Talk:Invisible Master

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This entire article is based on not one reputable source. In addition, it has many dubious statements. I have asked help from an administrator to delete it if the problem isn't quickly remedied.Askolnick 19:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are any of the victim reports sourced in any way? I can't see any substantiation for the claims made in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.18.63 (talk • contribs) .

Agreed, it sounds like something straight off of MCStories.com or something. I'd like to see some form of references here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.224.98.200 (talk • contribs) .

Should be under "mind control sex fantasies". Rorschach12

So should most stories of incubi, succubi, fairies, and demons. I get the sense here in some of the comments on this page that there's an inherent unspoken bias against non-European mythology.

I went checking into the term on google and found this " In Japanese folklore , demons ( Yokai ), are not necessarily evil or even anthropomorphic, but range from the evil Oni (Japanese folklore) (devils) to the erotic meinaishujin (unseen or invisible masters), and to the mischievous kitsune (fox-spirits)."http://demon.en.oddd.org/

Maybe somebody should ask the Japanese about this instead of dismissing it just on the unpoken attitude that since it's not your culture's veiwpoint on superstition, that therefore it must be bad.

[edit] A simple investigation needed:

Only beings who are sexually attracted to female humans are..male humans? (Alien humanoids usually mate at their planet i think) IS there any claim/description of how these Entities look?(Face,body,hands) Did anyone checked if they virgins and if yes how they engaged in these acts(and remained virgins)? Do victims use any drugs(Especially psycho active,or containing psycho active compounds)? Did any of the acts happen in the vicinity of video surveilance cameras? Does Any Items Altered by entities reappear intact after the acts? Do attacks happen at particular time frames(i.e. Weekends,evenings,winter)? Do they leave material Evidence of any kind? This article needs links.

At least somebody is asking good questions.

[edit] sounds fake to me...

I find no evidence of this term being used in common practice. I've found exactly one story allegedly told by a victim that not only links to this article, but seems to verify exactly everything it says. Fantasy, hoax, whatever... this doesn't seem to fit on Wikipedia. The original author should submit it to a sex story site. --Graatz 20:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a potential hoax now, I plan to let it sit for a few days to see if anyone comes to its defence and then {{prod}} it. Bryan 00:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The article was deleted via the prod process, but subsequently recreated. Perhaps we should take this to AfD instead, the source that's been provided still seems a bit dubious to me. I just did some searching for any indication that it exists and can't find any - the only Paradigm Publishing I could find was a text book publishing house [1] and I can't find any books with the indicated title anywhere. Bryan 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bryan, why can't we just speedy it as a recreation of deleted material? The source is a bit worse than dubious: nothing on Google, nothing in Library of Congress. I know that being a hoax isn't a speedy criterion, but surely the recreation is? We can't be supposed to have to PROD, much less AfD, articles over and over just because non-existent sources are added. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

Because it was originally deleted under {{prod}}, the purpose of which is solely to deal with uncontested deletions. I'd count recreation as a clear means of contesting it, myself. Once a prodded article has been contested one isn't allowed to re-prod it, one's supposed to use other deletion channels at that point. I expect it'll be a fast, easy AfD and once it's done with then there would be backup for speedy-deleting it if it gets recreated next time. I just have a personal distaste of AfD and so avoid it when possible.

Seeing as both you and Zagalejo over on Wikiproject Paranormal have sanity-checked me on the apparent validity of this source, I'll go put it on AfD now. Bryan 05:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-recreation comment

People have been discussing this phenomenon on several sites that I know of. Some of the stories are very convincing; the victims may or may not have experienced this for real, but they believe that it was real. I have seen stories of them on Japanese TV shows which discuss supernatural phenomena, but they aren't only a Japanese phenomenon. They appear to be worldwide, with reports from victims in Australia, Britain, Russia, France. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2ndSight (talk • contribs).

This is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what people are discussing on some other web sites. Or that you think some of their stories are convincing. What is relevant is that the entire article is a disgrace. It lacks any reputable source. It belongs in Weekly World News, not an encyclopedia. Askolnick 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's mythology - you can't expect mythology and superstition to fit the same standards. An encyclopedia should include such things,just as wikipedia includes articles on urban legends, and other fictional creations of superstition. Somebody should put the article back up, and clearly state that it is just mythology.