Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal created on 11/30/06.
Please do not edit this page, leave any new replies on the above page. ---J.S (T/C) 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Request for NPOV check and proof reading

I've heavily updated the page on cattle mutilation, added a lot more information, sources and sections, and need somebody to check it before I go much further.

Could somebody please check what I have done for POV and weasle words so that I can take the Neutrality tag off, and make sure that I'm taking the article in the right direction.

perfectblue 10:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it this weekend. Thanks for helping with this project. Reporting your progress and what you're working on here is helpful to me and others so we can support your work with additional edits and the proof-reading you have requested. Similarly, if anyone wishes to look over my work of the past 6 months, please feel free to do so. I'd be grateful for the feedback. This Project is gathering steam which is nice to see. I'm not the one who started it nor even a major member but I hope my own work and comments have motivated others to continue their good work. Thanks again Perfectblue97! Articles such as the one you are working on are in great need of NPOV editing. You've chosen a good article to work on. Lisapollison 17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
perfectblue, I've left some of my comments and concerns on the talk page for the article. In addition, I'm concerned about the section comparing Horse-rippers to Cattle mutilation. In order for spme of the accusations in that section to stay (such as horses tending to get slashed on Tuesdays by Mars worshippers) I believe more than one source citation is necessary. The guy making the allegation that tuesday is a bad day for horses seems a few quarters shy of a buck. In a google search, I was unable to find any other authority alleging that fertility rites, tuesdays and horse-rippers are linked. This is not a criticism of you. Rather; it is a suggestion that in order to achieve NPOV, we may want to avoid citing extremist views. Beefing up the Horse-ripper article might be in order here. Finally, I want to commend you for taking on a very difficult subject. It's not an easy article to edit and your efforts as part of this project are greatly appreciated. Further, your request for review indicates you value the input of others and are open to any needed edits. That's unusual when dealing with controversial subjects. Lisapollison 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. I've never actually heard an RSPCA oficer called an extremist before. Just to clarify, they're actually Britain's largest and most respected animal welfare charity (they look after animals rather than throw red paint at displays of fur coats). Their rural branches are particularly well respected and they have a long history of involvement with horse welfare (I've deleted the section anyway, so this is pretty much moot).
perfectblue 16:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cryptozoology stubs

I am working on expanding some of the Cryptid and Cryptozoology stubs. Today I expanded the stub on the Queensland Tiger into a brief article with appropriate links. if you have any others besides Bigfoot that you'd like me to look at, please list them here or on my Talk Page. Thanks.Lisapollison 23:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Today I wrote a brief article for Animal X (Show), which had an enrty but no article. Lisapollison 19:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I expanded the article on the Animal X (Show) and created one for the Beast of Funen which was on the list of Cryptids but which did not have its own article. I have also written a brief article for The Veo which was cited but needed an article. Added a very brief article on The Batutut and made some small addtions to the WaheelaLisapollison 22:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Added a brief article on the Pizzly Bear, added some detail to the Hoop snake and did some minor editing of some other cryptid articles, mailing adding links to other wikipedia articles. Lisapollison 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Your doing great! keep up the good work! I'll take a look at the articles and see if I can add anything. ---J.S (t|c) 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thanks so much for the feedback. It's always encouraging to know that your work is appreciated. I slacked off this week, but I'll get back to the Cryptids later today. Everyone feel free to leave requests for articles, expansions cleanups etc. here or on my talk pageLisapollison 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone deleted the brief entry I wrote on the Beast of Funen without comment. I was careful not steal any direct quotes and I feel I summarised the story succinctly. I can see now that I must keep copies of all my edits since things have a way of disappearing. I'd like to know why it was deleted so that if I did in fact do something wrong, I can be certain not to do it again.I only wrote the entry because it is listed on the Cryptid list and contains an innaporpriate link to a very non-neutral source. If a more experienced member of the project can help me with this I'd appreciate it. Since all the sources for the story link back to that one article, I can see where some wikipedian flying by might have considred it not worth an entry but it is. It is worthy of note because it documents a series of sighting of "Alien Big Cats" in Denmark. Most ABC sightings are in Australia or the UK. thanks Lisapollison
Looks like it was deleted as per the discussion here, which summed up says that the article was unsourced. --InShaneee 00:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much InShanee. Much appreciated. So, should I try and put it back up WITH the source? Or just forget about it? It was not a hoax. I don't have a dog in the fight over whether ABCs are real so I really don't care. I was merely trying to flesh out the Cryptids that needed articles. There are thousands of unsourced articles here on wikipedia and usually they get tagged as needing a source and then left up for repair. The speed with which people delete some things while leaving up so much else is bewildering. Very discouraging. Lisapollison 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
So long as you do have a source for it, I'd give it a try. --InShaneee 00:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I am working now including citations in the articles I have worked on. Thanks to those who tagged where they were needed. If anyone has the time and feels like reviewing my recent work and inserting citation tags, I'd be much obliged. I am getting better at doing the citations properly, so it shouldn't take me long to fix everything. Lisapollison 02:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Remeber though that makes the criterea for speedy deletion, so an admin. can still delete it easily Mahogany
Thanks for the warning! Perhaps instead of tagging the article, if a citation is need, people can note it on the discussion page for me. I've made great progress with citations (or at least I believe I have!) on the following two articles, both of which have been extensively revised:
Thanks again everyone for helping me get up to speed.Lisapollison 03:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I created a basic stub for Crawfordsville monster which was on the list of articles to be written. I'll finish it later tonight or tomorrow. it's an old case from 1891 about a sighting of a sky monster. Anyone wanting to add to it, please feel freeLisapollison 03:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My new article Hairy hands has been questioned on its notability. What do you guys think? Oh, the fact that I did an article about a ghost on Halloween is just a coincidence! Totnesmartin 00:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I saw a ghost...

In my old Junior High building. It scared the shit out of me. Anything else you want to know?Cameron Nedland 15:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a place for general paranormal discussion, just issues related to editing and article content. --InShaneee 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
When me and Martial Law created this Wikiproject we intended that as one of the other uses so please stop saying they can't --Mahogany 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Witness testimonials can and do lead to hard evidence, as any police detective will often state. Martial Law 20:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not the type of thing you can do anywhere on wikipedia, as it is against policy. If you wish this evidence to be known, you will simply need to find a BBS or something similar to post it on. --InShaneee 20:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
True, this is against Wikipedia policy. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Show links to forums for discussion of paranormal phenomena, such as Fantastic Forum and the like, and then persuade people to go to such sites instead of discussing them on the encyclopedia. --Chr.K. 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No...that's linkspam. --InShaneee 20:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a notice so instead of contacting this page you can click one of our members to talk about paranormal stuff --Mahogany 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The text in the notice is displaying as black on a black background for me. --InShaneee 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Uhmm... You using firefox? wtf my sig. is not working --Mahogany 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Better? --Mahogany 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Perfecto! :) --InShaneee 17:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the "NOT" is in dark purple that doesn't read well so to some people it looks as if that atg is saying that this IS the place to report that kind of thing. Can you change it to a lighter color? 14:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above comment is mine. Sorry. I wasn't logged in. Lisapollison 17:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought...it might be noticeable, but less obtrusive if it was just some italic text (a wikipedia standard for notices) instead of that whole template. Thoughts? --InShaneee 15:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

So many of the templates on the main page either need a cleanup or need to be deleted. Anyone willing to tackle that? --C.Black 13:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

merged Template:User Paranormal2 (barely used) into Template:User Paranormal1

Template:WikiProject Paranormal user can be merged into the now simplified Template:WikiProject Paranormal1

Template:SOWN could be merged into Template:SCW

Template:Demon-stub Template:Ghost-stub Template:Monster-stub Template:Myth-stub Template:Supernatural-stub Template:Witch-stub Template:Para-stub could be merged into a single universal paranortmal stub.

Side note, I accidently placed the Template:Para-stub on some paranormal articles that are not parapsychology while adding the missing Paranormal category. --Ollj 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there probably shouldn't be so many stub types and that one Paranormal one would do. Perhaps someone should suggest it at WikiProject Stub sorting (as I think is the proper procedure for that). Also, if a Paranormal stub type is created, it would be helpful to have a corresponding category page to collect all the articles tagged as paranormal stubs. That way they'll be easier to find and expand. --Helfaery 06:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Can someone make the link in User Paranormal1 Green after the link is clicked. I think the picture is cuter than the pentacle and I prefer to have it on my user page. But once the link is clicked it becomes hard to read. Can someone please fix this? --Mr Vain 21:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

It's been brought to my attention that the pentacle (currently used in the Wikiproject templates), as the symbol of the Wiccan faith, probably isn't the best thing to use to represent ourselves. Any objections to switching it to the UFO/alien graphic from the userbox? --InShaneee 01:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you should go ahead and do that. Zagalejo 14:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there something that is a bit more neutral? I personally find the UFO logo a bit misleading, as many of the articles here are more related to the non-physical. Also the pentagram is not specific to Wicca, in fact the Wiccan tradition borrowed it from the Hermetic and older traditions, so it is more of a general occult symbol representing the elements among other things rather than a symbol of Wicca. - Solar 16:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This I do understand (the UFO icon says nothing of ghosts, or loch ness), but I do think we need something a little more blanket/representational. I'm not really sure what, though. If anyone has any artistic ability, they can always try making one. --InShaneee 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Um... how about an exotic-looking question mark? Or a picture of Charles Fort? I think the first might be too vague, and the second might be too obscure, but it's gonna be hard to find something that's representative of all paranormal topics. Zagalejo 17:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the stylized "?" idea. Perhaps that, or a stylized "X" ? --InShaneee 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The image of the hand over the dark blue radar scope that was on the X-Files opening credits was always outright weird enough to be symbolic of The Unexplained...that or the image of the hand with the unidentified red mark on it. --Chr.K. 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, let's start comparing these empirically. A Charles Fort logo would appear something like this:

Not too bad, but not immediatly recognizable. --InShaneee 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's not a copyright violation, I vote for a variation on the X-Files X logo.
perfectblue 17:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
As long as we can get someone to create it themselves and release it under the GDFL, we can do that. Can anyone help there? --InShaneee 17:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

May I recomend one of these, they are both stylized X-files Xs. I don't know how original something has to be to be released under GPL though, as they were both based on a larger image that was cropped and recolored a bit.

perfectblue 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Those actual base image is still the x-files logo, so we can't use them, unfortunatly. It's got to be ENTIRELY original for our uses. --InShaneee 18:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If I draw up a big P (For Paranormal) in the style of the X-File logo, would that be acceptable? Or would it still breach regs?
perfectblue 07:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Would this be more acceptable? It's not the X-files. But is in the spirit of the X-files logo.
perfectblue 11:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
HA! I like that! You might want to ask some of the other active members first (MartialLaw, Lisapollison, Chr.K., Zagalejo, ect) (assuming they don't see this thread in the next day or so) since this will be such a large, sweeping change (approximately 325 pages!), but I don't think I'd be opposed to that! Two things though: First, you can't really specify how an image may be used under GNU or CC, you just have to sorta let it be. Secondly, could you make it bigger? The wiki software can automatically shrink images to whatever size is needed, so we tend to prefer bigger images, as they're more versitile. --InShaneee 13:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Cute. :) Works for me. Zagalejo 16:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Paranormallogo2.png

I'm rubbish with shading. I've made a bigger version, but I can't get the P to be the same shade as the ring, my software is limited to a basic gradient fill and an airbrush, and I'm not particularly good at using them.
Here's a bigger version, and bigger and you'll see my brushstrokes.
perfectblue 17:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Any chance you could make the text a little bolder? It'll be more readable shrunk down that way. --InShaneee 17:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Bolder? Do you mean making the grey bits more white?

perfectblue 18:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I just mean thicker, so they don't get swallowed up by the black. --InShaneee 18:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hard to do, white will always be swallowed up when you shrink down unless you're graphics engine is really good with grey. He's a bolder version, but it still won't shrink well. Best to have a small image and stay small or a large image an stay large. Else avoid white on black.

perfectblue 09:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I shrank it down for reference...doesn't look too bad! How about for you? Legible? --InShaneee 14:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
It's OK, I'd like to be a better artist though. What does everybody else think?
perfectblue 14:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have the image of the hand from the XF opening? If comparing them all, would wish to see how these stack up against that one. --Chr.K. 14:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't use it...the image itself is copyrighted. --InShaneee 14:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else have any comments? If there's no objections/better suggestions, I'd like to impliment this image as soon as possible. --InShaneee 16:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

LAST CALL! If noone has anything else to say, I will make this the new project logo tomorrow! --InShaneee 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I drew the logo, so I probably don't get to vote, but it's OK with me if it's OK with you.
perfectblue 15:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone throw the image into a sandbox version of some of our templates? It would be nice to see how it looks in-context. ---J.S (t|c) 16:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thoughts? --InShaneee 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a good idea in concept, but I don't think it comes across well. Maybe it's just me? I don't have a better idea and it's better then the pentagram... so go for it. (and changeing it to something new latter on won't realy be that big of a deal.) ---J.S (t|c) 23:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, it's done! --InShaneee 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Road troll being propose for deletion

Hi fellow memebers, a quick on the draw editor has proposed this article for deletion claiming it is a neologism. The article was requested of us and I did my best to describe it and find supporting evidence. So far, the only citable sources I found was Jerry D. Coleman's books. Please conisder opposing deletion on the talk page or helping me flesh out the stub so it won't be deleted.Lisapollison 03:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Update - the article is safe for the time being, the editor who wanted it deleted has taken the tag off for now. I DO need help however, fleshing this out. Whomever prosoed this article, please assist me.Lisapollison 04:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I've edited this article, added a couple of catagories in and divided the it up into sub sections so that it looks a bit better. I've also tiedied up the reference a bit too. Hope that this helps add to its credibility as an article.
perfectblue 16:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Much obliged, perfectblue! You're really getting good at that whole reference and organizational stuff, eh? hehe. My biggest problem in trying to flesh out this article is trying to find sources beyong Jerry D. Coleman. The use of the word Troll is SO very common with regard to Internet bullies that any Google search with the word TROLL turns up hundreds of pages of garbage. Even searching within a search is hard. I have tried srearhing on these terms:
  • Road troll
  • Road troll sightings
  • Troll Sightings
  • Troll encounters
  • Gnome sightings
  • road gnome
  • Gnome troll sightings... and various permutations of that
  • rock troll
  • roadside troll sightings
  • roadside gnome
I get lots of references to garden gnomes and people with troll statue or doll collections visible from roads but little else. I'll try getting ahold of his books and see what references he lists. Can anyone help me out?Lisapollison 17:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm the one requested this article, but I'm having second thoughts whether there is enough meat here. I think it could be an article in the future, once more books have incorporated Coleman's research, but right now, it might be best to merge it with Jerry D. Coleman. I've been meaning to update and cleanup that article anyway, and it seems like most of the additional discussion about Road trolls is limited to internet forums and yahoo groups.
For the record, the road troll is supposed to be something like a "peg-legged bigfoot," rather than an actual troll. I happen to have both of Coleman's books – no one needs to go out and buy them – so I'm familiar with some of the specific sightings. Zagalejo 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I say leave it for now as its own article. IF you can add any more detail based on the sightings in the books, please do. Does he reference any particular newspaper accounts? I'd assume he must have. That's where I expect to find such sightings. The thing is, people who have been seeing wizened creatures by sides of roads call them by different names. I saw one sighting where a person called what they saw a Muncheechee but it was a typical road troll sighting. The problem is that Road troll is just catching on in cryptozoological circles. My guess is that in a few years it will be more common. Lisapollison 11:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I found one newspaper reference to a road-troll type creature here. I'll look through the books this weekend to see how much more I can add. I seem to recall that Coleman listed about a dozen or so sightings, although I'm not sure offhand how many were gleaned from newspaper reports and how many were based on his personal interviews. Just wondering, where did you find this Muncheechee sighting? Zagalejo 14:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I checked the books. All of the sightings Coleman describes are from his "personal files" and were not published anywhere else. Now I'm worried this'll lead to WP:RS issues. Though Coleman's research itself is well-respected in cryptozoology circles, his books are rather hastily put together and have a lot of spelling/grammar issues. The casual reader might not consider him very authoritative because of the way he has presented his research. Zagalejo 00:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
(Just to clarify)I'm not necessarily saying Coleman's books do fail WP:RS. My point is it would be hard to convince most Wikipedians they are reliable sources, and I think this article will become a real headache if we rely primarily on those books. A redirect to the author's bio page (which I intend to revise this weekend, with some third-party citations) is probably the best option. There, we can briefly mention that Coleman has described sightings of these creatures (which is an indisputable fact) and just leave it at that.
In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have added this article to the request list. I was just barnstorming ideas for new articles and "Road troll" popped into my head. I didn't do a Google search or anything beforehand to see if there was enough useable information; I wrongly assumed that there would be. It is very cool to see that people have actually tried to tackle this topic, and I really respect your dilligence. You people rock. But I think I've set you all off on a wild-goose chase. Zagalejo 04:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping you mean Merge and Redirect. And if nothing else, all of this has reaffirmed my faith in our community spirit. :) --InShaneee 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll merge what I can. Zagalejo 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't a better idea be to merge this page with a page about a similar phenomona, kind of like a 'see also' or a 'related phenomena' deal?
perfectblue 15:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd recommend that; it could be pushing Original Research to compare it to something else where no comparison previously existed. What pages in specific were you thinking of? --InShaneee 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not Muncheechee, it's Monchhichi. It's a fuzzy monkey-thing toy/cartoon character made by the same people who made Hello Kitty, Here's a link to a picture of one http://www.cleavelin.net/monchichi.jpg, they even have their own wikipedia page Monchhichis
perfectblue 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
perfectblue, when referring to sightings, it is appropriate to use the spelling that the was used in the report and not the spelling of the trademarked toy the witnesses is obviously referring to. They said they saw a Muncheechee and NOT a Monchhichi. Had I changed the spelling, nobody could do a google search and potentially find the report to which I was referring. Zagalejo, the Muncheechee road troll sighting is in a file I have of printouts of humanoid sightings in New York State from the 1970s through 1980's. That's the spelling in the report. it took place either near Poughkeepsie or Wappingers Falls, I forget which just now and I don't have it in front of me. I've seen the report online with various spellings of Muncheechee/monchichi just to make our job more difficult. He calls the thing a rock Ape as well as a Muncheechee/monchichi but it fits the bill of a road troll. BTW, I feel the Road troll article should stay a separate article because the term is catching on and will likely soon be a catch phrase. I've got inquiries out with some other researchers for more references. Wikipedians can be waaaay to fast on the draw when making decisions about articles being deleted or merged. Patience is the better practice in my view. Who does it hurt to have Road troll on it's own? Nobody. Lisapollison 17:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy dictates that we make articles on things that HAVE caught on, not things that might, so if evidence can't be found in a week or so that it has much usage outside of that author, it should be merged. --InShaneee 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to keep it as a separate article, but I'm not confident it would survive an AfD discussion. We can let it stay for a while to see if anything else pops up; hopefully, one of those researchers will find something that's usable. Zagalejo 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
One way to get more attention for Road troll and perhaps have other editors add to the article would be to add it to the List of cryptids. However, the format was changed recently to one that I just don't dare mess with. Can someone add it for me as well as the other new cryptid articles? Frankly I think that format with the boxes is too complicated and that it was easier to work with when it was a list separated into categories of cryptid. If anyone concurrs and cares to revert it, please do so. Lisapollison 05:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added the road troll. Really, the format is quite simple, you just have six lines for each creature, each line can either be left blank, or can contain a particular fact about the creature in question. Here's the file for the 43rd President of the United States of American.

Not sure whether this is a cryptid though, or an urban myth.

|---- (Start of a new row) | (Name of Cryptid) George W Bush | (AKA) George Dubbya | (Status) Altogether too real | (Description) Hominid | (Location) Texas, Washington, Local 27/7 Mart

perfectblue 08:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
at this time, I would classify Road troll as a cryptid because the people who report them believe them to be living, breathing creatures similar to bigfoot or other primate cryptids. The one reason we are having trouble citing sources is because in any given report, a witness will call them a troll, a gnome, a rock ape, a monkey man, a mutant and anything else you care to include. I have found some sightings in New Jersey that corrolate but they don't use the term Road troll. They refer to them as mutants but they do the same thing - just glare. I haven't included them because they don't use the same language. If I can get enough cites, I may add them in as possible road troll sightings being referred to as mutants. I think these people are all referring to basically the same thing but it's their opinion of whether it is a real being or a supernatural being that makes it a road troll or a monster. if they think it's a supernatural being, they tend to call it a demon, the jersey devil, the devil himself or some such. The road trolls don't seem as menacing. You know the more I type, the more ambivilant I am myself! So long as they don't fly or cast spells or wear red caps dipped in human blood, I'd stick with Cryptid! LOL Lisapollison 13:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I've got a simpler and easier to verify method of classification: has any cryptozoologist ever taken interest in the case? --InShaneee 15:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes - Jerry D. Coleman which is where I came in to this mess!! LOL! He's the one who has gathered the mostsightings under the heading of Road troll. Sadly, I don't own his books so I can't look at the newspaper accounts he references. I'm busy this week working on reading the book cited in the Bernard Boursicot article so that I can finish that article and clean it up further. it's not part of our project, just part of a larger effort to make LGBT history and biography more represented on Wikipedia.Lisapollison 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban legends

...Is it just me, or is the newly added "urban legends" template on the project page an exact copy of the Black Project template? What's your thoughts: rewrite, or move to delete as unneccisary? --InShaneee 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow people

I've started to clean up the page on Shadow people as it was very messy and had little in the way of credible sources. I've

  • Completely re-written the and witnesses sections to remove the mass of duplicate information and blather
  • Prunned the ghosts bit down to a single paragraph (it was mostly irrelevant)
  • Drastically prunned the list of books TV shows and game links, because people appeared to be adding any and all 'shadow like' entities into it. Regardless of their relationship to Shadow People
  • Rewritten all of the external links to make them neater and more descriptive (plus prunned a few)
  • Completely reworded the non parnormol explanations section using some very solid sources (Nature, The British Journal of Psychiatry) and removed a lot of the unencyclobedic content.

I have not

  • Done anything with the paranormal explanations section, which needs a big overhaul.

perfectblue 12:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I'm thinking about putting in a standard infobox template for paranormal creatures/cryptids. To start with I'm just going to trial it as a table added to individual pages Crawfordsville monster, if you think that it's worthwhile, could somebody plese give me a hand to translate it into a gobbal wiki template/infobox as I'm not sure that I understand the entire proccess of doing so.

perfectblue 07:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask and thou shalt recieve! I've set up one in my sandbox, with an example of its implimentation on its talk page. I didn't want to make it 'live' just yet, as I think there should be some discussion among the Cryptozoology regulars about precisely what the parameters should be (for example, do we really need to state that it's a cryptid in a cryptobox?). --InShaneee 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Although it's mainly for Cryptids, I though that we could add some extra fields in and use it for paranormal creatures (things that aren't exactly cryptids, or are disputed). I'll update the code once I've worked out thing a little more.

perfectblue 15:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Do we really need "Group" and "Sub-Group"? I'm not sure we should be imposing a classification scheme on things which may not exist. I personally prefer "Description" (along the lines of what they use at List of cryptids). Zagalejo 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not really a clasification scheme, you just copy whatever the page already says. For example, Bigfoot would be a cryptid and of the subgroup hominid, whereas Bob the X-files martian would be an Alien of the sub catagory fictional creature. It basicly gives you an opportunity to link to any list or catagory of 'similar creatures'.
I kind of wrote it so that it could be applied to non cryptids too, things like ghosts or urban legend creatures.
perfectblue 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, a lot of these entities aren't so easy to define; Mothman, for example, could be considered an alien, a cryptid, or even a ghost, depending on who you ask. I understand what you're trying to do, but it might be tough to implement. Just my 2 cents. Zagalejo 02:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If it's hard, then the catagories don't need to be filled in, or you could simply put a comma in and enter all of those catagories. I think that they look more professional and help to lend credibility to the articles, rather than it looking like the profile page on the back of a comic. Still, I don't think that it's worthgetting irrate about. If a catagory is easy, then we can use it, else it can be left blank.

perfectblue 06:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Is there an Project Paranormal infobox that relates more to locations, rather than creatures/entities? --Careax 19:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm not sure any really exist as an official part of the project. ---J.S (t|c) 19:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks J.smith. I've created a new infobox for paranormal places. It can be found here. It's heavily based on the Paranormal creatures infobox which Perfectblue97 created. If I could get some feedback and suggestions on how to improve it, or make it more in keeping with WikiProject Paranormal standards, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Careax 01:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry D. Coleman

I expanded/added sources to the Jerry D. Coleman article, if anyone wants to take a look. Thanks. Zagalejo 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Got the inline down! Very classy! Looking good, and quite well cited. --InShaneee 04:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goatman

I've updated and prunned the Goatman article. I've added a load of sources that I think are valid (no Geocities stuff), and removed a lot of unsourced information and potential POV. If somebody would like ot check over it, I would be most obliged.

perfectblue 08:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good, overall. Just wondering, do you have any more information about this? This would be rather extraordinary if true.
Following the 1969 police report and newspaper article, groups gathered in the vicintiy of Greer Island where several attempts were made to kill and capture Goatman, met with only marginal success; the monster was wounded leaving a large pool of blood and tracks into the lake. Zagalejo 16:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


That wasn't me. All of the Lake Worth monster stuff was added afterwards by another user. I've deleted it as it refers to a seperate cryptid that belongs on its own page.
perfectblue 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Zagalejo 16:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Searching

Is there any way to seach Wikipedia for Paranormal articles needing sources, cleanups, or NPOV checks?

perfectblue 13:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not directly. There's a way to see what articles on Wikipedia in general need those things, and I'm working on a way to see what Paranormal articles need expansion, but that's it for that. However, this is one of the primary uses of the Assessment Department. It's a safe bet that most of our stub class and start class articles are in need of expansion and sources, and most of our B class articles are in great need of NPOV and cleanup. That help any? --InShaneee 15:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. At present, we do have a category for cryptozoology stubs. --InShaneee 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising?

Should the forthcoming book by Richard Morris really get a mention on both the Gef the talking mongoose and Harry Price pages? It hasn't even been published yet, so is it really relevant? Any guidance appreciated.--Tascio 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Definatly no, especially since anything written about them will be difficult to verify. --InShaneee 15:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1976 Canary Island UFO Sighting

I've reworded and expanded this article, it now needs rating, and some advice on any shortcommings. I've tried to cite everything thoughouly without resorting to 'fan sites' but I could do with some help locating other WP:RS sources.

perfectblue 11:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

perfectblue you're just an editing demon these days! Hats off to you! I'm very pleased to see you putting your positive energy into other articles besides the cattle mutitation thing. It's unfortunate that the CM article has a resident troll who will never let you make an edit without controversy and argument. You've made so many postive contriutions to this project lately. We're lucky to have you. Three cheers for perfectblue! Lisapollison 12:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You are, indeed, a beast! I've bumped the article up to a tentative "B" class, because although it needs work in a few places, it does essentially fill out all aspects of the incident, and is well sourced. Couple things I would suggest: First, I'd move the bullet points in the opening to the 'invesigation' section, and convert them to prose. Secondly, that last sentence in 'civilian reports' could use a citation. Other than that, I think it's looking really great! Oh, and don't forget that you can always request a re-rating on the Assessment page, and the Peer Review page is a great place to ask what else needs to be done to an article. Again, really great job on all the article edit! You're a true tribute to collaborative spirit! --InShaneee 15:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The article shows some things that need to be begun by WPP:
  1. A template, on one margin or the other (right is better, I believe), to categorize UFO sightings according to something resembling the scientific analytical processes espoused by Hynek and others. Duration, Multiple Locations and Multiple Witnesses are particularly useful, though the latter two should probably be adjusted to Location or locations of sighting and Known witnesses.
  2. The detail aspect of it is simply incorrect, as there are a larger number of reports than generally believed involving occupants having been visible inside the craft; information pertaining this is available in the work UFOs and the National Security State, Volume One by Richard M. Dolan. That said, it IS classifiable as one of Hynek's class three close encounters.
  3. The detail of the case needs to be expanded in the article; quotes from any personnel present during the event would be very effective, al la a given police or military report. Do any sites exist that could be investigated, as to where they received their information?

These three come to mind, especially the first one. Further thoughts whenever they arise. --Chr.K. 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Feel free to add the template yourself. 2) I don't have the book, or any idea of its content so I can't do anything about it. 3) I tried to avoid quotes but I took almost all of the detail from direct eye witness acounts, so I have quotes for most of what is up there.

perfectblue 20:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the Month now live!

It gives me great pleasure to announce that our very first Collaboration of the Month is the Roswell UFO incident! Now, let me just say from my experience in work with other wikiprojects that, with a focused community effort, it is not all that difficult to bring a B class article up to Good Article status, or even Featured! Can you imagine, Roswell on the front page of Wikipedia? So, good luck to us all! In the meantime, the old nominations have been archived. Since it met the three-vote threshold, Electronic voice phenomenon has been automatically renominated. Otherwise, we're now open for nominations for next month's collab. --InShaneee 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a nudge that we should try not to be too heavyhanded with flying into this one, I think. Roswell obviously inspires some strong feelings and a lot of hobbyist/researcher interest. I haven't been involved with this particular article, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some people who felt a bit of ownership over the article who might not appreciate a horde of jangly mops and brooms descending on their corner of Wikipedia unannounced. :) — ripley\talk 17:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that tends to be the problem with most Collaborations of this nature. However, that shouldn't stop us from putting our collective backs into improving it; raising article quality is the primary goal of editors on wikipedia, period. Of course, each editor who does this should take the time to gloss over the talk page and archives first, just to make sure we're not reinventing any wheels or stepping on any toes. For anyone who is interested in starting on this, btw, a great first step is to create a 'todo' list on the talk page so we can all coordinate our efforts. --InShaneee 17:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course. I never suggested we not improve the article, just that we be sensitive to the fact that it's a controversial topic and that there are probably people active there who've been working on it for some time. It's always better to establish a feeling of collaboration first than to come in with sharp elbows and simply start rewriting and criticizing without a word. To that end, I posted a nice intro note on the article's talk page. — ripley\talk 17:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a great idea. However, I still want to stress that being too cautious here would be folly. Of course, we don't want to run over any consensus that has been reached on the talk page previously. But on the other side of things, we don't want to be walking on eggshells and looking for permission for our actions. This is a great opportunity for some radical editing, and one that should not be ignored. I do understand where you're coming from, and you have a good point, but we do have to take this time to do what needs doing. --InShaneee 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, I've never suggested backing off from making what edits are appropriate. What I've said is that it's better to try to foster an atmosphere of collaboration *before* inevitable disputes happen, that way we're seen as helpful collaborators, and not a mongol horde to be battled with. — ripley\talk 17:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, alright. I do see what you're getting at now (finally! :) ). You're absolutely correct. We definatley can't go in assuming that the article is our playground, either. Really, working with the existing editors can only speed this process up! (hence things like the todo list, which is really open to anyone). --InShaneee 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of fighting over semantics and what is/isn't WP:RS when dealing with paranormal/supernatural issues, so I think that I will sit this one out for the most part (Have fun dueling with all of the wackos out there who get miffed when you tell them that you're deleting their pet conspiracy because www.its_all_the_fault_of_the_federal_government.com isn't a reliable source of references).

perfectblue 15:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, oh, I've been looking forward to that. Of course, there's a lot more than that that needs to be done here. The main thing is editing for relevance and making the text more concise on the whole. --InShaneee 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request a rating

I've rejigged Boy Scout Lane, so it needs re-rating/comenting on to recomend improvements. How do I go about doing this?

perfectblue 13:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-rating: here (normally - this one I'll just take care of now :) ).
Comments: here (new! You'll be the first to try it out!
Again, fantastic work! --InShaneee 14:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, looks like it's up and running. Hopefully, the other editors active here will throw in their two cents (hope you guys have the peer review page watchlisted!) --InShaneee 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entombed animals

Does anyone know if we already have an article on entombed animals (ie, living frogs, toads, salamanders, etc that are found encased in a piece of rock or wood)? We obviously don't have an article with that exact title, but perhaps these anomalies are known by another name. Thanks, Zagalejo 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If not, I'll stick it into the article requests section. This should be a little easier to research than road trolls. :) Zagalejo 02:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading about this in the fortean times, I think that there is a special name for it. Also, try Snopes.com for urban legends. I read a couple there about large frogs being found in cola cans because they had crawled in there as little frogs, and grown.

perfectblue 07:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this discussion at snopes which refers to them as "stoned animals," but I'm not sure that's the best article title... :). Zagalejo 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It's best to avoid any content found on a message board unless it leads to a WP:RS source.

perfectblue 15:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm just throwing the link out there to give people something to think about. Zagalejo 16:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fouke Monster

I've substantially revamped and expanded the Fouke Monster, if anybody wants to give it the once over.

If anybody want to point me towards the page with the instructions for the correct procedures for making these requests, it would also be most appreciated .

perfectblue 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's on the Peer Review page. The instructions for formatting it are the "requesting a peer review section" (sorry if the title is misleading, you're not 'requesting' to be granted a peer review, just requesting that other come check it out). --InShaneee 15:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pluckley and Glamis Castle

I added the town of Pluckely to the UK section of theList of haunted locations. I plan expand the actual Pluckely article once I've sourced all the information, but it shouldn't be too hard as I['m quite familiar with the Pluckley Ghosts. I'm also planning on adding a section to the Glamis Castle section dealing with it's paranormal activity. Since Pluckley is reputed to be the most haunted village in Britain and Glamis Castle is reputed to be the most haunted castle in Britain, I definitly believe the articles should have more detail than they do. Anyone else want to help me out? (I can't do the work for at least another few hours due to my works internet filter blocking all sites except Wiki!) The Kinslayer 10:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Pluckley might be worth a few of us investing some effort on. It was in the Guiness Book of Records in 1998 as 'Most haunted village in England.' This site is a good starting point. Got information on all the ghosts, along with some counter-information to make it rational. It's very balanced, and I think this worth spending some time on. Any volunteers to help? The Kinslayer 21:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've also found some good info on Glamis Castle here. The Kinslayer 21:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
They seem pretty interesting. When I have time to sit down for a couple of hours, I'll see if I can do anything to improve them. Zagalejo 22:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Definitely interesting, but don't forget our current collaboration of the month, Roswell UFO incident. — ripley\talk 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Your right,It wont cause any harm to wait a while before doing some serious work on Pluckely. Not like it's going anywhere or something! The Kinslayer 10:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
They have a subscribers-only service that gives access to an audio archive of their old shows, but I think that may be it. --InShaneee 13:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow people

It'd like to get a peir review for Shadow people soon, but I'm decidedly unhappy about some of the content and need some help finding sources to boost what is already there.

I've found pleanty of scientific evidence explaining why people might see things that weren't there (loads of scientific journals etc), but I can't find anything reliable explaining what they could be in paranormal terms. Any sources, would be appreciated.

Also, does anybody have a WP:RS actually describing the three stages that a shadow person is supposed to go through (blob, dwarf grim reaper/gingerbread man forms). It was left on the page by another user, but I can't find anything WP:RS about it.

perfectblue 16:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This was the best I could find on the web: [1]. (Yes, I know, not terribly scholarly). As for the three stages, it wouldn't surprise me if that's either an unsubstantiated fringe theory or original research. --InShaneee 19:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, I'd like something a bit more professional. Do you know if Clark has ever written wrote about them?
perfectblue 20:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Jerome Clark? Not to my knowledge; he tends to stick with more physical phenomenon. Zagalejo 20:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way to get a transcript from Coast To Coast? I know they have done a number of interviews with "experts" on shadow people. ---J.S (t|c) 20:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary Channels, Radio show

The History Channel, others will be featuring paranormal matters this Halloween and all week shortly. Even A&E has got into the act. Criss Angel, who is the star on Mindfreak will be in a haunted hotel. The guy is some kind of (appearant) mystic. Shows already featured on the History Channel is UFO Files:Greys' Agenda and UFO Files:USOs so far. The radio show Coast To Coast AM will feature the annual "Ghost To Ghost AM" show. Art Bell is interested in "Entity Attacks" in which entities, such as demons and evil spirits have attacked people. The radio show is for those who have insomnia, work nights in the US, are located on a different place on the planet and can access the website. Martial Law 23:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gotta love Coast to Coast... Some of the interviews could be consitered reliable primary sources or perhapse secondary sources. ---J.S (t|c) 20:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mindfreak

This show stars Criss Angel, who appears to be some kind of mystic. This guy can do things that even David Blaine can't do. He is usually on the A&E network every week. He once flew between two HIGH buildings that were FAR apart w/o any aids. Martial Law 23:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the project? --InShaneee 23:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Mindfreak would qualify under the scope of the project I'd think. Other then that... not sure. ---J.S (t|c) 16:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Paranormal - "Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation", Does an illusionist really count as being paranormal? Maybe if he does hypnosis, or if he claims to use magic powers, but not if he's a fancy version of a Vegas floor show.

perfectblue 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If a large number of people actually believe that a magician has real powers, then that magician would probably fall under our scope. Historically speaking, there have been a number of self-professed sorcerors and conjurers who were widley suspected to have supernatural abilities. However, I don't know enough about this guy to judge. I suspect most people assume he's just a skilled illusionist. Zagalejo 18:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
He claims, literally, to have psychic powers and makes use of his show to "prove" his claims. It's imposible to verify his claims, but even if he turns out to be a fraud or simple illusionist, he'd qualify under the subject. (A notable fraudulent siting or crop circle creator would fall under our scope as well...) ---J.S (t|c) 18:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen the show, but if he's making those sorts of claims then it would definitely fall under the scope of this project, I think. — e. ripley\talk 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not certain that he does count as being paranormal because he's basicly running a big stage show (which would make him an conjourer and an actor rather than a wizard) I agree that a paranormal fraud or fake is just as diserving of being paranormal as the real thing. Where would we be without interesting hoaxes? They certainly sell books and get people interested in the real thing.
perfectblue 19:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well stated; I agree ... for the same reasons, Uri Geller would fall under this project's scope as well, I believe. I think we have to steer clear of judging which articles fall under our scope based on whether or not something is truly paranormal or in fact fraudulent or false; it's an impossible question to answer really. And I suspect some project members of a more skeptical bent (myself included) might suspect practically all of the potential pool of subjects are fraudulent or false, and then we'd have nothing to do. :) — e. ripley\talk 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
As I say on my user page, I'm a complete and utter skeptic, but I don't let this get in the way of documenting things. A hoax, an urban legend, a true story, are all worthy of record in my book. You don't have to label them as being true or false, just present the facts and the opinions and let the reader decide.
What I am concerned about are the labeling of Vegas style TV events as paranormal when the paranormal element is just a theme. I'm happy for hypnotists and people who do yoga style tricks where they slow down the heart rate to survive underwater or in blocks of ice etc, but when its making elephans vanish on stage, I'm less happy
perfectblue 07:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically, he is not so much an illusionist as he is a Mentalist who also performs illusions. He's not that different from Kreskin in what he does - it's the execution of his illusions, his Goth attire & posturing that makes him different. Many mentalists of the past also claimed they were really doing the things they seemed to be doing in their illusions but that is just stage posturing for the audience. They didn't elieve a word of it privately. EVen Houdini made such claims early in his career. If you watch Angel's show, you will see that some of his assistants and friends are old-time mentalists or stage magicians. It's merely a stage act cleverly promoted as reality. We can consider him under our jurisdiction but let's be careful not to make it seem he is anything more than what he is - another stage magician/ullsionist/mentalist with a gimmick. Stage magic can be something we cover. I don't have a problem with that. There are a number of articles in that area that need work.Lisapollison 08:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summerwind

Summerwind has been completely re-written and massively expanded. If anybody wants to comment on it please feel free its comment page with any ideas that you might have to further improve it.

perfectblue 15:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to link it on the Peer Review page; I got it taken care of though. Ideally, some of the other memebers have that paged watchlisted and will see when new requests are made (ideally...). --InShaneee 15:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I keep forgetting step 5
perfectblue 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greys

I have also decluttered Greys so it needs a going over from the wider community too. perfectblue 15:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there's a good one. That page must have been a mess. --InShaneee 15:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coast To Coast AM's....

The show is, as of this timepoint, is holding "Open Lines", and it is "Fright Night Friday". On Tuesday, Halloween NIGHT, the radio show will hold its annual "Ghost To Ghost AM" show. Go to the website for more info. Art Bell is interested in "Entity Attacks", in which hostile ghosts, demons, The Devil, other evil, malevolent entities have attacked, even killed people. Martial Law 06:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians interested should be careful. It airs @ 11pm MST/MDT, 1 am EST/EDT. Great show for insomniacs, those who work at night in the U.S. , are located on a different part of the planet. The Halloween show, related shows will be scary. Martial Law 06:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
What does this have to do with the project? Martial, I thought we discussed that Wikipedia can't be used as a general topic messageboard. --InShaneee 13:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This can lead to more paranormal information, such as the Chupacabra, or that a new cryptid has been found, like one I'm following, such as a alleged "Man-Spider" called the "La-Arana". This thing looks humanoid, only that it is a spider. Also seen it on the X-Files as well. I hope I'm incorrect. Martial Law 20:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Allegedly this thing is in Latin America, spins a HUGE web, and eats large animals, people that get caught in it. One guy allegedly escaped the thing, but it ate his buddies. Other entities that get reported are hostile aliens, such as the Greys, The Devil, demons, ghosts, that sort of thing. Martial Law 20:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
If you have something about a specific cryptid that might be useful to a specific article, you have to bring it up on that article's talk page. This page isn't for paranormal discussion or research. --InShaneee 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Will do. Martial Law 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe what Martial Law is referring to is not a cryptid but a variety of tarantula that eats birds. Here's the article on it - Goliath birdeater It is not a Cryptid nor has it ever been documented to have eaten a human but there are lots stories alleging that sych has ocurred. If I can find any credible source on the subject of man eating spiders or spider-men, I'll put them here. Lisapollison 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep an eye out

I've got a user going by the name of Thorstejnn adding really inappropriate content to Shadow people (basicly sarcastic banter along the lines of 'because it can't account for everything it can't account for anything'). Could somebody else please put a watch on this article so that I'm not the next person to delete whatever they write (I've already done it twice).

I've looked at their edit list and while they're not a pure vandel, they have a habit being sarcastic and inapropriatly behaved.

perfectblue 15:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to explain to him what's wrong with what he's doing; in the future, that's what should be done first. --InShaneee 15:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Institute of Noetic Sciences and Quackwatch

The following has been added to a prominent position in the Institute of Noetic Sciences article: The skeptical organization Quackwatch lists IONS as a voluntary organization it views with "considerable distrust." [2] I have started a discussion on the talk page on whether this group and their views are relevant enough to warrant such a position with the aim of gaining some level of consensus. I should also note that Quackwatch have not made a direct statement to do with IONS they have simply included them in a list with over 500+ other organisations. - Solar 10:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote that sentence a bit to make it a little more objective. --InShaneee 14:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It's looking pretty good now I think. — e. ripley\talk 16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morgawr (cryptid)

Greetings, carbon-based bipeds! I've just started an article about the above beastie. I am a beginner at WP and know nothing about formatting. You are invited to jazz up, add and remove, and do whhat you will to it. Photographs would be great, and perhaps something on the role of 'Doc' Shiels. Is there an article about him? Totnesmartin 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Doc Shiels... We don't have an article on him at the moment, but I think he'd be an interesting topic! Zagalejo 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK

[edit] Copyvio problems

Heads up: Old Yellow Top and Trinity Alps Giant Salamander have both been tagged as possible copyright violations. Someone should comb through User:Nintendonien's contributions to see if any other pages have been copied-and-pasted from other websites. Zagalejo 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The user's talk page has another copyright warning on it for a third page going back to feb this year.
Is there a simple way to check for violations, or do we just have to gog through their sources and see if they match near word for word with the article?
perfectblue 07:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
One quick way I do it is take a whole sentence and throw it into google. (with quotes, that is). That will show you any word-for-word copies. You'll just need to make sure it's not a wikipedia clone. :) ---J.S (t|c) 08:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice idea. But what if the book isn't online? Totnesmartin 19:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There's not much we can do about that, I don't think. — e. ripley\talk 19:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we use the tools we have and lement the lack of the ones we don't have. :) ---J.S (t|c) 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass Hysteria, "Flaps", and other such events

I've recently added the Mad Gasser of Mattoon to our list of articles to expand and in looking for other articles to link it with, I noticed we Wikipedia does not have articles for a number of other alleged instances of Mass Hysteria which is covered in the article Collective hysteria. I believe such incidents fall under our project goals and would like to add some articles. For example, Phantom kangaroo sightings are often considred examples of mass hysteria as are the airship sightings of the late 19th century.

The one I am most interested in adding is a recent one from the early 1990s - specifically, the case of Gloria Ruiz, AKA The Toxic Lady. She's the cancer patient whose body emitted seemingly toxic fumes while being treated in a California emergency room. dozens of hosptial staff were sickened, 3 of whom were permanantly disabled. I'd like to ask fellow project memers what would be the appropriate title for such an article. I'd suggest:

  • Gloria Ruiz aka Toxic Lady (mildy offensive but that's the most common way she is referred to)
  • Gloria Ruiz (toxic fumes patient)
  • Toxic Lady (Gloria Ruiz)

The first title is probably the best choice even though it is a little offensive. There should be a redirect from Toxic Lady as well since that's waht most people would type if they were searching for it. There is a copyrighted FAQ by an RN on the net aout this case but the author give permission for others to reproduce her work freely so long as it is for non-profit purposes. Here's that article: Toxic Lady/Gloria Ruiz

There are other examples of Mass Hysteria I would also like to make articles for but this is the one that I feel should be done first. Any input or help would be appreciated once we;'ve decided what the correct article name should be. Thnaks. Lisapollison 12:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Currently, there isn't anything at Gloria Ruiz, so I'd just put it there for the time being. --InShaneee 14:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the first thing to do would be to rename the article. It's no longer about the one case, but about the phenomena of gassers in general. We can still have redirects from the names of each individual case.

perfectblue 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I'm raather worried about how similar the Mad gasser article seems to Jerome Clark's version of events. Unless it's changed, it could represent a copyright violation.
perfectblue 15:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
RE: the Mad Gasser of Mattoon, that's one of the reasons I put it on the to do list. It needs to be gone over. I think the name is fine since that is how most researchers and historians refer to that event and the events similar to it in proximate time. If there are other anomalous gassing events, we could simply list them in a Other Gassing Events section at the end. As for Gloria Ruiz, her name is not enough in my opinion, that's why I asked for input as to what title the artilce should have.Lisapollison 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest we archive old discussions from this page

I'd like to suggest that we archive any topics on this page that have not had a comment in the past 60, 45 or 30 days - whichever period people feel is most appropriate. This talk page is getting a tad unwieldy. Topics that have had a comment recently should stay as should anything else our fearless leaders consider important.

I'll do that this evening (keep meaning to get around to that...) --InShaneee 14:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a bot that we can use to do it automatically? I'm certain that I've seen people using them on their talk pages.
perfectblue 15:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There is, if we'd like to use it. For the moment, I have it taken care of, though. --InShaneee 00:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recently revised articles

I've added a new section to the mainproject page where members can add the names of any article that has been significantly expaned or updated.

If you do anything to significantly update, expand, or clean up an article, you can put it there to people about it.

perfectblue 13:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Mad Gasser of Mattoon should come off the list. that big flurry of edits is over. Totnesmartin 11:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have not had the time myself to write a basic article on Gloria Ruiz AKA "the Toxic Lady" but I feel such an article using the open source by an R.N. I mentioned in the section on Flaps and Hysteria would help make the Mad Gasser article more complete. Why? Well, it's a modern example of another "Gassing Event" which could e referred to in the Mad Gasser article. The events are not entirely similar but the accusation of mass hysteria and the language "experts" used to explain away what happened are very similar. I was hoping Perfect Blue might take it on since she's so much etter with inline citations. I just screw them up whenever I try to do them the approved way. (sorry!)Lisapollison 18:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Same here re citations! A link to Gloria Ruiz would be good if there was an actual article. Someone can purt that inlater but that's a minor thing. Is there anything else there that needs doing? Totnesmartin 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vu Quang

Just created an article about this region, the home of many newly-discovered species. feel free to expand, and put something in those nice red links...! Totnesmartin 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'll give it a look latter. ---J.S (t|c) 15:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Help me out... how does it fall under this project? ---J.S (t|c) 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that Totnesmartin is implying that many of the animals in this region should be considered cryptids because they exist in local culture, existance has not yet been cataloged by science, yes?

perfectblue 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say that! Yes, this is the "new kind of deer" end of cryptozoology, rather than the Mothman end. Totnesmartin 15:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Ummm ok. I guess I can see that. :) ---J.S (t|c) 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'd consider the article about the region under the aegis of the project. --InShaneee 00:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure the Vu Quang ox really counts as a cryptid, either. Cryptozoologists didn't pay much attention to it until after it was discovered; it was declared a victory for cryptozoology after the fact. Vu Quang is a good idea for an article, but I think it's a stretch to be included here. Zagalejo 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Vu Quang is good for supporting the argument for cryptozoology ("see? there are new large species! This is what we're on about!"). True, the VQ ox caught everyone out, but there are still many creatures awaiting discovery. It's also useful to discuss what the limits of cryptozoology are. Some would ignore 'regular' new species as not being CZ, while others look precisely there, ignoring 'spooky' things from Illinois and suchlike. Totnesmartin 09:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Article should perhaps be renamed Vu Quang Preserve since that more accurately descries what it is - a nature preserve and not merely a species of deer. There have been Cryptid hominid sightings there among other myserious animals as well as the mysterious five toed dog whose name escapes me. it's some ancient ancestor to modern dog where the dew claw is still a toe. X Files even did an episode about it. This cryptid dog is allegedly one of the singing dogs like those in New Guinnea. Some folks elieve it to be a trickster spirit of the forest, others, a real relict ancient dog. Lisapollison 13:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't fit the definition of Cryptozoology, though. By definition, it is no longer 'unknown'. --InShaneee 14:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The Vu quang ox (AKA Saola) is now known, but there are other creatures there awaiting discovery (mental image of queue of animals outside scientist's tent...). Feel free to add your knowledge of hominids and five clawed dogs to the article. I'd rename it to Vu Quang National Park if I knew how to rename articles. I'm new here. Totnesmartin 20:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Look at the tabs at the top of the page (discussion, edit this page, history, etc). You'll find the page move tool there, as well, and all you have to do is click it and follow the instructions. It's pretty easy. I do get more Google hits for "Vu Quang Nature Reserve" than "Vu Quang National Park". Is one more "official" than the other? Zagalejo 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Vu Quang Nature Reserve is the most commonly cited name. The project article Batutut refers to a cryptid hominid believed to reside there. I'll look around for that weird cryptid dog thing. Lisapollison 13:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping Our House Clean

I've just read | this, and I can tell you that as far as the wider wikipedia comunity goes, it appears to be much worse than the article says.

I think that we should make bit of an extra effort this month to keep our house clean. In the last few weeks alone come across a number of passages in paranormal articles that I believe are copies from books like "Unexplained", and there are probably a lot more out there that I haven't come across.

perfectblue 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Jerome Clark's "Unexplained", I take it? I use it as a source, try to remember to give credit, and check stuff elsewhere so it's not just wikiclarkia. The Mad Gasser entry was pretty awful for plagiarism, though. Totnesmartin 20:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the book. I'm also concerned about Beast of Gévaudan and a couple of other entries. The former of which I'm pretty sure was copied in large chunks from the English translation of a French account.

There are also a lot of sections on the opinions of people on paranormal things that aren't attributed, or where it isn't made clear if the text is a quote from a source or if it is a paraphrasing by a reader of that source.

I'm not a copyright freak by any measure, but I don't want to give anybody any more amunition to throw a paranormal investigation or the recording of supposidly paranormal events.

perfectblue 21:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about being thought of as a copyright freak - WP deletes plagiarised stuff, so we have to shape up. I'll pop over to Beast of G and shuffle the words. Totnesmartin 12:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Totnesmartin 15:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

One rather impossible-to-ignore problem in insuring there is no plagarism is the nature of the fields of the strange, themselves; to quote Fort, on the subject of the things the mainstream doesn't want to look at, "there is silence." If we could get the source materials on everything, I'd write up new versions for everything myself. --Chr.K. 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thylacine not Paranormal

Thylacines did exist but are now officially extinct with unconfirmed sightings. The paranormal tag was removed from the thylacine article for the sake of accuracy.

Creatures that are 'out of place or time'; for example animals that are believed to be extinct, but are still being sighted are clasified as cryptids, which fall into the domain of Project Paranormal. For this reason, I'm restoring the tag.
In future, please sign your comments.

perfectblue 10:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a question than why isn't the Mammoth or Coelacanth added? I think there is a difference between unconfirmed sightings of animals that have officially existed and unconfirmed sightings of animals that have never officially existed.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranormal
par‧a‧nor‧mal  /ˌpærəˈnɔrməl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-nawr-muhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA ::Pronunciation
–adjective
of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory ::perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.
There would be a scientific explanation if someone saw a Thylacine ::--203.214.40.28 10:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that you're being purposfully obtuse. A Mammoth is not a cryptid because it is a genuinly extinct animal, however, there are probably several cryptids that are mammoth-like/believed to be mamoths which are identified by their own name (eg - the beast of.... the hairy elephant of... etc).
A Coelacanth is not a cryptid anymore because it was moved from cryptozoology to regular zoology when it was scientifically confirmed to still exist. X years ago, it was a cryptid and it could genuinly have a cryptid section on its page to recognize this.
You say that there would be a scientific explanation if somebody saw a thylacine, well, until they can find that scientific explanation (they stop seeing them, and find a live one), then it will remain a ctyptid.
"of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation"
Sorry, but seeing an animal that science believes to be dead would come under this heading.
perfectblue 13:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
An article that specifically focused on modern mammoth sightings would probably fall under the project. I don't think the current mammoth article qualifies, however, because the cryptozoology connection is very minor in the grand scheme of things.
I'd prefer to have a separate article on thylacine sightings, as well. I'm sure there's enough information out there to fill an entire page. However, I don't really have a problem with keeping current thylacine article under our scope, because the thylacine has had an extensive presence in paranormal literature - much more so than the mammoth. It's a staple of "true mysteries" books. Zagalejo 15:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Zagalejo. The tag should be removed from that article, though it can be added to an article specifically about post-extinction sightings, should the need for one arise. --InShaneee 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused, you agree with Zagalejo that the paranormal tag should be removed from the thylacine's page? I read the comment to mean that they agreed with keeping the tag in place.
perfectblue 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, misread the ending. I think the tag should be REMOVED at the moment, though should a separate page about post-extinctions sightings ever come into existance, it should be ADDED to that. --InShaneee 17:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I can go either way on this. Almost every discussion of the thylacine explicitly or implicitly mentions cryptozoology, so you could make the case to include the tag. However, I agree that it might set bad precedent, and it would probably make more sense to tag an article devoted to the sightings themselves. Overall, I don't feel too strongly either way, so for the sake of consensus, I'll just go with remove. Zagalejo 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The tag should only be used when there is some sort of fringe or paranormal claim associated with the creature in question. So it should not be included here. To include it for every possibly extinct animal would be an abuse of both the tag and the scientific classification. JoshuaZ 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the thylacine as a cryptid is notable enough to have it's own page, but there certainly is enough information about it as a cryptid for there to be a subsection of the main page.

We need to be careful with our definitions and what we do/do not include for semantic reasons, for example, if we tied things down too much we might as well throw out anomolous weather events (glowing clouds etc), or articles like the mad gasser which is either the work or a human, or a product of the human imagination rather than a ghost or supernatural creature.

My personal definition would probably be that anything sufficiently mysterious should be included, even if it is scientifically explainable (eg hypnotism).

perfectblue 18:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that last part. "Paranormal" implies outside the normal scope of things. Since hypnotism IS accepted scientifically, that seems precisely outside the scope to me. My view is that anything that cannot be explained or is outright dismissed by mainstream science, but is widely reported on by 'alternative' scientists or simply a large body of civilians is ripe for inclusion. Of course, that's keeping out of the realms of Mythology and the Occult, as they have their own projects. --InShaneee 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think in general your right there, except with the last part... Occult would be under the scope of our project. It's ok if projects overlap. For example: The Roswell UFO article is also covered by the military history crash, but it's also clearly under the scope of this project as well. Some articles... like Aleister Crowley would be under even more projects. (Crowley is under the scope of our project, Project Bio, Project Thelma and the occult project. We can chose not to emphasis on articles that are covered by other projects, but that doesn't mean we can't include it under our umbrella.
If I were to define our scope it would include any "topic of study" that is rejected by "mainstream" science and the people/things involved in them.
We could create a list of topics to include under our umbrella. That might be usefull. ---J.S (t|c) 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There's one on the main project page under 'scope' (though it's not perfected yet). The problem is that with Occult, it'd be almost a 100% overlap if we counted it as a part of our project. Besides, we can afford to be choosy. We have a very strange project umbrella (consider: there is little to nothing to connect Bigfoot and UFOs), so we've got a little more leeway in our definition. Consider also something like Angels; many people would tell you that they exist, but although scientists offer no proof, this is clearly under the aegis of a Religion Wikiproject. --InShaneee 23:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
How true... I can see the need to be picky in order to focus our efforts. As for defining angles as paranormal... well, I don't want to answer those angry emails. :) ---J.S (t|c) 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. I'm not saying it COULDN'T be considered paranormal...simply that we've got plenty to work with, and if another project wants to take a topic or two, it's not a huge deal. :) --InShaneee 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is and isn't covered by our project - suggested list

Maybe we should write a list of topics which aren't covered by our project. I think I'll put one together later and let everyone refine it. Zagalejo 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How about this? (a list of topics we do not cover) The following topics are not covered by this project:

See Wikipedia: WikiProject Religion
See Wikipedia: WikiProject Mythology
Exceptions: Most psychic phenomena, such as extra-sensory perception and remote viewing, do fall under the scope of the project. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Occult for other occult topics.
Exceptions: Some classically Fortean topics, like raining animals, ball lightning, and ringing rocks, have been recognized by manistream scientists but are still imperfectly understood. If such topics continue to draw significant attention from paranormalists, they may be included in the project.
  • Known animals which have been associated with various paranormal phenomena (including out-of-place sightings and/or unusual behavior). The only articles relevant to the project are those that exclusively address the phenomena of interest. For example, living dinosaurs, British big cats, and Gef the talking mongoose would fall under the scope of the project, but more general articles like dinosaur, big cat and mongoose would not.
  • Writers, researchers, and other personalities who have studied or discussed paranormal topics but are primarily known for other things (e.g. Carl Sagan, Marilyn vos Savant, Dan Aykroyd)
  • Broad geographic areas where paranormal phenomena have allegedly occurred (e.g. Pacific Northwest, Loch Ness, Likouala Region). In such cases, only the articles on the phenomena themselves will fall under the scope of the project.
Exceptions: Regions which have been considered paranormal in and of themselves (such as the Bermuda Triangle) do fall under the scope of the project.

Zagalejo 03:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Zagalejo, that's beautiful. I've been considering writing something like this for some time now, but this is both more eloquent and more comprehensive than anything I would have done. I love it, I want it implimented! Just one thing, as I said above, we should probably mention the Occult, and have links to that and the Mythology Wikiproject in there. Fantastic work! --InShaneee 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I meant to include something about the occult, but I had a hard time articulating it. To be honest, I'm not totally sure where you draw the line, because occult is such a broad term that means different things to different people. So if anyone has any suggestions... Zagalejo 04:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I took a stab at it. Not sure if it's very clear, though. Zagalejo 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Just needs to be clear enough to act as a guideline; any conflicts can simply be resolved on a case-by-case basis. I really like it, though we should wait to see if anyone else has any thoughts about it before its implemented. In the meantime, care to work your magic on the current 'scope' section? --InShaneee 16:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll take a crack at it. Zagalejo 18:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I broke this section out so people don't get lost under Thylacine! So, as I read it then, the majority feels that Urban Legends are not under our jurisdiction. So, then Resurrection Mary which is nominated as a collaboration of the month isn't something we cover? If she is covered is it because she is a potential ghost? I don't really care one way or another so long as I have some sort of guideline to follow. I'll abide y whatever you all decide.Lisapollison 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Resurrection Mary counts as a potential ghost. There are documented sightings of her (as opposed to "friend-of-a-friend" anecdotes). Admittedly, a lot of legitimate topics do get classified as urban legends by some sources, so we really have to examine these things on an article-by-article basis. Zagalejo 04:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, and this is just my opinion, I don't think that resurected religious figures should be included under Wiki-paranormal because they are not associated with hauntings and do not have the classic hallmarks of a ghost sighting (eg mysterious footsteps, tempreature drops, feeling of being watched etc).
"as I read it then, the majority feels that Urban Legends are not under our jurisdiction."
I'd be careful on this. An urban legend about a ghost would be covered as a haunting or a ghost story (eg Boy scout lane), but exploding pop rocks and Cola wouldn't be covered.

perfectblue 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading you, but Resurrection Mary isn't the Virgin Mary. It's (allegedly) the ghost of a young woman from the 1930s who was hit by a car on her way home from a dance. Zagalejo 15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I skimmed the comment but didn't check the link. My mistake. I saw Marry and Religion in the same conversation and put them together rather than checking the link. What I said still stands for religious visions and visitations through. They're not paranormal teritory. If it's biblical in any way, its religion not paranormal (nobody I know of ever claimed that a religious vision left a trail of ectoplasm behind).
My 2 cents worth on the issue of Urban legends is that legends that developped after an apperition or monster sighting are in (eg Boyscout lane and the Goatman are in, but legends that don't involve the supernatural/paranormal (eg the Hook legend) or legends that with paranormal content, but which don't relate to a real (skeptisism aside) incidents (eg campfire stories) don't count and are firmly out.
On the other hand, anything that involves "high strangeness" or other animilies should be considered for inclusion based on its own merits (MIB out, rain of hamsters in).
perfectblue 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, if people claim to have seen a ghost, monster, etc, then you're moving out of urban legends territory and into paranormal territory. That's my reasoning, anyway. Zagalejo 19:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Usually, it's fairly easy to tell the two apart; Urban Legends involve a 'story', while ghosts often have specific people who have made claims. --InShaneee 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Urban legends that are associated with the unexplained, but turn out to have no foundation in fact, should be within the project, under hoaxes; it shouldn't be the perogative of the pseudoskeptics to report them. --Chr.K. 21:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anomalistics vs. Paranormal

The whole Thylacine debate brings up a required debate elsewhere: is cryptozoology paranormal? By the definition of "other than normal," absolutely; by the definition of paranormal being the "spirit-plane" to anomalistic's "physical plane," not at all. What is the definition of Paranormal, then, and should the Project itself be renamed in order to assimilate both terms? --Chr.K. 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Project Paranormal was merged with Project Supernatural not so long ago, it's a convenient blanket term that describes the general area of the project. I don't think that it matters if some areas are covered by the project which aren't covered by the term paranormal.
I'm against strict boundries, let's just say that anything that goes bump in the night, or sounds as if it might, can be considered on it's own merits so long as it's notable enough and it's not ready covered by science, religion or mythology.

perfectblue 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, cryptozoology covers things like Bigfoot and I'm fairly sure we want to have that article in our project. ---J.S (t|c) 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
While I don't think it's paranormal per se, I also don't like the name of this project. I think our actual scope is, put simply, things that don't have mainstream scientific acceptance. In that sense, Cryptozoology most certainly falls under our domain. The name, I think, is simply the best 'blanket' term that can be given to that definition; I've heard it suggested this be renamed "WikiProject Weird", but I think that would just offend everyone involved. --InShaneee 17:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol... wouldn't offend me... But I see your point about the name. ---J.S (t|c) 17:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Insteed of a categorical aproch (bottom up), why not look at this from a top-down view? Lets pick our "Key" articles and then everything that relates to them. "UFO" would lead to Ufology, Rosswell Crase, etc.

I'm strongly against anything like name like "Project Weird" it would make the project sound like it was about carnaval freak shows and fraat-boys lighting their gas. Frankly, it would destroy credibility. Paranormal is the best blanket term. I think that we want to leave admision open rather than closed and not define what belongs too heavily. If something feels right then it is right, even if it doens't exactly match the definition of paranormal.

perfectblue 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(Hence why I said it's a bad idea. :P ) --InShaneee 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Forteana? Zagalejo 19:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Nah. While it's not ideal, I do still think that Paranormal is our best bet. --InShaneee 19:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikiproject Unexplained would be the viable alternative. --Chr.K. 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)