Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Attention
>This page is not for reporting the paranormal, it is for discussing Wikipedia articles related to the paranormal.
Paranormal
WikiProject
General information
Main project page talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Newsletter talk
Peer review talk
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 13:48, Saturday March 31, 2007 (UTC).
The previous collaboration was Electronic voice phenomenon.
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

Contents

Archives:

[edit] 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)
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)

As above, a notable hoax is still a notable event.

perfectblue 08:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[[1]] 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)

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

[edit] Stargate Atlantis

Just out of curiosity, how does Stargate Atlantis fall under the scope of this project? — BrotherFlounder 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. DrWho42 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone saw the Atlantis reference and had never heard of the American television show, thinking it was actually real. It sounds crazy, but it's my only rational and non-stupid explanation. --Chr.K. 09:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't going nuts! — BrotherFlounder 13:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not just Stargate Atlantis, somebody also tagged a Disney cartoon set in Atlantis as being part of the project.
perfectblue 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Just checked up and yes, they tagged both the film and the sequal. Their user name is Badbilltucker
perfectblue 15:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I say ignore it the first time. If it happens again, we inform them that Wikiproject Paranormal deals only in subjects that have some bearing on nonfiction. --Chr.K. 10:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New source resource

IBM just announced that they've put out a paranormal-targeted search engine, UFO Crawler. If this actually works, this could be a fantastic resource in expanding and sourcing articles. I plan to add it to the main project page shortly as a resource. --InShaneee 03:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Alternative Views

Since it hasn't been announced here before, I thought I would mention WikiProject Alternative Views, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant "alternative views"—those theories, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations which, though notable, lack widespread acceptance, and which may challenge a "dominant view" which does have such acceptance. It overlaps WikiProject Paranormal but has a broader scope, encompassing alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. We haven't had too much activity, but feel free to stop by! Tim Smith 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

awe-fricking-some! Idon'texist 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of allegedly haunted locations

I'd like to initiate another clean-up of this article, as the amount of unsourced claims seems to have spiralled out of control again recently. I've laid out what I plan to do in Talk:List of allegedly haunted locations The Kinslayer 12:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energize the project! Invite someone to join

Our project seems to be losing some of the steam it once had. To that end, I invite other members to look over the talk pages of some of the most frequebntly edited articles within the project on your watchlist and find one non-member to invite over her to join us. I suggest finding someone who isn't necessarily a True Believer or a Skeptic and is instead someone with a strong personal interest in a particular topic under the projects guidance. Let them know that as a project, we do not seek to tilt an article in any one direction but that we do seek to add as much well-sourced info as we can. let them know their good work has caught your eye and that you feel they would be an asset to the project even if they only work on a few articles within their own area of interest. Remind them that by being a member, we can support their work and keep an eye out for vandals with them. Tell them about our colaboratyion of the month project and maybe tell them about some of our successes. Once you have invited them, add a note here saying 'I have invited so and so" so we don't invite the same people. Pledge to invite at least one or two people before the end of march! We can do it. (note i changed my signature) LiPollis 04:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea, Lisa, and glad to see you're still around :). I'll add as well that people who show a willingness and skill in discussing ideas and disputes with others are also great candidates, especially in a collaborative atmosphere. Also, what I've found works great for an invitation: let them no that joining comes with no responsibilities, and if they'd just like to watchlist this talk page and keep track of what the project's up to to get a feel for things, that's just fine. --InShaneee 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Discussion of interest

Some of you may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_18#Category:Purported_psychics. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Paranormal_8c95.html"