Talk:Poltergeist

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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Spirituality Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.

This project provides a central approach to spirituality-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 Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Neutrality

There are several instances in this article which are written with the implicit assumption that poltergeists exist. For example "some poltergeists have had the ability to articulate themselves and to have distinct personalities". This is a statement of fact, and given that there is little tangeable evidence to support this assumption and the fact it runs contrary to the consensus of hundreds of years of scientific endeavour, I have flagged the article for neutraility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.247.11 (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube

There are filmed poltergeist attacks on YouTube if you want to check it out.

I don't think that counts as evidence. 201.235.51.21 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fraud statement

Changed statement that claimed that all poltergeist outbreaks are suspect of fraud when there are some that are not. The rosenheim case, even if one aspect was faked [which was never proved and the supposed police officer has never come forward and the police force signed an affi-deffice to the fact that some of the phenoemena happened in front of them.] there were too many reports filmed and happening in front of police, sceintists and workers for the whole outbreak to be suspect. robin

[edit] The Entity Case - Sequel

I have just changed the description of the "Entity" case, removing the unwarranted claim that it was one of the best-documented poltergeist phenomena, and pointing out instead that it has only been dealt with by the sensationalist media; two parapsychologists have reportedly investigated the case, yet they have never, to my knowledge, published their findings in any serious journal of parapsychology. Instead, they have talked to magazines such as "Omni" mag and have even served as advisers for the movie inspired by the case. In other words, their concern for objectivity in that case is rather questionable (though their financial interest may not be), and I thought this deserved to be mentioned.

Aleksandros

I don't know what you consider "sensationalist media." But it is a fact that this case is all over the internet, inspired a novel and was made into a movie. To me, this is a welld-documented case with a lengthy report from Dr. Barry Taff and other scientists. But the mainstream scientists are never gonna accept any kind of evidence whatsoever. Some info on Dr. Taff: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/933.html

To me, his competence is unquestionable. But since I do understand your misgivings, I think it is fair to leave the introductory paragraph pointing out the inconsistencies and possible fraud in all these cases. Thus, it is kind of redundant to repeat that this case remains moot and could be a hoaxd. I removed the part where you pointed out "financial gain" because this is an argument that could apply to all scientists and their findings. Thus, it's not a fair criticism and cannot be proven either in this case. Tas

xxxx

The “sensationalist media” are magazines like Omni Mag (at least at the time when they published Gaynor’s interview) and all the websites you are mentioning yourself as bearing testimony to the soundness of the case. The fact that they are so numerous merely shows how easily doubtful information can spread with the help of the internet.

The website for which you provide a link doesn’t tell us anything about where Dr. Taff is working now (he’s NOT at UCLA nor any other university anymore, as far as I know), nor does it give any details about his publications on the subject; it merely says that there are lots of such publications, without any further indication. It also reveals that Dr. Taff regularly shows up at sensationalist shows, in which he uses his academic prestige in order to help persuade people that there are atrocious paranormal events going on in this world.

I've just changed my mind on two points since my initial post: first, the "Entity" case is so clearly doubtful that it doesn't deserve any comment beyond merely registering its doubtful status; and secondly, I'm not sure anymore whether the phrase "serious journal of parapsychology" is not actually an oxymoron.

Aleksandros (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Detective

I removed this sentence:

"Though this detective has never been named and did not object to the signed statement by many police offers that claimed they witnessed some of the phenomena."

If he has not been named, it can hardly be known whether he objected to the statement. Also, that is no complete sentence. I moved the "unnamed" part to the previous sentence. --Hob Gadling 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Just changed the intro to the poltergeist theories section as the sentence with "disregarding the obviousness of fraud and delusion " is a bit of a leading statement and has no backup that this is the leading concesus on the subject, so have changed to an intro that states that non of the theories are generally accepted. also re added fact that police officers signed statements of witnessing the phenoema at roseheim robin

OK. But please don't just put your text at the top of this discussion page. Put it where it belongs. --Hob Gadling 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quicksilver?

I've heard of a type of poltergeist called "Quicksilver", that, from what I've heard, writes the letter "Q". Does anyone have an information on this? I can't seem to really find anything of worth through Google, so I don't know if this is just some obscure myth, or something that was "made up" recently (20 or so years). Apologies if this kind of thing isn't welcome here. --Feidian 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I removed this:

These are the major theories for poltergeist phenomena, however one should note that non of these theories is conclusive, parapsychologists claim that the phenomena is too wide spread through out history and cultures and countries to be a hoax, yet there is evidence of hoaxing in some poltergeist cases. Skeptics claim that they are just hoaxes and frauds however when the evidence is reviewed poltergeists are recorded to have benn witnessed by skeptics with no explanation and by people such as police officers, reporters, scientists and bystanders so this causes doubt in the fraud hypothesis. The poltergeist so far remains a mystery.

That's an editorial - it gives the writer's own opinion. To me, it's not a mystery. That's because I see that this writer's reasoning is faulty. Not having an explanation does not mean there is no fraud. Fraudsters can be smarter than scientist. Only a fool would conclude a phenomenon as real just because he does not have an explanation.

So, please keep your opinion piece out of WP. --Hob Gadling 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ghosts and hauntings remain beliefs, not facts. Editors should keep this in mind when adding or revising content. LuckyLouie 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR

This entry seriously needs to look at getting citations for some of its claims, else it leaves itself open to claims of WP:OR, and deletion.

perfectblue 19:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there actually anything paranormal about the accompanying photo?

I fail to see how a photo that doesn't purport to show any thing paranormal, let alone poltergeist-related is relevant to the page. As far as i understand, it's just out of focus rain drops. Ignoring the bland subject matter, it's not even that good a photograph. Isn't no photo better than a misleading photo depicting someone's backyard?


I agree with you. It's a picture of false orbs which should be on the orb page. I understand that the subject of poltergeists is a contreversial one, but putting a picture of what some may claim to be paranormal but in reality is not takes away from the nutreality of this article. Can someone please delete

This is the standard photograph on a couple of ghost related pages.

perfectblue 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That photo looks so fake, there wouldn't be that many ghosts there in one place. It looks more like snow or something to me.


==I'm glad someone removed that photo, it was nothing more then a few rain orbs. The fact that it was a "standard" photograph didn't help matters much either. Stormwysper 11:29 pm, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

As a German Native speaker who spent most of his youth (including all secondary school education)in the United Kingdom, I would translate the word "Poltergeist" not with "noisy ghost". The "Polter" part of the word does not mean noisy in the strictest sense. Roughly translated it means "bumpy noise" and is usually attributed to for instance a drunk banging his body on the wall for lack of the ability to walk straight. I understand that some translations are set by experts and I have not done any research into this. However I do think that more thought should go into this. I see very often that translations are incorrect by small details which could in essence vary the meaning of the word. Arguably this isn't the case, as "noisy" and "bumpy noise" like the dull thud against a wall are similar, but still consider it an important part of philologic etymology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Becker.Julian (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

  • I'm not 100% certain what a "bumpy noise" is, although the illustration given does make me think of words like "thud" and "thunk", maybe even "clunk and "clomp". In any event, I agree that such sounds, while indeed "noises", aren't necessarily even "noisy". So, perhaps a native German speaker could suggest a new translation. I'm not suggesting "thud ghost" on the basis of this analysis.

[edit] POV tag

I marked the article with the POV-check tag. I think the article is clearly biased in favor of paranormal ideas. Yes, it does make sense to talk about poltergeists in the context of parapsychology and state its views about it. But:

  • It should be made explicit, right from the introduction, that the phenomenon itself, as well as parapsychological theories and techniques used to explain it, are not recognized by the majority of the scientific community (or of mainstream scientists, if you will);
  • When discussing the views of parapsychology, it has to be perfectly clear that those are the views of parapsychology, not Wikipedia's. The main article "voice" should be neutral.
  • As it is, contrary ideas are given a very small space, and are unsourced. It's necessary to give proper space to mainstream scientists' overall opinion on the existence and nature of the phenomenon, as well on the validity of the research methods used by proponents, with appropriate sources, not to show this opinion as described by those who oppose it. Specific comments about specific cases are also desirable.

I believe these three points are indispensable. AoS1014 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I believe in poltergeists, but this article is awful - one-sided and unreferenced. However I've seen other "paranormal" articles as bad as this, and they've (mostly) slowly improved. This is now on my watchlist, and I have a couple of books on the subject, so expect citations, and hopefully balance. Totnesmartin 14:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible poltergeist?

I'm not sure if it could be possible or i'm going crazy... Anyways, while i was surfing the internet, i heard some strange incomprehensible voice from a set of speakers! And to be exact, that computer was off. I had to unplug it to make the strange voice go away... Can anyone explain this? Flashn00b 04:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

not here we can't, try a paranormal forum. This page is for dicussing the article, not poltergeists in general. Totnesmartin 09:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I have experiences this a few times and it happens because the speaker wires pick up some radio signals. Sometimes it's almost incomprehensible, sometimes it's not. The source can be radio communication from e.g. truck drivers or perhaps just the local radio station. Unplugging the speaker might make it go away because you remove the part of the "antenna" that picked that signal up, or it might not. There's nothing paranormal about this.130.225.0.251 08:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Whether there is or isn't, this is an encyclopedia, not a webforum. Take it there. Totnesmartin 08:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe I have a pic for page?

Image:PotPoltergeist.jpg would that be good for an image for the page?

[edit] "infobox" removal

This article, along with one on the Goatman of Maryland, got their "paranormalcreatures" infoboxes zapped today. Although, the discovery of such an infobox definitely gets my creative juices flowing. Please check the uncyclopedia for the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.83.194 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV and citations

This article is a mess. It sounds like a paranormal studies reference guide entry. It remains heavily skewed towards a pro-paranormal point of view, with brief and poorly described bits on skepticism. Paranormal events are anything but scientifically verifiable. As such, the topic remains largely one of personal opinion an beliefs, and therefore needs to be written as such. I will see what I can bring to this article to produce a more neutral view that describes historical and contemporary beliefs in poltergeists and any verifiable evidence, if such exists. Claims by individuals do not count, regardless of the integrity of any overseeing paranormal investigators. This falls under the umbrella of pseudoscience. Halogenated (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)