Talk:Ectoplasm (paranormal)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Parapsychology
 This article is supported by WikiProject Parapsychology, which collaborates on parapsychology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Would it be at all possible to find a picture of ectoplasm that doesn't look like a catfish wearing a tophat? Thanks.

I have a picture of ectoplasm I took Christmas morning, when I was taking pictures of my tree.Mack49 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to copy my picture to this.

Maybe get a picture of a ecto-ghost from Danny Phantom.

Does it have to be real ectoplasm? We could simulate it in a self generated image so long as we say what that it is a simulation. All the ectoplasm that I've seen in documentaries etc looks like thick wallpaper pastes so it shouldn't be too hard.

Alternatively, we could just take a screengrab of ectoplasm in popular fiction. That scene where Peter is slimed in the hotel would do.

perfectblue 06:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone HAVE any real ectoplasm? In a container of some kind? There are oodles of scientists who'd love to have it to examine. And oodles of scientists who'll believe in it's physical existence just as soon as someone provides a verifiable sample of the stuff!

EdgarCarpenter 19:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ectoplasminpopularfiction.jpg

Image:Ectoplasminpopularfiction.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ugh

This article seems crap to me. Unsupported claims about a pseudo-scientific "substance" that is supported by a screenie from Ghostbusters. Wow.

I put it on my lengthening list; perhaps I'll get around to fixing this up if nobody else does. (And yes, I realize ectoplasm is indeed a technical term, but this article doesn't seem to.) Eaglizard 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Did I just clean up the claims you're talking about? ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes, quite so. I see that I happened to catch it in-between times. Glad somebody's paying attention to it. ;) Being here anyways, I wound up copy-editing the crap out of it, hope I wasn't too heavy-handed. Eaglizard 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Oh, I also merged the "Skepticism" section's one sentence into the second paragraph, where it fits better. The article needs more fleshing out, tho. It's kinda bare, now, I'm afraid. :( Eaglizard 04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Paranormal articles often need a heavy hand. Like you say, it needs fleshing out, as we're using the lead for stuff not covered in the article. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blithe Spirit

Is ectoplasm involved in Noel Coward's Blithe Spirit? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.23.79 (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)