Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 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
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • General: Recruit new members from frequent Paranormal page editors (be polite!), rework categories/categorization within project scope
  • Article Requests:
  • General: Black Eyed People, Falls from the sky, Horizon Project, Ron Amitron (also known as ET Ron), Sourcebook Project, Alla Vinogradova
  • Bermuda Triangle: Flight 441 disappearance, Peter Jensen disappearance, Pogo 22 disappearance, Witchcraft disappearance
  • Cryptozoology: Amphibian humanoid, Feline humanoid, Mark A. Hall, Beast of Bladenboro
  • Ufology: Gray Barker, UFOs and the National Security State, The Solway Firth Spaceman
  • Clean up:
  • Ghosts and Apparitions Ghost (too many long quotes)
  • Bermuda Triangle: Bermuda Triangle (massive citation sourcing, and expansion of reports)
  • Expand:
  • GA Nominations:

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 14:21, Friday June 13, 2008 (UTC).
The previous collaboration was Electronic voice phenomenon.

Contents

[edit] The Skeptics

When did this so-called "WikiProject Rational Skepticism" show up and why are they being allowed to run wild throughout all of Wikipedia?Magnum Serpentine (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Tagging

People keep putting the "In Universe" tag [1], which is specifically about works of fiction, e.g., Sherlock Holmes, onto the article about the cryptid Mokele-mbembe. Could someone have a look at the article and the tag, because it seems there is no way this tag should be on that article.Niet Comrade (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It seems to have independent references and a document pathway. Not my cup of tea but yes the "In Universe" tag is a stretch. Could do with a bit of help in the reference section. Vufors (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gia Principle

Does anybody have any good sources on the Gia Principle? Preferable scientific sources rather than new age sources.

perfectblue (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Wyllie

This is an article started recently, but the original editor has now left, and needs a lot of work. From what I gather he has published information on "non-human intelligences" such as angels. Would this fall under the remit here? Paulbrock (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


That would fall under this projects remit, but it's not a subject that I know much about so I can't really contribute. - perfectblue (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satyr

Have you replaced User:SatyrTN's User:SatyrBot? We at WP:CHICAGO are looking for a replacement since he is no longer active. Please respond at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFO vs. IFO merge issue

"We have two different articles about UFOs and IFOs. This is a self-serving distinction that isn't kept by reliable sources at this time. I propose merging the articles and using much of the text from the IFO article to indicate what UFOs normally are (aside from the silly and wishful reports). We need to inform readers about what UFOs really are (a social phenomenon, mass hysteria craze) and what they are not (visitors from another planet). The merge request is made and will be acted upon pending discussion."

SEE Talk:Unidentified_flying_object

  • You may want to follow this up, it seems that a skeptic evangelist has a bone to pick?Vufors (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • We know this one of old, they have a tendency to try adjust article perspectives to put science at the forefront of entries about myth and popular culture. This tends to produce some odd weighings like pages about science fiction movies having 2 paragraphs about the movie and 10 about how scientifically inaccurate it was. It can't be a pretty sight to see them in an argument with a Startrek Fan. - perfectblue (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • A look at this fellows edits Special:Contributions/ScienceApologist , is not good and he has been stoped on other occasions by admin, but they seem to leave him do the mass edit thing? This evangelist has a mission and from what I can see does a mass edit then turns it into an edit war. Now granted, the page in question does need to be cleaned up, but I am not going to edit war this alien! So unless other Para folk get in and help counter this wonder of science, I would say just about all the Para pages are open to mass edits by this evangelist who don't like the your references.If you need some help leave a message and I will assist.So I am back to the real world. Regards to all. Vufors (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The UFO Article needs a total revert then ScientistApologist needs to be reported for editing in bad faith. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A healthy sense of skepticism is certainly necessary. Our articles on the paranormal should be grounded in a skeptical perspective. There's no hard evidence for any of this stuff, after all. (But that said, I do agree that editors like SA can be somewhat extreme. They're almost like the men in black.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The point that SA ALWAYS misses is that the purpose of a Wikipedia entry on the Paranormal is not to reach a correct conclusion, but is instead to document the debate. SA doesn't seem to understand that when you are dealing with a myth on Wikipedia best practice is not to demonstrate that the myth isn't grounded in science (A myth is a myth, after all. You would have to be s special kind of person to see it any other way), but rather to document the history and contents of the myth. A year or so back there was a massive arbcom (plus a couple of ones personally about SA) about this very topic which made multiple rulings which were not to SA's liking. In summary:
  • The purpose of a an entry is to document the controversy, not to simply documentary scientific opinions on the subject
  • That describing something using paranormal terminology does not imply that the terminology or the subject has any grounds in science
  • That describing something as a UFO, a ghost, a psychic, a mythical creature etc (With appropriate Wiki links) is sufficient to inform a reader that the entry that they are looking at is not a science page
  • That Wikipedia can legitimately include entries about something that is not real in science so long as it is documented in some for, and so long as it is described as above.

SA felt betrayed by the arbcom and has disputed it ever since, whenever it gets quoted at them basically respond "That's just your interpretations" but never commit to anything more. It can be very difficult to deal with SA sometimes as they have a dislike for compromises and they will delete rather than tag, they also constantly try to treat pages about popular culture as if they were pages about science.

perfectblue (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)