that is always doing documentaries on haunted places and those documentaries can be cited as sources if you can mange to catch the relevant information from the credits (I've found the credits scroll too fast unless I tape the program and by the time I think "dang, I could use that in Wikipedia" it's too late to tape the program). Ghosts have a long history of appearing in the mythology of various cultures; and I'd love to see a fleshed-out ghots in mythology section in this article; for that published versions of myths and fairy tales make perfectly acceptable sources, as do commentaries on the myths. The key is to state where you got your information, because you had to get it from someplace. Wikipedia:Citation templates has a lot of handy fill-in-the-blank type things that make citing sources easier; but there's no requirement to use that format, just a requirement to cite sources somehow. Make sense? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptical Analysis

As I mentioned above, I'd like to see this section improved; it is rather small for the balance necessary for an NPOV article. A few minutes ago someone added this diff, and I was thrilled to see something new in that section, but the wording was strange and I didn't quite understand what was being pointed out. If someone does understand it, it would be a good idea to put the point in, along with links and concise definitions of what is being discussed (I always figured a personality is basically the same as a soul, for example). V-Man737 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I added some material based on an article by Ben Radford. --- LuckyLouie 06:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Background

I renamed "History" to "Historical background" because I wanted to cover the basic concept of ghosts from an anthropological viewpoint. What was there didn't go back far enough I felt. What I added is neutral and the main ideas presented are sourced.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 09:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Photos

There's thousands of ghosts photos on the web, pictures that have smudges that people see faces in, orb photos, that sort of thing. Anyone else think that the notability guidelines should be applied to photos of ghosts in this article before it gets out of hand? --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 03:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think two conditions should be applied: 1) notability (i.e., the Brown Lady) and 2) hair-raising level of ghostiness (I could sneeze and take a picture of the water droplets with a flash and call it an "orgy of orbs," but orbs aren't that ghosty; while on the other hand, the Boothill Ghost is pretty effing ghosty). V-Man737 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a young man standing in very tall grass to me. I see nothing out of the ordinary at all. 68.166.68.84 00:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That was my original conclusion, until I realized that the grass isn't tall enough to cover that much of a person, even if kneeling. I've gone through tons of ghost pictures in my day, analyzing and de-ghosting every one of them, and the Boothill photo is one of the very few that stumps me. My main hitch with it is that you can look at the picture in a "rule of thirds" perspective, and everything in the picture lines up to get your attention to the figure in the background. I smell a setup, but can't explain it fully. V-Man737 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if WP:Notability applies here, since every ghost photo has possible non-ghost explanations and none can be authenticated. I do have a problem with the current one labeled "A picture of what is believed to be the ghost of a farmer. This was reportedly a recurring ghost for a couple of years, and is described as having been a fairly hostile ghost." (And to make maters worse, the original image is labeled "A picture of a real ghost"!) It's believed to be a ghost by whom? (Certainly not Wikipedia) It's believed to be a farmer by whom? It's described as being hostile by whom? The photo is fine, but we need to cite a reliable source for such claims or else those "spooky" details gotta go. --- LuckyLouie 04:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - references and suchlike are crucial for this article to be legit. V-Man737 04:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


The Boothill photo looks awfully staged. Aside from the aforementioned "looks too good to be candid" type comment another user left, there's the fact that the figure in the background could be EASILY faked, like those fairy pictures by the little girls were (gah, what was the name of that hoax? I forget... there's a page about it on Wikipedia though, I know that much). It could be a cutout or something.
Also, the site's alleged "the shadows are different!" claim? Um, three words: Additional lighting source. And the "the negative is like that!" is not particularly credible; it could very well have been photoshopped, and the site owner could be lying. The top image on the page at current is good as a conceptual thing; the other two are interesting but...
In any case, has it occurred to anyone to use a drawing of a supposed ghost? There's got to be one somewhere, and if it's old, it could be 1.) interesting and 2.) public domain. Runa27 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This page has been vandalised numerous times. Please consider protecting it. --Orthologist 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed! Thank you for your brave stand against vandalism. Everyone who has worked on this article truly appreciates it. As for protection, I'm guessing it will take a lot more serious, tricky, and enduring vandalism to convince any admin to protect it, even partially. FWIW, people like you and I are "protecting" it in that small way we do! ^_^ V-Man737 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've reverted the vandalism that says that "Ghosts kiss" or somethingg like that. Kamope · talk · contributions 15:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I've restored the header and one link, that of EastGhost.com; I realize the other link removed probably does constitute spam, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. This article is ready for some external links, and I see nothing wrong with this one. If there is something I'm missing about it that does constitute as WP:SPAM, let me know. V-Man737 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British and American spellings Round 2

Looks like consensus is shifting, and British spelling is being replaced by American spelling. Personally, I am fine either way at this point, but I really want to be clear on which convention this article will use.

  • Abstain provided a clear choice is made. V-Man737 03:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • American In Round 1, I agreed that British is maybe more appropriate, but practically speaking, it seems that most of the editors on this article are American and don't bother to check out the talk page. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 03:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • British. Editors come and go. Recent ones happen to have used American spelling; next month there might be a wave of the other. If we declare shifting consensus now, will be be open to reversing it yet again a few weeks hence? It's too soon, and too uncertain. And, given the productive previous discussion on this topic, it really behooves any new editor who wants to push the American spelling to read—and contribute to—the talk page. Rivertorch 16:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oxford for before. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • MU. Since either choice is arbitrary, what is generally done on Wikipedia is sticking with whatever spelling was used first on the article (unless the article is about an obviously-American or obviously-British topic, which is not the case here). >Radiant< 16:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghosts of Waynesville

Waynesville is said to be "the most haunted town in Ohio" the "village" of Waynesville is where I live and become a g.g.f. otherwise known as a great ghost finatic.The ghosts of Waynesville haven't shown Themselves to me but I know they're here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.115.170 (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] fraudulent photographs

you can't take a picture of a ghost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.247.235.10 (talk • contribs).

Tell that to the ghosts in ghost pictures. V-Man737 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It's because they confuse the autofocus. Try using the special "Ghost" setting. Xanthoxyl 03:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Watch out for the orbs! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Achoo! OMIGOSH THOUSANDS OF THEM V-Man737 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The ghosts are there simply because they were photoshopped in. it's like a picture of bigfoot or an alien in a tabloid. The pictures are doctored.

Or, if they aren't doctored, there is a scientific explanation. The "glass ripple or ghost" photo in the article is an excellent example of that (hm, we should probably make sure to keep that one in if only for that). Also, in some cases there may be no explanation that can be FOUND, but that doesn't mean there's no natural laws in effect ;) or that it can't be a hoax like those fairy pictures... Runa27 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] demonic

I have heard many storys of dangerest ghost and they say there harmless! I have planed to bring that wigiboard in to the house play around with it and destroy it untill something happens! Will that work?--Mr.Taka 16:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

First - it's spelled Ouija board. Second - I doubt anything will happen. Except you might scare yourself. :P Runa27 22:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Destroy that thing. George Noory had played with one and had a bad experience with a spirit parasite. 65.173.105.71 06:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture resolution

There is something wrong with the "Prison Window" picture. It is extremely blurry when you try to see the larger image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.37.160.25 (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/h/o/Talk%7EGhost_2901.html"