Talk:Skinwalker Ranch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

This article is part of WikiProject Utah, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Utah.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Skinwalker Ranch article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.
Wikipedians in Utah may be able to help!

Contents

[edit] Serious cleanup needed

This article is largely nonsensical and bizarre, I'll admit, but at the very least it could be written better. This whole thing reads like the psychoticmusings of a conspiracy theorist. Could someone please clean it up near the bottom to sound more proper and less X-Filesy? PsychoJosh 12:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did an initial run-through the article, and rewrote/tweaked a fair amount. I'm sure it could be improved further though. My apologies if my edits have offended any of the original authors. But to be honest, PsychoJosh is right: it was (still is?) kind of nonsensical and sensationalist, and I'm certain it will get outright deleted if nothing is done. --Careax 01:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the things is that it is indeed bizarre and may appear unusual (see also this comment on Chupas) but they are the claims made. I apologise if my first draft makes it sound like "the psychotic musings of a conspiracy theorist" - I'm not a conspiracy theorist or (I'd hope) psychotic and most of the witnesses and the authors don't come across as either. What is actually going on is beyond me and would verge into the realms of original research anyway I'm sure. ;) I do keep an eye out for further developments but any that there have been are usually even odder. I actually dropped some folks a line to try and clarify their story but never heard back from them. (Emperor 01:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC))
Hi Emperor. My apologies if my comment was offensive to you: that wasn't the intention. I agree largely about the "nonsensical and bizarre" bit, not necessarily the "psychotic musings" part. :-) Having looked over the source material, I can appreciate the difficulty of writing this article. That is one problem with this specific case: it's really interesting and has enough of a basis to not be dismissed out of hand. But a lot of the evidence that is out there is one-sided. It's very hard to find perspectives of skeptics who have knowledge of this case. But I think those are the sources we (i.e. people who have an interest in this Wikipedia article) need to try to muster. Hopefully, one or two such sources, and some more focused editing, can make this article better. --Careax 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't offended in the least - more amused (and wondering if I can slip it on some kind of buisness card). I totally agree with what you say - after weighing up all the available evidence I find myself sceptical (small S and no k) of a lot of the claims and find the involvement of the NIDS highly suspect. The whole thing smells but what is actually going on is very difficult to pin down. Skinwalker Ranch isn't unique (there are probably half a dozen similar areas of strangeness - as I mention) so you can't really dismiss the whole thing - it is nonsensical and bizarre and things may not be what they appear (as anyone who has watched Scooby Doo will now) but that is the nature of the beast. Then again most of the wilder aspects of this come from tightly controlled sources (it is also noteworthy that the strangest things happen when the investigators aren't around). The problem is the same sources have tight control over the farm and so independent investigation would be tricky and it sounds like the NIDS one was difficult enough. Then again, with them little can be taken on face value. So at the moment those who have concerns about the whole thing (like myself) are rather stuck with beard stroking and shaking of heads and little else. Ultimately this case may say important things about various things which only tangentially touch on the paranormal or it may hang there in limbo for a long time - its impossible to tell. All I've tried to do for now is produce a synthesis of the evidence as presented and keep an eye out for other opinions (although so far any further developments have been further down the strange fork in the road). I think we can consider the entry, like the whole case itself, as a work in progress ;) (Emperor 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Photo?

This might be tricky as the ranch's location is generally regarded as a secret. Best bet might be dropping Paraview a line either via their site or through the Hunt for the Skinwalker site - I'll do this next week. (Emperor 13:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

There's a photo that claims to be of the ranch on the Alien Dave website. Don't know the legality of using such an image though. Or if this is what you wanted. --Careax 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    There are some photos of the ranch in Steven Rinehart's dispatch, and they aren't copyrighted.  Somebody should put them  
    up here.  They are better pictures than others.  He also includes directions to the ranch on his site, and a link to it 
    on Google Earth.  I don't think the article should even say that the location is unknown any longer.  Rinehart seems to 
    clearly reveal the location of the ranch.
         Rinehart's dispatch is interesting only because it reveals the location of the ranch and has pictures of it that 
         haven't been published before.  The "unidentified footprints" he ascribes to a "large, bipedal creature" are clearly 
         rabbit tracks he misidentified.  At least he didn't make them up, I suppose.

[edit] Joke

Is this hole thing a joke?I've never heard anything about this.Even if this is not a joke,this article is POV and needs to be rewritten.Dermo69

Know what? I'll bet it is, because there is little if any cited sources, and Wikipedia itself doesn't attempt to explain these "paranormal" activities, only lists some silly arguments, such as a flawed perception of reality, already put forward by nutcakes out there. If you ask me, this and other pages relating to the paranormal need a lot of improvement. BadE 12:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it depends on your perspective. I known this specific location is not ficticious, and that the claims made are also not ficticious. And there's enough evidence to support this. Whether the claims are really caused by paranormal or just over-active imaginations, well, that is what's up for debate. As for the article needing improvement BadE, I strongly agree with you. If you have some knowledge of this case and can help improve this article by all means go ahead. --Careax 17:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite details

I think we all acknowledge that this article needs more work. Right now it's been classified a 'Start'-class. It would be great if it could be elevated to a B-class. With that in mind, I went through the source articles and weeded out some claimed phenomena that I either didn't find reference to or that didn't seem very paranormal. Some of those changes include:

  • The flock of unidentified small red birds: these are unusual for Utah, but not very paranormal.
  • Some of the UFO claims: some of these were discussed more in the context of north east Utah than specifically on Skinwalker ranch.
  • The large aquatic serpents in the nearby Bottle Hollow: Bottle Hollow isn't part of the ranch. This should be included in a separate Wikipedia article.
  • The large Freemasonry symbol carved in inaccessible part of the ranch: again, this is unusual, but not particularly paranormal.
  • Teleportation: these claims seem to be tied to other phenomena, and not separate phenomena.
  • Magnetic anomalies: I don't recall seeing any explicit references to these as phenomena. And even if some were mentioned, again these would be tied to other phenomena.
  • Reptilian humanoids: reptilian eyes are mentioned, but they allegedly belonged to a hairy dog-like creature.

I also broke the content into sections and reduced the much-criticized lists. Feel free to correct specific mistakes or omisions, but please don't just do a blanket revert. --Careax 04:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, more edits: this time to the explanations section. The various points have been turned from a list into paragraphs, and responses to each explanation added. I've also removed the Buffalo soldier explanation. I didn't find mention of a Buffalo soldier graveyard on the ranch property anywhere in the source material. And the fact that the Ute's avoid the property make the idea they built on a graveyard located on Skinwalker Ranch very unlikely. --Careax 04:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits. I do wodner about removing some things that are strange but not paranormal is a tad restrictive as this can't just be a paranormal entry (even if it falls under the paranormal remit) but one that touches on all the odd aspects of the ranch. (Emperor 01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC))
Yeah, now you mention it I see your point. What about renaming "Reported phenomena" to "Paranormal phenomena" and placing it under a new parent section called "Reported activity"? Another child section - "Other unusual sightings" - could also be added there. The red bird sighting and the Masonic/Native American symbol sighting could go there. --Careax 09:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
My concern there would be that we are putting our own judgements on the reports. None of it may be paranormal or perhaps the red birds are. I'd suggest putting them all under "reported activity". (Emperor 15:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC))
Fair enough. I've changed a couple of headings (including the one you suggested), and added the birds report back in. I only found reference to "exotic, multicolored birds" on the ranch. There are a lot of different bird species that have been spotted in Utah (including red ones), so I've mentioned and referenced that fact as well. --Careax 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo or Map

I don't know what the licenses are for satellite imagery, but I'm pretty sure topographical maps from the USGS are copyright free. It'd be nice to have either a map or a photograph of the actual place included here.--Nealparr 23:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the exact location has been released. I can point to its general location on a map of Utah and local paranormal researchers can probably provide coordinates. (Emperor 22:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC))
Steven Rinehart sets out in his dispatch, referenced in the article, directions to the ranch, and has a link to Google Earth showing an aerial view of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.126.229 (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Comment moved from main article

I've moved the following text, added by 70.56.216.253, from the Skinwalker Ranch article to here. If this information is accurate it can be added back with different emphasis. But I don't know how much relevance it has to the ranch itself: whether the Skinwalker term relates to the Ute tribe or Navajo tribe, the property is still referred to as Skinwalker Ranch by non-native American locals.

There is incorrect information regarding what tribe mentions skinwalkers in their folklore. It's actually the Diné (Navajo) tribe. They are called Naagloshi or Maiitso also known as Skinwalkers.

--Careax 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Skinwalker does originate in Navajo legends but has spread to local tribes. According to the sources the Ute believe the presence of the Skinwalker on their land may be due to their slaughtering of the Navajo in the past. If the person who added it has any well referenced information to suggest something different then they can add it back with the source but it sounds like a misunderstanding on their part. (Emperor 14:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC))