Talk:Time slip
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
The full text of Moberly and Jourdain's An Adventure was available somewhere on the net last year but (spookily) I can't find it now. If anyone does come across it, could they add a link to the article please? Many thanks Ghughesarch 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
In his biography of the aristocratic and decadent French poet Robert de Montesquiou, Philippe Jullian says that at the time of Moberly and Jourdain's excursion to Versailles Montesquiou lived nearby and frequently gave parties in the grounds where his friends dressed up in period costume. Moberly and Jourdain might have inadvertently barged in on a gay fancy dress party where Edwardian spinsters may not have been all that welcome. No ghosts at all! Xxanthippe 23:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Except that I understand that that possibility was looked into in the course of the Society for Psychical Research's (or a later)investigation, and the dates didn't fit. Ghughesarch 08:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Jullian's book was published in 1965. If you will find the reference to the Society of Psychical Research it can be added. Xxanthippe 09:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- [1] - I appreciate that's only a blog but it does match my recollection - that the de Montesquiou party had happened some years before the events of "An Adventure". This site: [2] also covers the controversy, without coming down on one side or the other. Certainly Moberly and Jourdain also claimed significant physical differences in the landscape round the Petit Trianon, which would not be explained as being down to a fancy-dress party, however decadent.Ghughesarch 11:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"The de Montesquiou explanation does not, however, account for the changes to the landscape around the Petit Trianon which Moberly and Jourdain reported." This view was not expressed in Jullian's book and appears to be an editorial comment. Such comment has no place in a Wikipedia article. Please find a reputable primary source for this view (like "It has been suggested by X that...etc.) or transfer it elsewhere. Xxanthippe 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is fine to say that Jullian put forward de Montesquiou’s parties as an explanation for the events described in “An Adventure”, however, to leave the Wikipedia reader with the impression that Jullian’s suggestion satisfactorily explains Moberly and Jourdain’s experience is quite wrong. It is a self-evident matter of fact, rather than a non-neutral piece of editorialising, that Jullian’s “explanation” has flaws, particularly in respect of the changes to the landscape which Moberly and Jourdain reported.Ghughesarch 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
"Furthermore, and more importantly, it was later discovered that the supposed "fancy dress party" had taken place in 1893, seven years before the two women visited Versailles." Philippe Jullian, in his book, says that Montesquiou was in the habit of giving many parties, not just one party. Unless a citation is given for the quoted statement I shall remove it. Comments anyone? Xxanthippe 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Characteristics section a bit in universe, used {{fiction}}
This page may confuse readers because it doesn't clearly indicate that this phenomenon is widely held to be fictional. The only way it shows that the claims are not Definitely true is by using the word "report(s)". This sounds like the "reports" are plausible, a start would be to use a more skeptical word like "claim(s)". I have added a {{Fiction}} tag for the time being. Thinboy00 02:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- "A time slip (also called a timeslip) is an alleged paranormal phenomenon in which a person, or group of people, travel in time, without the aid of a time machine.
- As with all paranormal phenomena, the objective reality of such experiences is disputed."
- Ghosts, for example, is not tagged as fiction, surely the first section of the time slip article, quoted above, is quite sufficient? The phenomenon is not, as far as I am aware, held to be any more fictional than ghosts, little green men, ley lines, spoon-bending or whatever. Are you being excessively sceptical? I'm removing the tag for the time being.
- There is a difference with the other “fiction”-tagged articles (eg. Hogwarts, in that they are examples of places, characters or ideas whose origin is in works presented as, and acknowledged to be, fictional. Time slips, including the cases mentioned in the article, are presented as fact - like other disputed paranormal phenomena - in the sense that the reports of witnesses are assumed to have been made in good faith, regardless of how unlikely they may seem in the light of current scientifically accepted mechanisms, rather than being works of the imagination and admitted to be so.
- Ghughesarch 11:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Can't we use some Donnie Darko reference in this article?
[edit] Disputable assertion
The article says that accounts come "largely from the twentieth century" suggesting (perhaps unwittingly - although one cannot help but wonder about the purpose of such a remark) that ther might be an exterior (cultural?) influence at wotk.
The truth is, accounts of such events (just not using any single, generic name such as "time slip") have been a recurring phenomenon for centuries, probably millenia. (They can be found if searched for specifically.) The most important, however indirect, piece of "evidence" that demonstrates the long historic tradition of such perceptions, are folk tales from many different cultures, in which events involving the distortion of time are a recurring theme.
This should definitely be included in the article.
[edit] "Widely"...?
QUOTE: "this phenomenon is widely held to be fictional"
The fact that your specific environment (of which the readership knows nothing) presumably holds them to be fictional does not, by any means, justify the adjective "widely", my dear. ;)
There is no evidence for such a "widely" held (dis)belief.
On the other hand, there IS firm evidence that there are environments in which such events are widely held to be indisputable.
So, which evidence are we going to believe - and why? Or why not?
