Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] For Sub-project Ufology

We need to be ready.[1] --Chr.K. 09:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is important that we establish the notability of this declassification before writing too extensively on it. Declassification of documents occurs all the time and there aren't many articles in this encyclopedia on it. This means unless notability is established there is a great risk that extensive articles on such subjects will be successfully deleted. --ScienceApologist 14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
They could of course just have been stating that with the de-classification of these documents, more information will be available to provide more facts to help improve existing articles, and also provide the necessary ground facts for starting other articles, and not that we should be ready to write an article about the de-classification itself. Unless of course there are enough surprises to make the de-classification notable by itself, like you say. The Kinslayer 14:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In this case, we need to be carefuly about original research. Including declassified accounts need to be done because there is an indication that some verifiable and reliable source considers the declassificaiton important to the relevant article. --ScienceApologist 14:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Surely the fact that information is from the french government makes it notable and reliable? I agree that we would have to make sure we use it properly, i.e. to support existing material and not to jump around making 20 new articles based solely on what we think the new information could mean! The Kinslayer 14:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The information itself may be notable and reliable, but incorporating such information into articles on, for example, Ufology should only be done if there are reliable and verifiable sources which connect the information declassification and ufology investigations. Simply positing connections on our own will not cut it. We need secondary sources of commentary to avoid original research, not just the primary sources of the released documents. --ScienceApologist 14:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I think what we are doing is making the same point, but approaching it from opposite sides! Anyways, as the French say, L'aisez faire! (I think I got it right, It's supposed to be 'Wait and see'!) The Kinslayer 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I bet the declasification is notabile on it's own accord. Perhapse? ---J.S (T/C) 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Probably not. Although Britain's Thirty year rule is notable - it's an annual event featured in the papers each new year - individual declassifications aren't. If their contents are useful then they can help improve any relevant articles. Totnesmartin 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SETI

I see the Paranormal Project banner on the SETI projecty article, and feel that it does not belong there. Some mainstream scientists may doubt the prospects of success of the project, but the people directing the various projects are indeed university credentialled scientists, using radiotelescopes rather than magic crystals and their results (or lack thereof) have been duly reported in mainstream scientific journals. There is nothing about their observation methods which is an any outside normally understood principles of radio, astronomy, and signal processing. I request the removal of the project banner on these grounds, since their science is normal rather than paranormal. Edison 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that we consider it 'paranormal'; I wouldn't use that term to describe it at all. However, for continuity and completeness' sake, we have taken Astrobiology up to some extent under our project banner. I assure you, we mean to make no claims by the inclusion of that banner. --InShaneee 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, nobody is trying to associate Seti with Pseudo science. We all understand that it is a perfectly regulated and legitimate scientific endeavor, but it is under project Paranormal for one simple reason we deal with any entry that is associated with Alien life. Be it autopsying it in a badly faked lab, or finding it using real science.

perfectblue 08:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically, we watch over anything in the UFO/alien sub-header, even tho some of its not strictly paranormal. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CASPR article up for deletion

The article mentioned above is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CASPR. Thank you. Badbilltucker 21:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptids

I just recently found the project named above, which has as its now-slightly-clearer objective to work on all articles related to cryptids. As this project is somewhat related to this existing project, I wanted to let you all know, so that you could consider joining if you choose to do so. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm it looks like it's mostly inactive. Before your edits the most recent activity was July & October. Maybe a merge to here would be best? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Possibly not, as the previous page was basically about only proven biological cryptids. Also, considering that the existing Category:Cryptozoology contains articles on biology, mythology, and paranormal occurrences, merging it would probably be counterproductive. However, I do plan to break down the categories so that the other interests projects can deal with them as well. Badbilltucker 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for listing it as a subproject of ours. It's always been the goal to make a subgroup for Cryptids someday; I just would have preferred to wait until we had more members. Either way, I'd think it needs to be renamed to WikiProject Cryptozoology, don't you think? --InShaneee 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Found this....

I have found this link while hunting for that pix. The link is the alleged Firefighter's Guide for dealing with UFOs. Martial Law 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is this:Firefighter's Disaster Control Guide: UFOs. It purports to have protocol in place for controlling disasters caused by UFOs. I was going to set up a article called "Firefighter's Disaster Control Guide: UFOs" using this source. Martial Law 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this a good link ? Martial Law 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Got pix of O' Hare Airport UFO, case

The link for the pix is UFO Cases incl. O' Hare Airport Pix. Case is this: Ark UFO Seen as "The Anti-Christ/Devil, and UFO seen as "Of The Devil". I've investigated this one myself. My primary witness says that the Arkansas case may be a military exercise or a hoax done by aircraft, while locals swear that The Devil is in the area. Can someone place the Airport pix ? I'm still investigating the Ark. case. Martial Law 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there actually article for any of these incidents? --InShaneee 00:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping that was an actual photograph of the O'Hare UFO. It's just an illustration.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
This should help. This is from a plane comming in when the UFO was spotted: O" Hare Pix from a incomming airplane pix is on the left. Still hunting. Martial Law 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
At least that one claims to be real. Thanks. I doubt it's real though. It doesn't really match the description of what was reported. The most obvious problem with the photo is that the object was described as being "just below the cloud deck". I don't see that here. It's much too low, there's no clouds really, etc. The biggest problem with the photo is that the witnesses called it an overcast day. And yet you clearly see sun reflection on the top of the UFO. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops, here's the artist's page. Guess this one's busted. Everyone is saying that there is at least one authentic photo out there somewhere. The scavenger hunt is on! --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 21:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Google: O' Hare Airport UFO. Been hunting there. Found a video link as well. I'll get that ASAP. Martial Law 21:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There is one. Peter Davenport has been trying to get the witness to publish it. Said witness will not do so, due to fears of being terminated from his job. Sounds like the witness's boss got to him/her. The Robertson Panel, other govt. protocol says that if "you" spot a UFO, alien, you're to be considered crazy, unreliable, thus "you" lose your job, social standing, etc., even end up in jail, as what some military personnel have told me while I was travelling the US. Martial Law 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just been to the National UFO Reporting Center website, and it says that the witnesses have been, as I have suspected, have been coerced into silence and have been ridiculed as well. This info was there, as of the indicated timepoint. Martial Law 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Sereda deleted

The above named article was deleted as a copyright violation. If anyone could recreate the article without violating copyright, it would greatly be appreciated. Badbilltucker 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National UFO Reporting Center

Everything I've seen keeps dovetailing to the National UFO Reporting Center, especially all info. concerning the O' Hare UFO Incident. Still hunting a pix. Martial Law 20:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the place to discuss this kind of thing, Martial. --InShaneee 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UFO Casebook deleted

Non-notable ? Can this be explained ? It was more than that, even used to refer to the Phoenix Lights, other famous UFO cases. Martial Law 10:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The article even referenced MAAR, which is this: The Malevolent Alien Abduction Research Organization, which references different alien types people have allegedly encountered. Website is www.maar.us while UFO Casebook is www.ufocasebook.com Still after a pix of the O' Hare UFO. Martial Law 20:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of haunted locations

Just a heads up that List of haunted locations has been nominated for deletion here. The Kinslayer 00:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweater curse

Hi all,

Someone tagged the Sweater curse Talk page a few days ago with the banner from this WikiProject. I hope you'll be understanding, but I don't think that the sweater curse is paranormal in the usual sense. From my perspective at least, it's not magic or otherwordly; it's just two people not understanding each other, not understanding their differing interpretations of a gift. It's strange and counter-intuitive, perhaps, but I think its various mechanisms could in principle be understood with enough careful observation. So, if you're OK with it, I'll remove the banner in a few days. Thanks for understanding, Willow 23:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The banner was placed there because the article is within the Category:Curses, which by its name clearly does indicate Paranormality, as it were. I myself don't agree that everything in the category is paranormal, but by inclusion in that category the categorizer implicitly indicated that it was. Right now, I am not only tagging the articles and trying to assess them, but also creating watchlists for the various projects involved so that we can know how best to categorize these articles later, so that such problems don't continue to arise. And I am going project by project, so that I don't wind up confusing myself over which banner should be placed on every article I find. I would have no objections to the removal of the banner, but might request that the article also be removed from the Category:Curses, which indicates at least implicitly that there is some sort of "paranormal" connection. Also, if you can find another banner that does assessments that does apply to your article, please add it with an appropriate assessment, so that the Version 1.0 editorial team has a basic idea of where the article stands. Thank you for attention and your polite statement above. Badbilltucker 23:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the banner after reviewing the article, it's history and it's talk page. The article is clearly about a Curse. it is in need of some skilled editing, however, to bring it in line with similar articles about such folk beliefs. The argument that this is about a set of relationship issues is an opinion which dominates the article to the point of bordering on original content. In order for such comments to stay, ciatations referencing such beliefs amongst knitters need to be made. it's no different than asking an editor to cite a statement that Saying Bloody Mary 3 times in a mirror is less about superstition and more about adolescent rites of passage. Before removing the banner again, I'd prefer to see a discussion here with input from more than just the author of the article.Lisapollison 21:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm very sorry to have upset you about the removal of the banner. I asked about removing it the very day it was put up by Badbilltucker on Talk:Sweater curse; I asked again two days later, on this page, just above. Bill seemed to have no objections to removing it, but I waited five more days before removing it on the 30th. Again my apologies, and I'll try to satisfy you before removing it again. Have to go, at work, Willow 22:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winslow AZ. UFO

Winslow Arizona is famous for having the meteor crater nearby. Now it has a bizarre UFO report The UFO is reported to be a triangular construct surrounded by a circular construct. I was planning on placing this on the List of Major UFO sighting article. I've seen WP's update on the O' Hare UFO pix as well. Nice job. Martial Law 21:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this be added ? Martial Law 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the ship was looking for Starman. :D Dreadlocke ☥ 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

We don't have a single vote for a collaboration next month...so rather than put up a new collab with no support, I'm just going to extend the current one if no one has any objections. --InShaneee 02:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have just added a nomination.Lisapollison 08:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The future

I was crystal gazing the other day, and I had a vision of the future. I saw myself perhaps a year from now, explaining exactly the same things to exactly the same debunker-skeptics. Then I was taken up above the Earth, and I saw all the other members of the Paranormal Project, as if in a webwork of light. And each member was like a little clicking bubble as he or she typed on their keyboards. And each member was explaining exactly the same things to exactly the same debunker-skeptics. And a voice said, Why art thou here?
And I said Who art thou, Lord?
And the voice said What do you want to hear?
And I answered, I want you to be the Being of Light
And the voice answered You want I should look like a Being of Light? in that crystal?
So I said, Lord, tell me what you want
And the voice said, Well, you really ought to try to get this webwork of light to write up the usual arguments, so that you don't have to keep explaining exactly the same things to exactly the same debunker-skeptics.
And I said But Lord, the skeptics are so well organized, and they have a hit list!
And the voice said, Fear not, because everyone will contribute, and the end, it may clarify policy.
For my (very rough) ideas on what this should look like, go here Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not only a great idea, but presented in a very funny manner! Thanks for the laugh, Martinphi! Dreadlocke ☥ 18:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I like that! Keep up the good work! --InShaneee 05:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, their hit list! is not a bad starting point for project Members here looking for interesting things to read and/or work on. We are just as interested here in keeping the articles they list NPOV. I found their list very useful. Many of us in this project are neither true believers nor ardent skeptics. Rather, we just find these topics fascinating. As an Anthropologist and Folklorist, I find the evolution of what we are willing to believe quite illuminating about our culture as a whole. For example, in the past few days there were some major meteor sightings that most people assumed were UFOs due to the current unfamiliarity with the night sky of most Americans. Those sightings reminded me of why I spend my free time wirting up these types of things here on Wikipedia. I do it so that curious readers might be pointed towards useful information. I believe the Skeptics have the same motive but for some of them, they simply KNOW that none of it is real the same way some people simply KNOW that the meteors the other day were really Alien craft. it can be frustrating at times. Thanks for the laugh, Martinphi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lisapollison (talk • contribs) 09:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
I find it a bit ironic that people are seemingly more willing than ever before to call a meteor a UFO. It's like we've taken a step backwards.
When I was a kid, if you looked at the night sky and saw something streaking across it you called it a shooting star and made a wish on it. Now people call it a UFO and the put their back to a wall in case little green men try to poke a probe where the sun doesn't shine.
perfectblue 09:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] weeping statues, painting and similar paranormal hoaxes

I was thinking about improving the weeping statue article and wonder should it be a part of this project?Mr Christopher 20:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's tough. It's either ours or the Religion project's. --InShaneee 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not both? Aren't miracles paranormal? Totnesmartin 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
They could be considered that, yes, but I see no reason to cover something that's already obviously covered by another project. --InShaneee 21:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think they'd have their angle and sources and we'd have ours - we'd dig the tunnel from both ends. I've come across all sorts of articles that come under two or more projects. Totnesmartin 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware. I just think since we're a bit more of an 'open-ended' project, we might be best served by focusing on the articles that don't fall under the jurisdiction of any other projects. --InShaneee 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a point, enough on our plate already. Totnesmartin 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a Wiki project for religious inspired paranormal? Could someone shoot a link my way? Thanks Mr Christopher 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It's just for religion in general. However, if they say they aren't interested in the page, I guess the ball's back in our court. --InShaneee 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The religion WikiProject covers over a hundred times as many articles as WikiProject Paranormal; it seems a fair assumption to say that this project is much more likely to contribute productively to Weeping statue than that project is. And, as noted, the article correctly falls under both projects, though more under this one than under Religion, since weeping statues are always paranormal, but not always religious. -Silence 04:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, there are other articles that fall under the scope of multiple Wikipedia projects. An example being Cottingley Fairies, which falls under both WikiProject Paranormal and WikiProject History of photography (it even has different quality scale ratings from each one). So it seems like including weeping statue wouldn't be setting a precendence. --Careax 06:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well here is a compromise - currently the weeping statue article is primarily original research and unsupported POV. I'll work on cleaning that article up and then return here and invite the other editors here to come check it out and see if it makes sense to include it in this project. Mr Christopher 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roll Call

Need to know how active you are with the project and what you're currently working on. Note to those signing here: Please don't forget to add your name to our participants page, as well!

  • Semi-Active On the weekends I edit so, --C.Black 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi-Active Don't have much time at this time. Will do what I can. Martial Law 08:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:) - Andrew Homer 19:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Semi-Active Editing in short bursts. I hope to pull my weight with the collaboration of the month once midterm madness subsides. Zagalejo 14:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi-Half-Sorta-Active ---J.Smith 18:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi-Active Probably not going to be taking the initiative with anything, though if any topics come up here that need dealing with, I'll look into 'em. --InShaneee 20:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi-active Or maybe lurking is the better term. Lundse 12:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Active Would be glad to take a look at anything - my background is as a Linguist and Folklorist. Please leave me notes on my Talk page suggesting article topics or articles you'd like me to review. I'm not new to Wikipedia just new as an editor.Lisapollison 17:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm back to working on the project after getting side-tracked by gender articles and lesbian history, a side-interest of mine as anthropologist (not as an activist). I was concentrating on expanding cryptozoology stubs. I'll go back to that unless anyone would like me to work on something else. Please leave me notes on my talk page with requests for articles or areas of the project you would like help with. I'm a better editor now and much better at citing sources! Lisapollison 09:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Good luck. I just took a good luck at that article, it's talk page and it's history and have concluded you are a very brave editor! That article is a cesspit of controversy. I wish you every success in cleaning it up and having your edits not reverted for political reasons. Lisapollison 14:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Lisapollison! Cesspit is a good word for that article (Natasha Demkina)! Even though those types of "disputes" suck the fun out of editing Wikipedia, I'll probably continue working on it when I am able to get back online. If I can stomach it further. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Update: It's acutally now a better editing environment over there. Dreadlocke ☥ 06:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just-joined Have occasional spare time to work on scientific and metaphysic phenomenon. Maybe some historical stuff too... Marc Mywords 07:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Active - I spend quite a lot of time trying to maintain fairness and NPOV on paranormal or spiritual articles, I should pop by the main project page a litlle more though. - Solar 13:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just joined. Have time to work on a large number of areas, "all across the board." --Chr.K. 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Active. Openminded skeptic. — e. ripley\talk 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Just Joined On almost everyday for at least a few hours. Looking forward to helping out. Ajkr925 12:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Still here. While investigating a Flying triangle incident, I was in a hotel, and that place is haunted. A ghost appeared, and it smelled like make-up, then it and the smell vanished. I figured that it was a dead prostitute. Its O.K. to post weird reports on my page, just make sure they're verifiable. Martial Law 22:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just joined Happy to help out where ever I can!--Tascio 19:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Active and attempting to do soe article cleanups rather than startign new articles. perfectblue 17:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just joined Happy to fix an NPOV or a grammatical error where I can.--Mr Vain 10:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Just joined - Most of my editing I do in work, meaning I can't view external sources, but I can do copy-editing, tagging, and any other general cleaning I can. I'm mopre likely to spend my time working on Ghost and other paranormal articles as opposed to UFO or other types of thing.The Kinslayer 09:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Still Here Co founder still here. My ISP went nuts on me. You guys should get a good radio, go to the Coast To Coast AM website to locate a radio station near you that carries the show. Usually every Friday, the show launches the "Open Lines" show. In this, people call the show to report strange phenomena. Major requirement is that if any of you call in to the show, don't use profanity or George Noory, Art Bell will cut you off and go to another caller. Art Bell will shortly host the annual Halloween "Ghost To Ghost AM" show, in which people report contact with ghosts, demons, angels and the like. While on the move recently, someone reported that a Bigfoot had attacked them, so they shot at it. Martial Law 04:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The show airs at 23:00 hrs(11 pm) MST/MDT. Exact time is on the Coast To Coast AM website. Martial Law 04:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The show is for Wikipedians who work at night in the US or is on the opposite side of the planet. Martial Law 04:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Still here. I've been on a case. I am a paranormal investigator. One place I've been to is Gurdon, Arkansas to see about the "light" there, which is a multicolored thing, another is Fouke, Arkansas, to see about the thing there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martial Law (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
My recent case involves a Flying Triangle incident near Shreveport, Louisiana. Martial Law 04:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Still Here. Been following leads about DEAD Birds in Austin, Texas and Australia. One sec. they're flying, next sec., they're falling down, dead. Cause unknown. See Google about this for verifiable material. Martial Law 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Semi-active - might get less involved for a while as I've started a Wikiproject on my home county. Totnesmartin 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just Joined Today - Contact me if you need anything-I'd be glad to help!Nineteenninetyfour 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi-Active December 2006 marks my second month assisting with group projects-of-the-month, as well as editing other Wikipedia Paranormal pages to help raise all project pages up a level. Cynthia Sue Larson 07:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi-Active Revamped extensively the Bermuda Triangle page, added more detail; others added references and minor corrections. This also includes links to original source material, official documentation, photos, etc. Carajou 14:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In addition to this article, the following related pages were extensively re-done in a similar fashion: Flight 19; USS Cyclops (AC-4); and SS Marine Sulphur Queen. Other pages mentioned as "famous incidents" with the Bermuda Triangle page will also be worked on. Carajou 04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merged and cleaned up articles on aircraft Star Tiger and Star Ariel; previous article on Star Tiger should be deleted. Carajou 07:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Bermuda Triangle source page was created as a separate article, and it was made specifically to handle all sources for the Bermuda Triangle...and this was simply beause of the large amount of material I discovered while working over the Triangle page and related incidents. It's in progress, but check it out and tell me what you think. Carajou 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just Joined I like to browse the paranormal articles, making sure they are fair and factual, and that they are free from unsubstantiated claims.Stevepaget 11:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Semi-active Hi. Thought I hadput my name here. I am interested in UFOs. Jeep up the good work everybody! Puddytang 05:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PsuedoScience category

I added a category psuedoscience and started adding some articles onto it. I think there are some articles in this category that should be a part of the paranormal project, it's hard to know where to draw the line between what's paranormal and what is just really wierd, but normal. If I use a really broad definintion of psuedoscience I'm afraid there will quickly be way too many articles in this category. I've been away from the computer for a few days, but I will try to add some more articles as I can. I was just wondering what anybody thinks about this. . . --Puddytang 05:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Er.....I thought that there already was a cat for this under a different spelling (Category:Pseudoscience)
perfectblue 09:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
perfectblue brings up a good point. It pays to remember that Wikipedia is case senstive - any change in the capitlization of a letter in a word cuases it to be read as a new word so if you search on PsuedoScience, you may not see Pseudoscience. it depends on what you are searching for. When searching categories, you have to be spot on with spelling and punctuation. Usually some of the more active members catch these errors and double listings but you can't depend on it.Lisapollison 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You could just make one a redirect. Totnesmartin 18:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that would be the simplest solution. --InShaneee 21:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I linked to the already existing category on the articles page Puddytang 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hostile actions against our project over at Talk:Humanzee

Our banner was removed by a user who seems to believe we should be prohibited from having anything to do with the article. He stated:

I deleted the paranormal banner. If there is anything else I need to do to get the "paranormal project" away from this article, please let me know. Kww 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I replied with:

The paranormal Project is not a group of vandals, in fact, some of us have backgrounds in zooology, biology and anthropology. I myself am an anthropologist. We added our tag becuase a Humanzee is a proposed animal that has not yet been proven to exit which therefore meets the definition of a cryptid. By adding our tag to the article, we could ensure that it receives frequent attention. Our goal is the same as other wiki projects to expand and imrpove articles. There used to be a Crytozoology project but that has been absored into ours as a sub-project. I won't add the banner back just yet but will bring this to the attention of our project. Please reconsider your opinion of our project. Our members are not weirdos or "true-believers" with an agenda. We merely have an interest in a variety of topics, this one among them. You will see from the article's history that I have been a contributor. Lisapollison 03:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Other editors here should discuss and consider whether or not we want to deal with this and if our tag or the Cryptozoology tag should be replaced. It might not be worth the trouble. I have been a frequent contributor to the article.Lisapollison 04:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not going to get involved with that article. As things stand its more than half WP:OR. After a quick glance, most of what I saw appeared to unsourced supposition about the possible existence of such creature which was backed up only by citations that showed that humans were related to chimps (etc), but not that scientists (or even urban legend enthusiasts) thought about hybrids. If there have been experiments, or if there is real conjecture, they need to be cited.
perfectblue 07:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

Given the agro that some of us have been getting from people demanding peer reviewed citations for the paranormal, and attempting to apply WP policy devised for hard science to topics that are not scientific, does anybody else here think that we should get together and get a policy or guideline statement governing WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:Notability for paranormal sources that gives use more room to move in topics that simply won't be covered in the big name journals.

perfectblue 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, although it might be tough to do. It would be a lot easier to list things that aren't reliable sources. Zagalejo 20:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if developing a canon of acceptible sources is such a good idea for a topic that is already filled with such controversy. To the existing controversy of whether or not the paranormal exists, we'll be adding a whole new set of controversies over which "voices" are acceptible and which aren't. Skeptics are likely to reject any voice that is pro-paranormal anyway since they reject the underlying topic.
The argument could go, for example, that the Journal of Parapsychology is an acceptible source because it is peer-reviewed within the parapsychology community. But since parapsychology itself is often rejected, an argument could be made that the Journal too should be rejected as a reliable source. I wouldn't make that argument, but it is sure to come up.
Also limiting the canon to accepted sources would diminish the amount of topics we can cover and source. If some obscure paranormal topic isn't covered by our list of sources, and we can't go outside the canon, we can't cover that topic. I think defending a source as objections arise might be more beneficial than an official policy.
Finally, I think approving certain sources and rejecting others might conflict with the spirit of the paranormal. It's making a value judgement in favor of certain explanations over others when the subject itself is not definitively explained. Take for example the paranormal topic of Mothman. To some Mothman is seen as a paranormal entity. If we find sources that support that argument acceptible, we might be denying the equally valid possibility that Mothman is not paranormal, but instead a cryptozoological entity as Loren Coleman, among others, have suggested. If we choose to find both paranormal and cryptozoological acceptible, why not also a time-travelling mutant from the planet Oogabooga or something? If we start saying that certain voices are acceptible and others aren't, what we are really doing is choosing an explanation of the paranormal phenomena, or at least "acceptible explanations" of the phenomena. I don't think that's our job as Wikipedia editors. In the hierarchy of Wiki policy, NPOV is above reliable and verifiable sources. It's one of the primary rules. By developing the canon, we are essentially approving certain points of view over others.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 22:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about ruling specific sources in or out. Instead, I was suggesting that there there should be a policy/guideline that sets out a different standard of WP:RS etc for the paranormal from subjects like history and science, in order to prevent anti-paranormal users from constantly demanding that we cite only Peer Review journals, and to stop them from attempting to delete paranormal ideas and concepts because they are not scientific.
After all, most of the time we're are not tying to prove that something is true, only to document what claims have been made and by whom, yet we are having to put up with users making out that "I saw a Bigfoot when I was 10" requires the same standard of proof as "I've discovered a new state of matter".
perfectblue 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you are getting at. I mistook what you were saying. To be honest, I don't think a policy would help much. Those type of people are hell-bent on what they are doing and will attempt to delete it anyway based on their interpretation of the policies.
That said, strictly speaking, Wikipedia covers a vast array of topics, many of them having nothing to do with science, and the existing policies reflect that.
WP:V (Verifiablity) just means that it has to have been published somewhere else so that people can go and look it up if they want to. It doesn't relate to whether it is "true" or not.
WP:RS (Reliable Source) is just a guideline and not an actual policy. This is because "reliable" is open to interpretation. So if they try to delete something as unreliable, you just make your case why it's reliable. If you can't, just default back to it not being an actual policy. Usually interesting paranormal topics are covered at least in newspapers which would be considered a reliable source in most cases.
WP:Notability is again a guideline, and not a set in stone policy. But really it has more to do with the amount of verifiable source material available than the sources themselves. If I were to see a ghost and snap a photo of it, and then go down to the local paper and convince them to write an article about it, that one article (verfiable source) wouldn't be enough to make the story notable. But something like Mothman which has been written about in many articles, books, movies, etc. would be notable just because of the amount of available source material to work off of. Mothman may seem trivial to a lot of people, just like I think Britney Spears is trivial, but the volume of source material says otherwise.
If those interpretations can be written into an official policy for the WikiProject Paranormal, that might be a good place to start.
--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 09:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Also remember that depending on what you are stating, many unreliable sources become reliable ones. For example, let's say I lose my mind and start claiming I can fly. Can you use an interview with me to source the statement "Shane can fly"? No. How about the statement "Shane alleges that he can fly"? Yes. The difference is in the first sentence, you're making a statement about reality; in the second, you are merely stating someone else's assertion. --InShaneee 15:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see a clause or two somewhere, none the less, saying directly about how WP:RS standards are different for the paranormal. I've seen users dismiss some of the world most famous and well regarded paranormal writers as non-WP:RS simply because they are paranormal writers, as non notable because their audiences are fringe groups, even if they are million selling, and users demanding that we only sources from peer review journals on articles which are essentially about ghosts, and dismissing anything non peer review as being non-WP:RS (the fact that it is a guideline not a policy also seems lost on them).
perfectblue 16:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That sounds mainly like a misunderstanding on someone's part. Million selling authors cannot, by definition, be 'fringe'. Regardless, the policy isn't going to change for any one topic, I can promise you that, but leeway should be given based on the nature of the subject; you simply aren't going to find the same types of sources you would for Physics as you would for, say, Spiderman. --InShaneee 17:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Until it's actually written down there will still be users out to remove as much from paranormal articles as they can, and to add as many prejudicial words as they can, using purposefully false interpretations of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:Notability.
perfectblue 21:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not shooting down the idea for a policy to be put in this project. What I'm saying is that it is already covered in the official guidelines. You can quote sections of the WP:RS in defending the source. Lack of peer-review is not an excuse to delete the material, as "peer-review" is only mentioned twice in WP:RS and both times it only says that they carry more weight, not sole weight. Nowhere in the document (that I saw) supports removing material based on lack of peer-review or the source being outside the academia. In fact, there's whole sections on dealing with non-academic sources. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 22:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think what really may be needed is a place here that lists challenged sources (like the list of articles for deletion) where people like myself can help to defend the source from pathologically skeptical editors or editors with a non-neutral agenda. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice idea, but until there is policy/guideline stating that the paranormal needs recording while science needs proving, users will always demand the absolute maximum from WP:RS, and will use WP:Notability to try and pull down any WP:V source that can't be got at through WP:RS
perfectblue 09:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy guideline

First of all, I think that a lot of paranormal stuff is just plain hogwash. And I can pull out the evidence to prove it. That's one side. But...

Whatever is written in Wikipedia should include all the facts and all the history of the subject in question, and by both I mean the facts and history of the other side as well. Let's say Junior the Ghost raided the White House one day, and he's in a logbook dated June 1906, and Junior was witnessed by Theodore Roosevelt. Should not that be included in the article as part of the history of the subject, even though the incident was proven to have never happened? If one looks at the Loch Ness Monster, there is a lot there that states the ugly fact that Nessie is a hoax, but to leave out the monster's overall history is a disservice to the reader who just wants to see a good article.

Now I did make up Junior the Ghost, but Teddy Roosevelt did write in his diary that he did see the saquatch. Should that be left out of an article on bigfoot's history just because someone said bigfoot's a fake? I don't think so.

What each writer could do (up to and including just swallowing their pride!) is to alter the article in some way that would have each section divided into "pro and con" subsections that gives both sides of a story and links to sources, and be as neutral in the writing as possible. Carajou 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the hoax section to Loch Ness monster, even though I believe in Nessie (there - I said it!). The article needed such a section, so I looked up some well-known hoaxes and wrote them up. I could perhaps argue that my belief in Nessie lead me to read a lot about it over the years, which meant I knew roughly where to look when researching. This wikiproject needs believers AND sceptics to make rounded articles. Totnesmartin 19:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Randi

James Randi's challenge and his organisation are featured in most articles related to the paranormal, with little context other than the fact that he is critical of all paranormal phenomena. I propose that we come to a consensus on how and when Randi should be included in articles. I feel it is important to do this as figures such as Randi can easily become over represented without such a guideline. I also suggest we post this suggestion to project rational skepticism. - Solar 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I think that's pretty self-explanatory. Randi is noteworthy enough to be included on the Wiki, and the only claims made on most pages is just that; that he is skeptical of things. That seems alright to me. --InShaneee 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm glad this was brought up. There's news in this area that makes Randi's group less relevant. Often his Million Dollar Challenge was offered as evidence that the paranormal doesn't exist, the thinking being that if someone had paranormal abilities, why not take the challenge and win the million bucks? Of course there are criticisms of this idea. The main one being that the conditions for the challenge wouldn't apply to all paranormal phenomena, for example spontaneous paranormal phenomena that can't be tested in a lab. But that's not the news. The news is that effective April 1st, his group will only be seeking high-profile paranormal people, like Sylvia Browne. By only dealing with high-profile psychics, it is less effective as evidence against the paranormal. After all, it can be argued that one might have paranormal abilities and just didn't get the media attention they needed to participate in Randi's challenge. They story: $1 Million Paranormal Challenge Finally Means Squat and also in Skeptic Revamps $1M Psychic Prize from Wired News.
Of course Randi's notability allows him to be in many paranormal articles on Wikipedia, but the recent news adds more context that can be placed in the articles along with him. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong (and this is top-of-my-head OR), but I've just thought of something: if Randi is only going to consider high-profile psychics, is this because he needs a high media impact for the test, to generate advertising revenue? And if so, does this mean that he doesn't actually have the million? Is this legal? Totnesmartin 18:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
He does have the million dollars, of this I have no doubt. It is a common accusation made against him but he has proven on several occasions that he has the money. There are criticisms of his process, including the preliminary test, which has meant the million dollars has never been at risk, as he has never let anyone take the actual test. Or at least he commonly claims no one has ever got past the initial test, yet the BBC made a documentary some years ago on homeopathy in which the impression was given that the money was on the line (maybe he skipped the preliminaries for the BBC). The changes in the challenge are if I remember rightly due to him down-sizing his foundation and moving it to his home, partly due to his ill health and also as he feels he has tested certain claims over and over. He feels the frauds rather than those who are simply naive are the most problematic, and on this I agree with him and feel he does good work.
Randi is no-doubt notable, a well known media personality, but so is Uri Geller on the other end of the spectrum, and I personally would not support Geller's inclusion in every article on the basis that he is the most well known 'paranormallist'. There are numerous reasons why someone would not get involved in Randi's test that have nothing to do with the reality or not of psi. Randi's inclusion needs a firm motivation behind it, not just a knee jerk reaction. His challenge is often included just to undermine real scientists investigating psi, when Randi is far more useful and relevant in articles related to 'professional' psychics making claims for their abilities far beyond anything seen in psi research. Randi is a debunker not a scientist and that is how IMHO he should be represented. I am not saying that he should necessarily be removed from articles, just that there should be some kind of guideline for his appropriate use in articles. - Solar 11:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Those are all great points, Solar, and I have to agree with each and every one of them. Your identification of what articles would benefit from including his opinion is right on the money, as well as the articles that would not benefit from his level of debunking. If I understand you correctly, then an article such as Sylvia Browne's would be a relevant one for Randi's opinion, while his opinion in the article on Extra Sensory Perception would not be nearly so relevant - CSI's scientific investigations would be far more appropriate there. Is that correct? Dreadlocke ☥ 03:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


The changes to the challenge are detailed here: [2]. It will still be easy for a genuine medium to win the Million Dollar Challenge. They simply have to persuade other reliable parties of their ability. Most newspapers and local TV stations love to run stories about paranormal abilities, so getting your face in the media should be no problem for the truly talented. Then they can get a statement from a medical professional, or sit one of the many smaller challenges run by local skeptic groups.
Does the JREF have the money? Yes. You can write to them and they will send you the official Goldman Sachs bank statement. So, of course, it is totally legal.
Why are they making this change to the challenge? So that they can save resources that are currently wasted on frivolous, dead-end claims and concentrate their pressure on the people who they perceive are doing the real damage: those paranormalists in the media spotlight. Stevepaget 11:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
More so than the media coverage I would think that getting an academic sponsor would be the most challenging of the challenge. A journalist wouldn't be staking their reputation on a story because their job is supposedly to report stories unbiasedly. An academic, however, has a lot riding on the outcome of the challenge, more so than even the psychic being tested. I'm trying to think of what sort of academic might sponsor, for example, Sylvia Browne, and coming up a blank. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 17:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, it just occured to me. April 1st is when the changes take place. April Fool's Day! What are the odds of coincidence on that? --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hah! Exactly what I was thinking! I bet it's no coincidence at all... Dreadlocke ☥ 04:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video links

If James Randi is going to be the subject of skepticism, start with these two links, both pulled from YouTube.com:

The first one is the better known, as it shows Randi exposing Uri Geller through Johnny Carson on "The Tonight Show" back in the 1970's. Carajou 18:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bigfoot article

I'm in the process of splitting the Bigfoot article, but I'm stuck for a name for a proposed article on physical evidence (the section is simply called "physical evidence"). If I call it "Physical evidence for/of Bigfoot" that's too POV. If anyone has an idea, please visit Talk:Bigfoot#Bigarticle and fire away. Thanks.Totnesmartin 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion vote on Criticism and response in parapsychology

There is a deletion vote going on for Criticism and response in parapsychology, which could go either way. Take a look and see what you think. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This article could use some work. I would like to add some stuff about the history of para-research which goes back to the 19th century. If anyone from this project would like to help with this page, I have some ideas about how to improve it that I will post on the article's talk page. Puddytang 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phantom Social Workers

I put our banner on this article as the authour claimed a resemblance to Men in black, although in "reality" it's more of a media scare story that floated round Britain a few years ago. If this isn't our territory, I'll remove the banner. Totnesmartin 17:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the US, but I was studying in the UK at the time, and I remember a bit about the incidents there. There were a couple of cases in which a woman claimed to be a "family health visitor" (A free community nurse who visits mothers with young children to help and advice them, part of Britain's socialist health care system rather rather than part of family services) or something similar. The person carried out a faeux medical checkups on kids with their clothes off (the kids clothes) and left. There was absolutely nothing paranormal about it,or even urban legendish. It was a flesh and blood person on some kind of kind of pedophile medical fetish trip. I don't think that this comes under our banner at all.
perfectblue 08:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok I'll remove the banner. Totnesmartin 11:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Paranormal researcher' tag

There is a problem with the 'paranormal researcher'- template which appears above the infobox of many UFO whistleblowers and researchers. It tags the pic of their biographical infoboxes with a subjective title. This conflicts severely with Wikipedia's neutrality idea. Some examples: Steven M. Greer, J. Allen Hynek, Bob Lazar... It's doubtful that these people would want the paranormal denominator in the first place -- indeed, who are we to judge?

From Wikipedia:

Many see the word paranormal as a term that describes subjects studied under parapsychology, which deals with psychical phenomena like telepathy, ESP, and survival studies like ghosts and reincarnation. However, the paranormal sometimes [my italics, DeltaT] describes subjects outside the scope of parapsychology, including anomalous aspects of UFOs, some creatures that fall under the scope of cryptozoology, purported phenomena surrounding the Bermuda Triangle, and many other non-psychical subjects.

While I contend that some aspects of ufology may be studied as paranormal subjects (eg. crop circles, abductions), it is by no means legitimate for the Wikipedia Paranormal group to claim any UFO-related information as exclusively theirs or even less to decide who is a paranormal researcher and who isn't -- again, this is for the individuals themselves to decide. Some people call themselves paranormal researchers and therefore would deserve to feature in such a Wikipedia category. But those who don't, simply shouldn't. In summary: it's warranted that the Wikipedia Paranormal Project removes this template from Wikipedia articles which deal with UFO subjects. DeltaT 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Paranormal Project certainly doesn't claim an article as it's own exclusively. It merely says that someone found the article to somehow be under the scope of the project, and articles are often under more than one project. For example, articles on living people might fall under WikiProject Biography as well as the Wikipedia Paranormal Project if they are about someone who is both alive and also an author of paranormal books. There's a skepticism project out there too. A case could be made that the living paranormal book author could be under all three projects if he's the subject of skeptical criticism, which is likely.
Definitely consideration should be taken if a particular person expressly says they are not a paranormal researcher and that the claim is sourced somewhere in the article. But to say that it should be removed from UFO subjects altogether might be a bit much. Logically, if they felt the need to expressly say that they are not a paranormal researcher, they are admitting that there is a reason why someone might think that they are.
The technical issue of the infobox is another matter. I don't really have an opinion either way on that. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
While I think DeltaT is being paranoid, I think it should come down to this: any researcher who doesn't call themselves a 'paranormal researcher' probably shouldn't be labeled as such. --InShaneee 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • InShaneee, I'm glad you agree, but maybe you shouldn't confuse an urge for encyclopedic neutrality with 'being paranoid'. It possible contradicts Wikipedia etiquette too, but I forgive you :-) [[3]]. DeltaT 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • NealParr: Wikipedia forms an important part of the web, so it should comply with the strictest standards. Labeling people with titles that don't apply is as far away from neutrality as possible. This has nothing to do with logic, as I quote you:

    Logically, if they felt the need to expressly say that they are not a paranormal researcher, they are admitting that there is a reason why someone might think that they are.

It's not up to article subjects (if alive) to defend themselves against Wikipedia articles. The biographies should be right. It's up to us Wiki editors to pay attention not to label people arbitrarily. The paranormal researcher template does just that: it's a title which in many cases simply doesn't fit. To paraphrase: many of the subjects to whom the template is applied could merit several other tags I can think of (eg. UFO whistleblower) while in fact, they deserve none. I hope all Wikipedia editors can agree that removal of the 'paranormal researcher' tag is therefore warranted. DeltaT 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Bob Lazar → To give an example: the Bob Lazar article has been given a more objective biographical infobox, instead of the paranormal researcher infobox. DeltaT 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk:Steven M. Greer → Article on Steven M. Greer is better served with a biographical infobox. Maybe we could build one named 'Ufologist', which would be more acceptable than 'paranormal researcher'. Comments? DeltaT 01:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry DeltaT. I didn't make clear what I was saying. I'm not saying that the people the article is about should have to defend that they aren't paranormal researchers. Nothing needs to be defended here, really. I'm just talking about the banners on the talk page. If all you are advocating is removal of the infoboxes, I've got no problem with that. If you're talking about removing the banners from all UFO related articles, I'd like to talk more about it before you do that. --Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If you're referring to the banner containing the text "This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia.(..)]", I have no problem with that banner featuring on the talk page.DeltaT 01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GOT O' HARE UFO PIX

Found it on www.ufocasebook.com/allegedoharephoto.html I'm on a junky linksys unit. Martial Law 04:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

More to follow.Martial Law 04:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Martial, it says at the top of the page this isn't the place to discuss the paranormal. --InShaneee 04:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The pix could be used to illustrate a article about the incident. 65.173.104.66 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My sig got screwed up, thus the above malfunction to my sig. Martial Law 04:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
True, but that'd be for that talk page; I don't see how this concerns the whole project. --InShaneee 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I was planning on setting up the article, then place the pix on it to illustrate it AS "Alleged Pix of O' Hare UFO". More pixes have surfaced on Google, other search engines. Martial Law 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Project members will be of assisstance. Martial Law 05:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
So go ahead and set it up. You can't just post here every time you need to start a new page. --InShaneee 06:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Any copyright problems doing that ? Martial Law 07:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm making sure there are no problems. 07:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Got UFO Pixes

Seen it myself. It is Alleged pix of UFO This link also has pixes of the UFO, source info. This is Multiple Witness Spot UFO

Maybe we have THE pix. If not, I may have to go to the National UFO Reporting Center's website to see if Peter Davenport has got the witness to release it. The UFO is in the upper right corner in said pix. Martial Law 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, starting a page does NOT require the attention of the entire project. Please take this discussion elsewhere. --InShaneee 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Specifically to the talk pages of the individual page in question. --Chr.K. 20:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exeter Incident

Hey everyone,

I'm new to the Paranormal Project, but I am very much interested in helping out. I saw the list of needed categories at the top of page, and was considering doing, if no one else had, the Exeter Incident.

I noticed that someone was doing an update to the Bermuda Triangle page, and I remember reading a book called Unexplained Mysteries of the Past, where the details of Flight 19 are recored, now I dont remember if the page on Wiki has some of the details I read, but I saw an episode of Digging for the Truth, I believe, and it did have some of things I read, which makes me wonder which version was accurate.

I was also reading the article on The Stanley Hotel, being a fan of Ghosthunters ( reporting several things to their website at the time. ) It mentions TAPS going there, but not why, and its possible connection to The Shining. That could be researched in the future, and the article could be updated to reference the hauntings.

Anyway, thanks for hearing me. Spooky Brian 14:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your help would definitely be appreciated...especially since Exeter is one of the only cases actually classified as a bona-fide "Unidentified Flying Object" by the non-classified U.S. military documents on it (though only after Congress itself demanded they cease with the total BS answers they were giving as to what it was). Exeter is a benchmark alongside that place in New Mexico and Rendlesham. --Chr.K. 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AA-EVP speedy-deletion nomination

Just a heads-up. The American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena article has been nominated for speedy-deletion. I have contested it, mainly because I think deletion of this article deserves more consideration. If you have any feedback (for or against) please visit the article's talk page. --Careax 17:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the following to the talk page:
The non-profit organization is listed in several books pertaining to parapsychology, including the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology edited by J. Gordon Melton Gale Research, ISBN 0-8103-5487-X
Google Book Search has them listed in no less than 188 books (and Google Book Search is not considered to be all that comprehensive). How many published sources do you need?
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is no longer up for deletion. Puddytang 00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles with several banners

Just came across a banner which contains several other banners here - could we adopt this format for such over-bannered pages as Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster etc? Totnesmartin 11:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

nice way to neaten things up, huh? I think it's fine but I would get approval from projects outside Paranormal and Cryptozoology before stacking theirs in with ours on any given article.Lisapollison 14:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It's only polite to ask - we don't want more banner arguments... Totnesmartin 15:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, and I have been meaning to bring this up, once the Cryptozoology Project is rewritten slightly to indicate its parentage, we can go back through and eliminate any double-tagged pages. --InShaneee 14:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychic page

Comment would be welcome on the Psychic talk page. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occam's Razor

Occam's razor appears on many paranormal pages, but the main article is a mess! I nominated it for AID. Puddytang 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bermuda Triangle

For those that need to know, I have heavily edited the Bermuda Triangle article over the months. I went from the standpoint that the Triangle is not a paranormal place, but simply an area with a lot of made-up stories that just do not stand up to scrutiny. To that effort I collected references and citations from books, newspapers, official Coast Guard and Navy reports, a link and a citation from Christopher Columbus' logbook, photographs, and other material, and put them in the article and any other associated article where needed.

For balance, and Wikipedia expects balance, I have included what is written in the popular books about the famous incidents in the Triangle. They are still a part of the history, and refuted or not by documentation they need to be included. If some stories state that Flight 19 flew to Mars, I'm going to include it, as well as the facts of the case that state otherwise. What I am not going to allow is someone to come into the page an alter it in a way that suggests the "popular" version is real, according to authors like Belitz, and Winer, and Thomas-Jeffery, and then attempt to downplay the documentation that is there as if it never existed; such an editor might as well simply delete all of it.

I'm working on this article to get it a featured status. It already was accepted as a foreign-language featured article. Take a look at the results and tell me what you think. Carajou 02:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think taking any standpoint at all is a safe thing to do; the easiest to verify thing would seem to be the 'some have said x; others have said y' format, if you ask me. --InShaneee 07:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with Carajou's approach. If I were editing that page, I would have worked from the standpoint that the triangle is a point of not in maritime legend. I would have recorded the various stories chronologically, including the debunkings, but would NOT have approached it on the idea that the entire story was false because that is POV.

perfectblue 08:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As Carajou should already be well aware of, I think that roughly 90% of the article is slanted against the paranormalist direction, and sides with quacks like Kusche who "debunked" it with all the genius of an ostrich. Stating at the start that the material is based on "distorted, half truths" is completely POV, and discounts the many stories (read: interviews...pretty documented to me) of people interviewed who have encountered EXTREMELY strange things in the region. Martin Caidin's Ghosts of the Air is an example of this, as well. Given that he's one of the greatest aeronautical writers ever, his position should be rather credible. --Chr.K. 09:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
One of the hardest things for some editors to grasp is that the Skeptical viewpoint IS a POV as surely as a True Believer viewpoint is a POV. While it is always difficult in articles to walk the line of balance, that's what this project is here to promote. perfectblue perhaps set a good standard in his/her massive reworking of the Cattle Mutilations article. While it wasn't possible to get rid of all the wackadoo stuff, ALL the hotly contested "facts" and assertions were referenced and sourced. That's really the only way to go. I would invite some members of this project to join me in reviewing Carajou's edit against the version of the article that existed before Carajou began rewriting. If the edits are valid, let them stay- if not, revert.Lisapollison 16:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
In defense of the article, I'd have to say it is one of the most comprehensive articles I've seen on a paranormal subject on Wikipedia. Good job in that regard! It is well researched, well formatted, and even *looks* nice. As far as the non-neutral points of view (there's nothing wrong with a point of view as long as it's neutral), eventhough it was said to have been written from the "standpoint that the Triangle is not a paranormal place," the article's not broken. There are some sections that neeed to be neutralized to balance the subtle opinioning, but most of the article isn't like that. Most of it is fact references.
The subtle opinions need to be reworded or removed, however. It's not Wikipedia's job to tell the reader what to think. There's a controversy surrounding the Bermuda Triangle, and the controversy has existed for some time. It's not the job of Wikipedia to get to the bottom of the mystery and take a stance one way or the other. There's many subtle things in the article that attempts to do that, and that's not at all what Wikipedia is about. Again, these things aren't broken, however, and can be easily fixed.
What I mean about subtle opinioning is exampled in the first paragraph:

The Bermuda Triangle, also known as the Devil's Triangle, is a geographical area in the Atlantic Ocean which has been made infamous for the many people, aircraft, and surface vessels said to have disappeared within its bounds. Many of these disappearances involve a level of mystery which are often popularly explained by a variety of theories beyond human error or acts of nature, often involving the paranormal, a suspension of the laws of physics, or activity by extraterrestrial beings. An abundance of documentation for most incidents suggests that the Bermuda Triangle is a mere legend built upon half-truths and tall tales from individuals who sailed the area, then later embellished on by professional writers.

Everything here is factual, even the last line, but it is slanted facts. The fact becomes opinion by the ommission of other facts. What the last line leaves out is that there is another abundance of documentation that suggests that something paranormal is going on. The effect is that Wikipedia is taking the position that the Bermuda Triangle is a mere legend of half-truths and tall tales. Wikipedia should assume no such position. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with points of view, as long as they are neutral. The neutral point of view that Wikipedia should assume is that there is a controversy, and here are the details of the controversy, period.
Again, the article's not broken, but neutralization needs to occur at some point.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 17:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I've re-read the aricle and I agree with Nealparr's statements. In fact, the article might be worth tagging as POV. I don't like calling people who write about the subject Triangle Authors either. That implies that all theyt are interested in or capable of writing about is the Triangle. If a Skeptic like Mike Nichols has written about the Triangle (and he has), does that make him a Triangle Author? The article requires an edit for slanted POV.Lisapollison 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
A change I made that Carajou reverted was that though a good many of the "incidents" are completely contrived (to the point of going against what actually did happen, referenced by newspaper sources), others such as the Tudor aircraft of 1948/1949, the DC-3 airliner, and frankly the several I have put up as specific BT article requests (above) are not. It is not a half-truth that no wreckage at all was found of the Tudors or the DC-3. It is not (as time will soon tell) a tall-tale that a SAC B-52 vanished while taking part in the Sky Shield II operation. This could go on, but the point hopefully made: you cannot (rationally) make that statement, at the outset of the article, without given credence to several being unexplained. If even only two disappearances are located near each other and are unexplainable to current understanding (Star Tiger, Star Ariel), you have the beginnings of a mystery. --Chr.K. 21:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New assessment rating needed

Frog is in WPP. I don't know if this is a closet-insult by sources unknown, but the notion of that making it in is mind-numbingly stupid...unless I'm missing some part of the article that is totally blank on my screen. We need to have something underneath Stub, that of TBW, To Be Withdrawn. It might also be called the Janitor Option. --Chr.K. 21:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The background and letter colors should be black and white, respectively, in the same fashion that Wikiproject Formula One uses for their races, for disqualified cars. --Chr.K. 21:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Or...we could just remove the banner and leave a little note instead. That seems far simpler. --InShaneee 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a way where it can be successfully brought up for debate to begin with, basically earmarked for removal, and those removals done en masse at the end of each month. --Chr.K. 07:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hobbit-like Hominid?

There is an article about this hominid here: Homo floresiensis. Could lead some credence to tales about leprechauns etc. I know that the Native Americans in the rockies believed in little people who lived in caves in the mountains and were cannibals. Some cowboys in Wyoming found a little mummy one time. They stuck it in a boot box, but it was stolen, but there were photographs taken of it. However, I could not find a wiki article on it, so is this a missing cryptid? Does anyone know what it is called? Anyway scientists now say that the wee people survived until at least 13000 years ago--and this was completely unexpected! -- Puddytang 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Homo floresiensis isn't a cryptid (it's part of science now) and shouldn't be connected with short cryptids for a while, unless somebody notable draws a link.

perfectblue 12:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Loren Coleman covers the Homo floresiensis at Cryptomundo.com whenever a news story shows up about them. The press started calling them Hobbits straight away and it's stuck ever since. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Homo floresiensis is the subject of heated debate within scientific circles. There are several camps. One camp believes it is a race of pygmy humans and not a new species or sub species, another camp believes it may just be a type of dwarfism, yet another believes it is within the range of normal variation, another still says ity's a sub species of homo sapians. Access to the remains has until recently been greatly restricted. Some new info is due out soon since access to the remains has been resolved. For now it is both a "real" scientific issuer AND a Cryptid. However, nobody connected with the study of these remains even remotely believes them to be responsible for legends of little people. The theory is that if Homo floresiensis is indeed a sub species or new species, it evolved the way it did due to geographic isolation of populations and the environment where they were found.Lisapollison 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Found it: Pedro Mountains Mummy Puddytang 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate Atlantis

Just out of curiosity, how does Stargate Atlantis fall under the scope of this project? — BrotherFlounder 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. DrWho42 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone saw the Atlantis reference and had never heard of the American television show, thinking it was actually real. It sounds crazy, but it's my only rational and non-stupid explanation. --Chr.K. 09:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't going nuts! — BrotherFlounder 13:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not just Stargate Atlantis, somebody also tagged a Disney cartoon set in Atlantis as being part of the project.
perfectblue 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Just checked up and yes, they tagged both the film and the sequal. Their user name is Badbilltucker
perfectblue 15:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I say ignore it the first time. If it happens again, we inform them that Wikiproject Paranormal deals only in subjects that have some bearing on nonfiction. --Chr.K. 10:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New source resource

IBM just announced that they've put out a paranormal-targeted search engine, UFO Crawler. If this actually works, this could be a fantastic resource in expanding and sourcing articles. I plan to add it to the main project page shortly as a resource. --InShaneee 03:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Alternative Views

Since it hasn't been announced here before, I thought I would mention WikiProject Alternative Views, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant "alternative views"—those theories, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations which, though notable, lack widespread acceptance, and which may challenge a "dominant view" which does have such acceptance. It overlaps WikiProject Paranormal but has a broader scope, encompassing alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. We haven't had too much activity, but feel free to stop by! Tim Smith 22:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

awe-fricking-some! Idon'texist 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of allegedly haunted locations

I'd like to initiate another clean-up of this article, as the amount of unsourced claims seems to have spiralled out of control again recently. I've laid out what I plan to do in Talk:List of allegedly haunted locations The Kinslayer 12:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energize the project! Invite someone to join

Our project seems to be losing some of the steam it once had. To that end, I invite other members to look over the talk pages of some of the most frequebntly edited articles within the project on your watchlist and find one non-member to invite over her to join us. I suggest finding someone who isn't necessarily a True Believer or a Skeptic and is instead someone with a strong personal interest in a particular topic under the projects guidance. Let them know that as a project, we do not seek to tilt an article in any one direction but that we do seek to add as much well-sourced info as we can. let them know their good work has caught your eye and that you feel they would be an asset to the project even if they only work on a few articles within their own area of interest. Remind them that by being a member, we can support their work and keep an eye out for vandals with them. Tell them about our colaboratyion of the month project and maybe tell them about some of our successes. Once you have invited them, add a note here saying 'I have invited so and so" so we don't invite the same people. Pledge to invite at least one or two people before the end of march! We can do it. (note i changed my signature) LiPollis 04:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea, Lisa, and glad to see you're still around :). I'll add as well that people who show a willingness and skill in discussing ideas and disputes with others are also great candidates, especially in a collaborative atmosphere. Also, what I've found works great for an invitation: let them no that joining comes with no responsibilities, and if they'd just like to watchlist this talk page and keep track of what the project's up to to get a feel for things, that's just fine. --InShaneee 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cottingley Fairies

The article was just vandalised and I have no idea how to revert to the previous version, could someone take a look at it please?--Tascio 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well caught. I've reverted it back to the previous version. --Careax 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Careax! I must learn how to do some of that stuff sometime! :-) --Tascio 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we need to lock the Cottingley Fairies article? Looks like it is getting a bit crazy there... --Tascio 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend reporting the vandals for action but first make sure you leave a note on their talk page asking them to stop vandalising or to be more polite, to stop making uncronstructive edits. An admin is more likely to take action only after an isp or user has had a couple of notes like that on their user page. in the meantime, you can semi-protect the page which is less drastic.LiPollis 23:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Here's an RfC of interest: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Martinphi. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psionics and Paranormal?

Who would even suggest those two projects merge? They're two totally different things! Somebody should read the article on Psionics...Lighthead 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of interest

Some of you may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_18#Category:Purported_psychics. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a done-deal. It's been voted on and archived. The discussion has been had before and we always lose. Chalk it up to skeptical Activism. Oddly enough, I am a skeptic, just not one who feels the need to push my POV on the entire world.LiPollis 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm just amazed at how the skeptical POV always wins out - I don't think there's one paranormal article in Wikipedia that properly gies the view of the believers. It's all skepticism, all the time. I guess the number of believers, or their "focus" isn't as high - add to that the attacks that constantly go on, and it just wears us out. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think motivates them, are they really interested in the issues, or are they simply trying to hush up things like the governments that won't permit a banned book to be discussed in the papers in case people start looking more closely at the subjects that it raises?

I wonder, are they motivated by religion?

perfectblue 11:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

perfectblue , as someone who was involved in the skeptical community for years, I would say that Skeptical activism is usually perpetrated by Skeptics who oppose any and all religion as ludicrous and the refuge of weak minds. They consider themselves superior to the poor deluded people who go to churches, temples etc.. I wish there was some common factor with these folks but there isn't. Some Christians like to pick on the fact that a number of Skeptics were raised in jewish households but that's not fair. There are just as many skjeptics raised in Christian households who push against all religious topics, mysticism and the paranormal. They don't care to accept the notion that adults can and do choose to look at the world through a non-rational or non-scientific lens. And this is all despite the resreach from people such as Andrew Newberg that suggest our brains are hard-wired to experience the mystical. I believe that hardcore skepticism IS a religion andf wordlview. It is often paired with libretarian views which are every bit as non-rational as some religions but since libretarianism is an economic/politcal theory, they can feel comfortable saying they have no religious views. Puhleeeze - Economic schools of thought and policitical parties are religions too. they just don't care to see it that way. Oh, and the skeptcial activists succeed in wiki arguements because they are willng to continue the harangue until others got tired and leave. They are also quite organized. See our archive for some funn stuff on that. They have hit lists of articles to hammer and so on. The spiritually minded seem far more willing to just let things go. Who wins in the end? I think the people who leave the argument win but that's just my POVLiPollis 23:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
My pet theory is that when spirituality is denied, skepticism, very literally, can take over the parts of the brain (literally the brain) and assume the general position in the mind which spirituality usually occupies. So what we are dealing with are fundamentalists. I see no difference in the thinking pattern.
However, the skeptics have a point. It seems to me also that while paranormal believers are often very smart, skepticism (I mean a critical attitude which questions things rationally) and belief in the paranormal cannot easily reside in the same mind. The people who have veridical psychic experiences are usually either very ill, or they are uneducated or, um, someway gullible. Sorry, I just think that's true. That's why parapsychology is so important- 'cause rational people are otherwise denied any psychic connection. And that's why the skeptics are more numerous: because the paranormalists really are POV pushers. In order to experience the psychic, they literally have to suppress their rational minds in some areas. So not only do the paranormalists let go easier, they really are often less rational. That is not to say that the paranormal and skepticism cannot reside together in the same mind, or that the two are truly opposed or can't work together harmoniously. But it is very difficult. You have to spend a lot of time on it. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal arbitration

I think that very soon an arbitration will go on regarding paranormal topics at Wikipedia, especially with regards to Electronic voice phenomenon. You can find discussion about this impending litigation here. Please advise. --ScienceApologist 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Have we got a editor going bad ? OR is there something else going on ? 65.163.113.145 22:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Not being offensive, etc. at all. What is going on ? 65.163.113.145 00:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a user RfC involving EVP and other paranormal topics going on now, linked below, that may be of interest. Other than that I'm not aware of any other active DR (the EVP article had a proposed moderation but it seems to have fizzled out). --Minderbinder 12:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Energy Suppression

I noticed the free energy suppression article had a link to this group. I just did a series of major edits on that article because it was, to put it plainly, horrible. I didn't see a link to it on your main project page, but I thought I'd give you guys a heads up that I did a major reworking of the article. Titanium Dragon 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article suggestion

Despite the fact of my recent clashes with members of this project I want to suggest an article about one of the less cranky researchers involved. I was really surprised, that there's no article International Consciousness Research Laboratories, see http://www.icrl.org/history.php.

It's somewhat the step-child of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab. Uggh. Seeing the mess there, I'm wondering whether this is good idea...

Pjacobi 11:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New infobox

Given some of the recent trauma over page introductions where pseudoskeptics have added "alleged" in front of every other word and have refused to accept any intro that defines something in paranormal terms (eg "XYZ is the alleged phenomona in which alleged people who believe in the alleged paranormal have allegedly alleged that something that is allegedly paranormal allegedly exists, somewhere, maybe, though it's not be proven in more than 10000 peer reviewed journals yet"), I'm going to whip up an info box for general "paranormal phenomona" that includes a definition and a description in paranormal term, and all of the other stuff that pseudoskeptics want to keep out of wikipedia. Does anybody have any suggestions for fields?

perfectblue 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean something like the Template:Perpetual motion machine, as seen e.g. on Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy? I'll allege it wouldn't work here, as an infobox requires that articles have something positive in common. --Pjacobi 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Why wouldn't work here?
Infobox (as on the project pages) requires that articles have something positive in common. Paranormal research, fringe science, and proto-science articles each, respectively, have things in common.
J. D. Redding 17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user removing references and links

JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) seems to be removing references and websites that are related to this project. J. D. Redding 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

These need to be checked and history went over ...

  1. Homopolar generator
  2. Rolamite
  3. John Searl
  4. Andrija Puharich (note: bias in his comment of "kook")
  5. Harry Perrigo
  6. Aftermarket fuel economy device
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Magnet (Master Magnet - Delete)
  8. Migma
  9. Eric Laithwaite
  10. Coal
  11. Bergius process
  12. Karrick process
  13. Viktor Grebennikov
  14. 1Corentin Louis Kervran
  15. Gasoline pill
  16. Atmospheric electricity
  17. Robert W. Bussard
  18. Dmitri Mendeleev
  19. Mendeleev's predicted elements
  20. Alexander Procofieff de Seversky
  21. Bruce De Palma
  22. Möbius resistor)
  23. Andrew Crosse

J. D. Redding 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

rexresearch is a prime example of an unreliable source -- to be used only in a restricted set of cases:
  • article about itself (doesn't seem to a good idea)
  • when reproducing an otherwise not accessable source and there are no doubts about misrepresenting it
In most cases rexresearch wasn't used as reference, but rather as an "external link". So removing it, wasn't even removing references.
Pjacobi 22:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Rexresearch is a prime example of a reliable source -- to be used in cases that it applies to. External link can be used to verify information.

The information on rexresearch is usually cited and can checked [as the following is an example ...]

I did the Harry Perrigo article and rex research is the main information of him (that exists on the internet); I went to the KC library and have whole page photocopies of the newspapers that the library had (which are in portion at the rex research site. He is of interest [atleast to the Kansas City area historically].

The exact same information is at the Kansas City Public Library and Rex Research. The information from the Kansas City Public Library is on his site! I have the articles, now ... I wanted copies of the original stuff ... I went and verified them!!! They have the same information as rex-research! (you can do the same thing, goto the KC public library stacks and ask a references clerk to help look up the old newspapers ...)

It is only a POV that is bias in many of these cases.

J. D. Redding

[edit] New Cat and info box

I've added and partially populated a new cat "Category:Paranormal terminology" for paranormal and parapsychology terms, and I've created a new infobox for paranormal terms, too.

Template:Infobox_Paranormalterms

perfectblue 14:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mel's Hole

The Mel's Hole article needs some help. It's an interesting topic (regardless of its legitimacy), and I think Jaysweet has been doing a great job cleaning it up. But the subject seems to suffer from a lack of credible external sources. Does anyone know if it's mentioned in any other bona-fide media sources (aside from the onces already listed on the article page)? --Careax 16:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a look. Articles based almost entirely on Art Bell'show are always problematic. Looks like there's not many ways to improve the article becuase Mel is just waaaaay out there and is the only source for this info. There are some discussion groups and fans of Mel who are still looking for the original hole but it coul all be solved with a word or three from Mel himself. I do plan to add some discussion to the similarities to Mel's Holes (there are more than one now) and the delusion Charles Manson had about a similar hole he believed to exist out in Death Valley. In the words of the immortal Ed Sanders oooh-weee-oh! LiPollis 00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on trying to bring this article up to snuff and I could use some help. As with most Art Bell subjects, it's hard to dfind citeable sources other than the Art Bell show itself. if anyone can help me confirm that there were pre-existing legends of a bottomless hole in that area of Washington State, I'd be much obliged. Thanks.LiPollis 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teslascope

  • Finally got this article up! let us enjoy and expand this article hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 17:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Very nice work! it's rare to see a new article with both references AND a photo. Great job. I'll see if I can add anything to it. Thanks also for letting usknow about it.LiPollis 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Castaneda

I have heavily revised this article to try and include facts and criticisms. A very long and revealing article in Salon appeared last week that summarized some of the more troubling aspects of Castaneda's apparant cult of personailty that appears to have led to the suicide of his closest followers follwing his death in 1998. Indeed, his books have been considered academic frauds since the mid 1980s but he remains a very popular new age figure or guru to many. I tried to strike a balance in the article. I would welcome input. I did tag this article with our project name because he referred to himself as a sorcerer and his philopshy as a method of magic.LiPollis 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations

I have been working on a number of articles related to this conspiracy theory and I would welcome input or a rating of the articles I have been trying to beef up such as: Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing and then main article itself, Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. Thanks. LiPollis 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Tsarion

This paranormal WikiProkect article is in danger of being deleted. Please cast your vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Tsarion. Thank you. -Eep² 09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean the article is up for deletion, not our project. This is one of the most active projects I know ofLiPollis 12:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yea, sorry for the miswording; I added "article". Thanks. -Eep² 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ufologists

I like this article alot and have spent some time on it, but I have only one complaint, there are to many people with no references showing they are Ufologist and also many of them are just red links (meaning no article on them). I have added Ufologist to the list who have articles and good references, but this article just has some other people I just dont know anything about... should we just remove unsourced material that have no articles on the person? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 18:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, these types of lists can become problematic, mainly because they become vulnerable to deletion. I'd suggest doing what The Kinslayer did on the List of allegedly haunted locations page. Move all unreferenced individuals to a "deleted content" sub-page. That way if someone finds a reference they can re-add them to the main list without having to sift through a ton of previous page versions.
It seems like none of the individuals have in-line references on the list page itself. I'd suggest adding them wherever they are applicable. You could start off with the most prominent people in this field. Let me know if you'd like me to help you with that. I'd also suggest removing any "red links" and just emboldening those names. Links can be added later once the individual articles have been started. Hope this helps. --Careax 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus needed

There's a "bit of disagreement" over whether Megalith comes under Project Paranormal's jurisdiction. Consensus is needed. Please make your feelings known here.

perfectblue 08:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Why? Because some consider megaliths to be actual examples of "paranormal" phenomena. For example, the Stone of the South at Baalbek is thought to weigh over 1000 tons - nobody has any idea how ancient peoples could have moved such a thing - so it is said. And this same, or a similar, story is told regarding many megalithic sites throughout the world. The megalith article should probably cover some of these points.Davkal 09:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory

It this wikiproject listed in any of those sections? i could not find it (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 23:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We've been officially classed under 'philosophy and religion'. --InShaneee 16:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template protection

shouldnt these templates be protected using some form of sprotect given the number of articles they are used on? if some nonregistered user came in and edited one of them, lots of pages using those templates may be damaged (houston we got a problem, if you catch my drift hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template generally aren't protected, and protection generally isn't granted unless there has been several instances of vandalism.

perfectblue 08:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • these are high priority templates though given the number of articles that use them, just a thought (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairy Mounds

just found this article, maybe of some interest (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teslascope deleteion?

ok someone just came around and asked that this article be deleted... the old version of the article was written by someone else and lacked sources so I went ahead and re-wrote the article and added great references (i mean come on who would like that time magazine and scientific america reference!) ... so anways what do you all think we can do about? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They used {{db-repost}}, which isn't a valid speedy reason as the old deletion was a speedy. {{db-repost}} is only for articles deleted by AFD. I've removed the speedy and your {{hangon}}. If they want it deleted they can send it to AFD, but I think it stands a good chance of survival as it's quite a good stub. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topics in ufology

well i created and have been really updating this article, problem is someone other does not agree that some of these topics should be listed in that article, so I have gone ahead and provided for those questionable topics they have removed but I put back into the article... what is everyone elses take in the matter and any suggestions on how we can solve this? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Megalith

Why is the topic of Megaliths not covered in paranormal interest? Pjacobi removed it with the (not paranormal) edit.

J. D. Redding 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't asking dumb rhetoric questions not a bannable offense? --Pjacobi 17:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably for the same reasons why making ad hominem is. We observe WP:CIVILITY here, which means WP:NPA - perfectblue 17:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: isn't evolution subject to paranormal speculation -- especially with regards to the transhuman? If so, why isn't evolution claimed by this project? Just because a topic is obliquely related doesn't mean that the project should tag it as a relevant article. Megaliths are primarily archeological, not paranormal. What is paranormal would be New Age beliefs regarding megaliths, for example. --ScienceApologist 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there isn't much around suggesting that evolution is the result of ghosts and ghouls, I take it that you are referring to creationism and ID. Both faith issue which project paranormal doesn't really deal with (We don't usually deal with anything involving religious doctrine or scriptures). However, if you're referring to the Distant Origin principle (that human evolution was started by aliens), then I think that we already cover that. It's mentioned on several pages about contactees and UFO cults. Feel free to add our tag to the evolution page if you like, but it's up to you to defend your edit to the people already there. Personally, I don't think that the religious people or the biologists would take kindly to suggestions that the boogie man passes the notability criteria for that page. - perfectblue 07:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProjects do not "claim" articles, they maintain lists of articles that the colloborators of the WikiProject are interested in, and tag them accordingly. If the editors of WikiProject Paranormal consider megaliths (or evolution, or whatever) to be a topic of interest to the Project, who is to say "no, you're not allowed to be interested in that"?? --Stormie 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a rule saying that it has to be directly related, in order to be under the scope of a project, unless I am mistaken. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Best to review it in the context of WP:PROJGUIDE Shot info 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it says "Many articles will be tagged by more than one WikiProject." Thanks for showing me that (: Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Re the evolution article. That could probably be tagged too. Not least because DNA is regarded by some (even it's discoverer I believe) as the ultimate oopart. Not to mention the fact that it has recently been discovered that the 97% (or whatever it is) of DNA that is referred to as "junk DNA" contains chemical "sequences" arranged in patterns and frequencies that are otherwise only found in human languages. That is, it is found to correspond with Zipf's law!Davkal 09:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I wish you well finding a WP:V for that that won't be instantly rejected by the crew at Evolution on WP:RS grounds. Honestly, I find pro-evolution people can often be as much true-believers as as the Creationists. I'm not a fanatic by any means, but the way that they simply dismiss certain things or make certain leaps scares me. You'd have to pay me before I'd edit that article with any of this. - perfectblue 10:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Davkal, Pefectblue97, and Martinphi are unintentionally proving the point of Pjacobi. Stormie is in principle correct, but when certain groups make what we might call "perspective impositions" on articles that is very problematic. Whether we want to admit it or not, this particular WikiProject has become a vehicle for POV-pushing and the comments of many of the editors here indicate that if, for example, evolution were to be selected these editors would make it their business to basically disrupt the article. Scary stuff. --ScienceApologist 10:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything that you've said back at you with Paranormal swapped "Rational skeptic" etc. - perfectblue 14:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually perfectblue the systamatic mobbing of paranormal articles by editors objecting to th term would fall under Pseudoskepticism. Rational Skeptics tend to believe that it is NOT their job to supress belief in and articles about beliefs in spirtiual, religious, mystical or esoteric subjects. These same folks are mobbing the page on psuedoskepticism itself to try and get it deleted or merged into another article to take the bite of of criticism of pseudoskeptics from within the skeptical community itself. As an anthropologist, I and others in my field have written about the dogmas within extreme skepticism and how that end of the movement has taken on all the trappings of a religion. There are "sacred texts", "gurus" and even "apostate" skeptics who are maligned for advocating a more respecftful tone towards people's religious beliefs. Skepticism functions best when it seeks to provide alternative real world explanations, not when it seeks to destory and supress all other beliefs and explanations. Penn & Teller had great fun last night ridiculing people who believe in spirit possession. Some of their attacks were founded in science but they quickly veered off into viscious-land as they often do when covering religion because they honestly believe that only chumps would believe in God. Ask them! They'll be happy to tell you why theists are inferior, stupid and worthy of their contempt. it's hard to watch simply becuase it serves no real world purpose. They didn't disavow a single person of any belief, they merely preached to their insider choir and had fun calling people "A-holes", their favorite thing to do. Now I love Penn & Teller's show. It's entertaining. However, when it veers off into contemptious hatered for anyone not as enlightened as they are, it makes me squirm . I mention this because their attitude is mirrors that of a number of activists systematically running through all the paranormal tagged pages and challeneging first the project tag and if that doesn't prevail, then the move on to sources. If that fails, then they draw members of this project into edit wars or personal insult exchanges. Sounds an awful lot like the religious wars on wikipedia, eh?LiPollis 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration on the paranormal

There is an Arbitration request which may decide the future of most of the paranormal articles here. This may be highly important. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This project (WikiProject Paranormal) has been introduced in the Arbitration request, so if you have an opinion about this project, you might want to at least check it out.
--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 23:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


sigh... it's a sad day when ArbCom is used to push one side of a debate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KAZ 11

Right here and now, today[4]. --Chr.K. 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I spotted the story about a day ago on a British website. Will do a page on it.

perfectblue 12:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Page now in place, see Kaz 11. Please watch for in case of skeptical AfD. They seem particularly irksome right now. Spring fever maybe?
perfectblue 14:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Megalith

Just a note, this has been removed several times by User:ScienceApologist removed the project note @ top [5]] here @ Talk:Megalith. J. D. Redding 00:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations?

Someone may find it interesting, the RfA @ Paranormal and Pjacobi statement @ 18:51 on 21 April 2007. J. D. Redding 00:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Granada Forum: another article in danger of deleting

I think this should be part of the Paranormal WikiProject since The Granada Forum hosts many speakers in the paranormal community. Please consider giving your thoughts about the article's inclusion in Wikipedia on its talk page. Thanks. -Eep² 21:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

An Arbitration case opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Please look at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. Please look at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.

J. D. Redding 01:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded my observations and judgement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. I already stated it there, but will further clarify, that I'm neither worried by the existence of this project per se, nor by all participants, but only by an abuse by some project members. --Pjacobi 12:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with your analysis Pjacobi. This project was not always so strident in its advocacy. There were times in the past when it strove toward increasing coverage of the paranormal (an admirable goal that leaves the whole question of neutrality up to the editors at the individual pages). I think that the reappearance of User:Reddi at this project is particularly disturbing. He obviously sees this place as the last best hope for continuing to push a pseudoscientific perspective at Wikipedia. I hope that concerned members do not let this happen. --ScienceApologist 14:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Your strong-arm tactics have sure done a good job of driving well-meaning contributers out of this project. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For example? --ScienceApologist 22:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter... me pointing it out isn't going to make a difference either way. You are already convinced I'm just some asshole who doesn't know what I'm talking about. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
All of you, take this to the Arbitration page. And anyway, this Arb isn't about this project, it's about a user's conduct, and I, for one, will not watch this degenerate into some sort of inter-project mudslinging match. Limit your comments to the matter at hand, and make them in the proper forum. --InShaneee 04:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be turning into a debate about this project. My own user conduct can only be dealt with in that context (unless I'm let off completely). So you may be right, but don't be sure it won't have influence on the whole project. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wyoming Incident - anyone know if this is real or a hoax?

I'm considering doing an article on this purported incident of spooky-ooky TV hacking, but I think the whole thing's a hoax. I can't find any original source material and all the internet mentions say the same basic crap. It seems to begin in 2004. Here's a link to the alleged video and the story:

The Wyoming Incident at Google Video

It IS a creepy story and even if it is a hoax, it might deserve a small article. it seems to be playing on the Pokemon Panic as well as the Max Headroom hacking incident. Feedback? Lisapollison 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anything ever happened in Wyoming. And before someone tries to ban me, it's a joke. Davkal 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The information given on the right margin in that link is quite believable, even if it is fake. As it stands, it would probably be best to seek out sources for all known television hijackings in the United States, or the world. If this has been done, and it's not found, then I lean as well toward hoax. --Chr.K. 06:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Chr.K., I have done a number of searches and all the references to the Wyoming Incident appear to be based on the same second-hand report dating from 2004. Still, it's pretty creepy and it's remarkable how many folks believe it really happened. Don't you think that if it did, I'd be able to find a newspaper mention or something? I can't even be sure that the incident is alleged to have happened in 2004, just that this is when reports start to show up. My husband reminds me that in the second Hellraiser film, Pinhead says "I have such sightsa to show you" which is sort of similar to the video's statement "you will see such pretty things" but not similar enough. Also, there is the Videodrome connection. If any of you can find some original sources on this, please link me to them.Lisapollison 17:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Currently looking. --Chr.K. 09:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There's already an article on the Max Headroom-interrupting-Doctor Who incident: WTTW#Hijack. DrWho42 19:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There is also an article on that incident here: Max Headroom Pirating Incident which states that no further such pirating incidents have ocurred. Therefore, I'd guess the Alleged Wyoming Incident (AKA: You Will See Such Pretty Things) is a hoax. Even so, it might merit an article since folks viewing it claim to be effected in unnatrual ways kinda like the eBay haunted paintingLisapollison
But the MHPI article might be out of date, or badly informed 9if I may insert a spanner into the works!). However, even if it didn't happen, it could be worthy of an article, simply as a hoax-about-a-hoax, or an urban legend. Totnesmartin 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As above, a notable hoax is still a notable event.

perfectblue 08:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[[6]] Puddytang 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that the same information, though? All the references seem to be, so the question would be whether we can find a newspaper source on it to know for certain. --Chr.K. 09:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dazeytweeter: It's a hoax. It was done by three people over at Something Aweful.

Posted by the Puppetmaster

I was reading one of the older incarnations in the creepy things series when I made up the story about the Wyoming Incident. I picked Wyoming and Niobrara because I knew them both to be rather sparsely populated. I then made some fake screenshots as well as the story of the hijacking. Brief interest developed in the incident, but I forgot about it pretty quickly. IanJ brought the Wyoming Incident up in the Max Headroom thread. I decided to elaborate further on the story. People became even more interested, so I decided to make a video of it. I recorded the sounds from the WGBH logo (which I altered severely) and used a pitch generator for the actual faces part of the video. I did not use Poser. I used FaceGen Modeller. Frame by frame, I took pictures of the faces, animating them so that they moved a little. I then took the frames into photoshop, clone-brushed the SL logo off of them, and ran them through the reticulation filter. I then put them together through Windows Movie Maker. The text screens were done with courier in MSPaint. Anyway, I posted the video to Google and then linked to it from SA. It became incredibly popular and appeared on a ton of blogs. The most intelligent discussion about it seemed to be at Unfiction.com. ViralDetector (The Detector) helped me by registering there and posting as a plant. I wrote most of the more literature-based stuff (GMiller's blog, The Masks We Wear, So Tired). Soon we released the second and third videos. They were made the same way as the previous ones. We made up a huge mythology around the videos using stuff from Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore, Greek Mythology, Lovecraft, Modern Conspiracy Theories, Thelema, etc. OC_James worked on most of the mythology, though it became severely altered by the people "interacting" with the story. We pretty much played along with what the players seemed to want, and handed out some arbitrary tasks to people. It should be noted that me and OC_James live in Anderson. Anyway, we wanted to do all nine videos, but interest in the videos and "game" were waning. We did Children stuff to knock up attention. When I noticed there were 59 people viewing the forums (a high for some time), I sent ViralDetector in to post "YOU WANNA KNOW WHUT" and "FARTZ". Truth be told, we were getting pretty bored by the end with everyone else. A lot of the stuff we did was basic psychology. We're all goons (now), but OC_James has a name he will not give away to anyone and pretty much hates the internet. I think this was the longest he's been on the internet in about a year.

Case closed. So should we make an article or what? Puddytang 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Despite its actually being an alternate reality game, I still think it is noteworthy enough to make for an article. DrWho42 05:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I do believe it warrants an article because the video pops up a lot and folks who leave comments believe its real. They even say that they feel lightheaded or dizzy after watching it. It's as if the power of suggestion has gone haywire. If someone wants to take a stab at it, go for it. i'll help.Lisapollison 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe it's known as the placebo effect, btw. --Chr.K. 10:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dazeytweeter: If you're looking for sources for an article inclusion look here http://happycube.wetpaint.com/

If anybody needs any additional information contact me at dazeytweeter@yahoo.com

I intend to create an article for this in the next few days. Could we leave this discussion up a while longer for source material? Thanks LiPollis 00:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, apparently at the website of this (is it an ARG??) thing, it gives plenty of reasons WHY the goons from SA didnt do it.

Heres the page.

http://thehappycube.proboards34.com/index.cgi?board=hackjobjohnny&action=display&thread=1174098036

Something to look into? --74.134.12.230 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Case NOT Closed I'd say! See, this is why we should do an article. this is mysterious, spooky and controversial. if anyone else wants to take a stab writing the stub for the articvle, feel free. it will take me a few more days to finish some other work before i can get to it. I'd be happy to flesh out anything you write. I ask for help becuase i'm hopeless when it comes to uploading images. I'd like to see a screenshot or two from the video. This is a lot like the ebay haunted picture becuase people do report being upset and made ill by viewing the google video. LiPollis 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wyoming Incident is now part of the article List of fictional occurrences of broadcast signal intrusion. I believe we have Rob T Firefly to thank for this. It's not a very long mention, but it's a start and a good way to have it appear. Thanks! LiPollis 09:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bili Ape

I just put the CryptoZoology and Paranormal project tags on this article since it is listed as a Cryptid on the list of cryptids. Interested porject members should take a look. There's some good infomation a National Geographic article from 2003 which is listed in the external link section. Here's a link to the article for your convenience. Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species? The article could use some cleaning up and referencing.LiPollis 11:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Shockley, Cosmic Awareness et al

OK, Paul Shockley was speedily deleted after I first created it but is now at User:Eep²/Paul Shockley while I research it. It's getting really interesting with ties to Bob Dobbs (Church of the SubGenius) and Carla Rueckert (affiliated with David Wilcock). If anyone else would like to contribute before I recreate it (probably under "Cosmic Awareness" since that's what seems to link everything), go for it. Not to take attention away from the Cathy O'Brien deletion nomination or anything, however; I just wanted to give a heads-up to another article coming down the pike... -Eep² 15:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Dobbs deletion review

Check Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_30#.5B.5BBob_Dobbs.5D.5D for this article's review. He has ties to Paul Shockley, David Worcester, Ralph Duby, and many others. Even if his claims are false, his notability is still there, in my opinion. -Eep² 03:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Adamski for Wikipedia:Good articles nomination

  • well I wanted to nominate George Adamski as a Wikipedia:Good articles, so I have been cleaning the article up these past few days. I have done my best, and now I was hoping those interested would help clean up as necessary also so we can get it passed as a good article (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pleiadeans

Pleiadeans, just started this article plus some references, some maybe interested in it (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that it is best to reserve "allege" for situations where an allegation was made, such as when Doyle alleged that Houdini was psychic. Allege has a pejoratives air and doesn't go down well with everybody here (It's been misused before) so it's best to use Say or Said etc when a non accusational claim is made.
perfectblue 20:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I've expanded this page quite a bit to include an overview of who first came up with the idea and how it evolved, and added several cites from the mainstream perspective.
perfectblue 12:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

I've seen it spelt "Pleiadian" quite a bit. Will add a redirect or something.

perfectblue 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andromedans (extraterrestrial)

Andromedans (extraterrestrial), just started this article plus some references, some maybe interested in it (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be good to add what other channelled entities say about these purported extraterrestrials, if channelling is considered canon/valid. For example, Cosmic Awareness (work in-progress) has mentioned the Pleiadians, Andromedans, Sirians, Vegans (no, not the extreme vegetarian kind), Lyrians, Arcturians, reptilians/reptoids, etc. Do a search on its newsletter's master index (Revelations of Awareness; ROA) for more info. Also, Galactic Overview from various ROA newsletters. -Eep² 05:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teslascope

well there is an issue with "further reading" and the usage of Template:WikiProject Paranormal in the talk page, any comments on the talk page on this would be wonderful (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

it seems to be the word paranormal that raises a stink wherever it goes. It really does invoke an image of ouija boards and suchlike. forteana would be much better, IMO. Totnesmartin 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of alleged contactees

[edit] List of alleged UFO-related government personnel

Same thing here, they want to delete it, give your two cents on it if you want Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_alleged_UFO-related_government_personnel (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There is actually a proper section for this on the project's hompage. It'd be helpful if you would post this kind of thing there too.

perfectblue 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cathy O'Brien nominated for deletion (again)

I think this article falls under the paranormal project (along with The Granada Forum, Michael Tsarion, and other conspiracy theorists). The article has already been nominated for deletion before but is up again for a second nomination, unfortnately. Any support for it? Thanks. -Eep² 04:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the page and added about 5 separate third party sources to it which should be more than enough to throw out any "primary source" AfD arguments. The page needs to be diverted away from the sex claims and towards her claims of mind control. The sex claims are only suitable for a gutter tabloid, whereas her claims of mind control and government conspiracy could make an interesting case study in belief in this kind of thing.

I suggest that somebody should add the mechanics of how she claims to have been controlled and the non sex stuff that she claims that she was involved in.

perfectblue 12:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
At least one of those sources doesn't even mention the person. The sources were removed per the talk page on that article. Please do not do that again as it is representative of gaming the system. --ScienceApologist 12:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Everybody gather round, the moment that you've been waiting for. This is where SA gets served.

The author discusses a conversation that he had about her on page 34. Of course, if you find this discussion to be too brief or not relevant. Here is Chapter and verse, from each of the books. I've not typed everything as I'm not your personal servant, just enough to show you that every book that I cited directly referenced her.

Thomas Cyberculture Counterconspiracy, please turn to page 34, the third paragraph under the heading "Alien Sex Majic" where the narrator discusses a disagreement that he had with another individual concerning O'Brien's relevance to Project Monarch. ..Cannon believes that Obrien and her partner, Mark Phillips, are frauds who use details about a real mind-control program called Operation Monarch to embellish a dog-and-pony show..

Versluis The New Inquisitions: heretic-hunting and the intellectual origins of modern totalitarianism, Page 173 then there is the experiences of Cathy O'Brien, mind control slave to the United States Government for more than 25 years in her astonishing book Trance Formation of America written with Mark Phillips. She was sexually abused as a child and as an adult by a stream of famous people named in her book. Among them Bill Clinton (FYI, the author is discussing "Conspiracy websites", this isn't Versluis' view. Versluis is discussing the alledged conspiracy and people whom believe it to be true. Versluis is highly skeptical and considers it garbage as you will see if you read on.

De Young, The Day Care Ritual Abuse Moral Panic, Page 235, Michigan native Cathy O'Brien who described how she was brainwashed by a secret government mind control project into having sex with then First Lady Hilary Clinton, former President Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Gerald Ford, the latter of whom, a fellow Michigainina, she referred to as "the Neighborhood porn King". De Young is critical and not a believer, she is discussing this as part of the "abuse panic".

Toropov The Complete Idiot's Guide to Urban Legends, Page 221, The story, which surfaces in an intriguing volume entitled Trance Formation of America (Cathy O'Brien, Reality Marketing Incorporated, 1995), is also considered in detail and discussed as if it were Gospel truth on several strange websites .......

one of the places others fear to tread is the books sweeping contention that its author was subjected to "the mind control operation known as operation monarch" and "was used as a sex slave to pander to the bizarre sexual desires of big name politicians". the roster of politicos supposedly involved in this....... Toropov is discussing her in the context of CIA brainwashing and sex abuse myths. Toropov is approaching this from a skeptical perspective.

Barkun A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America Page 76 The limitations of evidence concerning CIA activities during the cold war have encouraged the extension of mind control litrature into areas for which there is no substantiation. The most sensational of these tales revolves around Project Monarch, a supposed CIA program known only through the revelations of a purported victim, Cathy O'Brien. Under hypnosis preformed by her deprogrammer husband Mark Phillips, O'Brien allegedly recovered memories of her training as a sex slave and drugs courier for the CIA, during which time, she reports, she was sexually abused by a who's who of American public life. Source is discussing mind control conspiracies and propensity for Americans to believe them or to generate urban myths about them. Source takes the skeptical perspective.

I notice that you deleted my citation at 8.48AM, there is absolutely no way that you could have found a public library that stocked this book and was open that early on a Sunday morning, AND gotten back to your home to write about it as you claimed [7], and I find it extremely unlikely that you just happened to have the book out already. Of course, you might live further west, in which case it would be even earlier in the morning.

Enjoy your humble pie.

perfectblue 14:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This debate is still going on for those who haven't checked in to it for some time. It appears to be neck and neck bwteen keep and delete.LiPollis 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More attacks

SA is attacking Anomalistics and won't let it be described as a scientific study even though I've sourced it to mainstream sources stating that it is. Some help finding set in stone cites would be appreciated. We really need to knock this pesudosceptic POV pushing on the head by putting together as strong a set of indisputable mainstream sources as we can.

For some unfathomable reason he/she also insists on moving the infobox to the bottom of the page. I consider the last part of which to be disruptive vandalism for the purpose of the 3rr rule, does anybody else agree.

perfectblue 13:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would just continue to source it until it's "officially" challenged (deletion nomination, etc). -Eep² 15:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that we need to make an extra effort to bullet proof our pages from now on. Don't just source them, sources them source them to such an extent that any admin can tell by a mere glance that everything is as we say it is.
perfectblue 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, infoboxes do belong at the top of pages. --InShaneee 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that I've solved the infobox problem. He/she was using an older browser that wasn't handling the code properly leading him/her to believe that the infobox was a full width box. I think that I've corrected the problem. This is one of the many perils of having so many browsers and browser version around.

perfectblue 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee , as our fearless leader and as someone with a history of being diplomatic, is there anyway that you could have a private word with individuals who have demonstrated an antagonism towards this project? it's become severely disruptive to our effrots. We can't write new articles or impprove existing ones if all our edit time is used up restoring blanked text and responding to attack-oriented comments on talk pages which cite wikipedia policy in a gaming the system sort of way. SA isn't the only one doing this but is the most active.LiPollis 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, it's a pain. I sometimes have to take more time defending an edit that making it. In this case I'm trying actually trying to define a term as it was meant to be used by the man whom coined it, but SA keeps twisting it to be what skeptics think of what it is describing, which is completely getting away from the whole point of the term in the first place.
perfectblue 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What is a real pain are when people try to masquerade as science that which is not. --ScienceApologist 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Even worse when they try to exclude subjects from it that have no rational reason NOT to be included. Ever heard of the Sourcebook Project? It was based on the methodology used by Charles Fort, patron saint of the open-minded. Also, pick up a copy of UFOs and the National Security State, by Richard M. Dolan, to show an example of extremely scholarly anomalistic history. --Chr.K. 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That one's between you and Davkal. Me, I'm trying to include an accurate definition of a term as it was coined to mean. regardless of what you personally think of the subject, the term MUST be defined literally.
How would you feel if somebody went along to Scientific skeptic and changed the definition to something that varied significantly from what the man who invented the term meant for it to be?
perfectblue 18:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this fistfight be occuring at Talk:Anomalistics? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fists? this is handbags at dawn. Either way, I started this thread to request support in finding strong citations for a particular page that is under threat. A project is exactly the right place to ask for this sort of assistance.
perfectblue 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove User:ScienceApologist from participant list?

Are there three users or more that would express a concern with his presence on the member list? If there is a Consensus to remove him, then he should be removed. J. D. Redding 01:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC) [ps., I myself was removed from another project in this same way.]

Whoever removed your name from the participation list of another WikiProject did so without authority. WikiProjects have open membership and cannot remove their volunteer participants. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Why even fight the battle? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is a method to remove him/her, I support it. His/her primary contribution to Project Paranormal is to delete content en-mass and then to issue a blanket statement like "POV Pushing" without offering any further explanation, and to dispute citations. This more destructive than constructive. He/She isn't an asset.

perfectblue 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, there is none. This is not a Country Club; even a user who does nothing but edit articles on Fischer Price toys can call themselves a member of Wikiproject Paranormal if they so choose. --InShaneee 13:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
OK then. How about we pass an informal motion that SA's are more destructive than constructive which we can point towards in any dispute to show that we have been concerned about him/her for some time? - perfectblue 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with InShaneee, so I like the informal motion idea a lot more. --Careax 15:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If nothing else, few people edit paranormal articles more then SA.:) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Quantity over quality. Anybody who tries to address "Weight" by deleting one side of the argument rather than adding to the other generally isn't considered to be a constructive contributor. That's like addressing the black-white education divide by going round schools in white neighborhoods and telling students to slack off more when you should be going round schools in black neighborhoods and introducing them to some good role models who encourage them to stay in school. Just look how many of his/her edits are simply reverts, or double reverts (reverting something of his back that somebody else has previously reverted).
perfectblue 08:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If a consensus can be reached, I would suggest that the Project's founder/Leader consider placing a carefully worded caution on the User's talkpage stating:
Many members of our project (insert project name and link) have found your sweeping edits to paranormal topics to be unconstructive and damaging. Your postion as a Skeptic is well-known and we don't discriminate against project members for simply being skeptical. Our Project has several outspoken Skeptics and we welcome them all. However, you appear to be editing paranormal articles with the goal of tipping the content towards a skeptical viewpoint without engaging in constructive dialogue with other editors. Other members have been discouraged by the dismissive tone you take with them when they ask you to slow down and discuss such changes. We urge you to re-read the following policy pages: WP:CIV and WP:NPOV as well as the Wikipedia article Pseudoskepticism. Please remember that topics such as those under our project border on personal belief, religious views, spirituality and other subjects which are not easily defined in terms of science. Some of us find Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould's concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria as useful when considering how best to edit such topics. We sincerely wish to continue to work with you and ask that you consider the spirit of wikipedian cooperation when editing articles in the future.
If there is anything resembling a "vote" to push forward this "legislation" (namely that if he continues with these kinds of POV matters, he should get proverbially whapped once with a mallet), I am definitely in favor. --Chr.K. 07:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Is that polite enough and sufficiently specific? Having a caution on a talk page serves both as a notice to the editor in question and to other editors visiting that talk page. There is some chatter on the net in skeptical forums and bbs that encourages other skeptics to use wikipedia's rules "against the wackjobs" writing articles on paranormal subjects, so we have to take it into account that some users are being egged on by other more activist psuedoskeptics to adopt an obstructionist method of editing. There are even lists and explanations of how to use Wiki Policy to argue, overwhelm and outlast people trying to adit paranormal topics to be POV in favor of the paranormal or just NPOV. It is our job to remain welcoming but to ask editors following such instructions or appearing to follow them to re-read certain policies and to reconsider their editing approach.LiPollis 09:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Beter deletion nomination

And now Peter Beter (who has links to Cosmic Awareness (in-progress), Bob Dobbs (trying to get it restored), and who has influenced prominent conspiracy theorists of today via his mentioning of robotoids (of who David Icke is a proponent of), is up for deletion nomination. Sheesh. The guy gets Fort Knox opened and some idiots don't think he's notable enough! What's it freakin' take to be notable in Wikipedia?? Sheesh... Please comment on it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Beter. -Eep² 10:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it seem like people are either putting things up for Afd without bothering to check their notability first, or that they are trying to delete as much paranormal/conspiracy content as the can in order to prevent other people from realizing exactly how widespread such belief are?

perfectblue 11:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems a lot of people just gloss/skim over information without really trying to understand all the connections between people, events, and places. Few people seem to be willing to actually do research. Aude made a valiant attempt but still fell short (too left-brain or something). -Eep² 11:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
As I have stated in many a delete nom - there is a group who honestly feels that deleting any and all of wikipedias articles on what they deem "Fringe" subjects is a good and admirable thing. They seem to feel that merely having the article will promote belief in the subject. Here at this project we have seen a noticeable upswing in such AFDs. It is not sufficient to way in with a "Keep" vote. WE most demand specifics from those who say: Delete as non-notable. Ask them why they feel that way and how did they determine this? it is clear that many delete voters don't even read the articles. I'm all for deleting nonsense articles but when it comes to people nominating articles for deletion in order to advance a particular agenda, be it Materialism, extreme skepticism, atheism etc. it's not helpful. This type of thing would not be permitted if Christians went around nominating for deletion other minor religion articles so why is it permitted with paranormal articles? LiPollis 17:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
From my own personal experience I can tell you that one of the oldest "mind control" tricks that communist governments use to keep their populations in line is to prevent the discussion of any topic that falls outside their ideology in the hope that people will either be so ignorant of the topic that they simply presume that whatever the government says about it is correct (they don't know that there is other discourse or views to be had), other they start to believe that they are the only person in the world who thinks about that topic and they keep silent for fear of ridicule of sanction, or simply because they believe that nobody else will agree with their ideas. - perfectblue 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This principle is extremely used in regards to any actual academic discussion of the reality of unidentified intelligently-controlled objects of whatever sort on our planet. Richard M. Dolan wrote a book on that, actually. --Chr.K. 08:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sheesh

Well, seems the powers that be are trying to get me blocked from Wikipedia, and people like User:Radiant keep reverting my comments on vote pages (and also removed the vote symbols I put on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal page. I hate this kind of oppression. I know I haven't been editing paranormal-related articles very long, but any support at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep would be appreciated. Thanks... -Eep² 06:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the Wikinquisition is biased and will censor honest contributors. I don't have a stable access .. but I will try to look around and I will add my opinion when I can. J. D. Redding 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not the appropriate venue for this discussion. --InShaneee 15:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COLLABORATE!

The Cottingley Fairies section has been the "Project Collaboration" (former, true enough) for going on half a year now. We need something new, Now. --Chr.K. 08:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, there's been little support for the Collab effort since it was voted in. I'm probably just going to mark the Collab page as 'temporarily inactive' if there's no real activity at the end of this month. --InShaneee 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • added some References if anyone wanted to use them in the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 18:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Paranormal-stub

  • can we subcategorize this in the Category:UFOs so its easy to access for those who want to know which stub to use for UFO articles but are not sure which stub template to use? I tried categorizing it before but it got reverted (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, category:UFOs is already under category:paranormal and you might be able to get away with mentioning the paranormal stub in category:UFOs, but that category has other parent categories that the template could be stubbed under (but I can't find any other stubs categorized in those parent categories). -Eep² 14:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paraphysics

At 08:02 on 10 May 2007, ScienceApologist redirected the Paraphysics article with the comment "you've got to be kidding me." Please Watch this page. J. D. Redding 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the redirect can be had at Talk:Paraphysics. --ScienceApologist 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not do this unilaterally. Please let the discussion take place on the talk page. Or alternatively place a {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tag on the pages. J. D. Redding 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see you offering any discussion points. Pretending to have a discussion is not an excuse for reverting.--ScienceApologist 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist 4th revert and Non-Cooperation : paraphysics

I will be notifying someone about this. J. D. Redding

You will note that there have not been 4 reverts. --ScienceApologist 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes today there was. J. D. Redding 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • 10:41, 10 May 2007 ScienceApologist
  • 10:32, 10 May 2007 ScienceApologist
  • 10:28, 10 May 2007 ScienceApologist
  • 08:02, 10 May 2007 ScienceApologist (with comment "you've got to be kidding me".)

J. D. Redding 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I count three reverts. I don't see how the initial redirection would count as a revert, what do you count as the fourth? AfD may be an option for this article. Which version is the 8:02 a revert to? --Minderbinder 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
revert to a redirect and three to a keep the redirect. J. D. Redding 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The first edit is not a revert. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
if he want to move the article to the place he redirected .. he should put in a mergeto and a mergefrom tag on the appropriate pages. J. D. Redding 15:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This is only appropriate when there is content worth keeping. The content was all in the form of weak definitional constraints: not encyclopedic. This was pointed out on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's a revert to a redirect, which earlier version of the page was a redirect? If there isn't one, it wasn't a revert. --Minderbinder 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"When there is content worth keeping." This is what is known in friendly circles as a BS line. --Chr.K. 12:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Please don't bring issues such as disruptive editing, edit warring, and so on, here. Go first to the user's talk page, then seek an administrator, preferably on Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed... this project is not part of the WP:DR process. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:RationalSkepticismTasks

The "skeptics", and I use that term loosely, seem to be interested in certain articles. Just a note. J. D. Redding 22:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

...As are we. Let's not turn this into a war. --InShaneee 15:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If you are concerned, simply add those articles to your watchlist. The list can be helpful if you look at it that way. Also, the articles listed do need watching over from both projects. incidentally, I am a member of both projects as are a number of members here.LiPollis 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD Bot

I'd like to put in a request for a custom bot that can watch pages with our tag and automatically notify us if they are put up for Afd so that we don't have to do it manually any more. Does anybody know of a good bot-developer whom could build it for us?

perfectblue 08:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a definite need for these as our tagged articles seem to be singled out for deletion in as loosely organized manner. By the time we figure it out, a number of deletionists have weighed in citing wikipolicy but without specifics as to how the article violates them. WE then have to prove a negative, that the article DOESN'T violate the cited policies. It would be better if we could be there at the beginning of the debate for several reasons, not the least of which is so we may see if there is an unfair pattern in the nominations.LiPollis 01:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiEssay? Wikinquisition

The word "Wikinquisition" can describe the negative actions associated with the inquisition of various RfCs and other judgment of "heresy" or "pseudoscience" by the powers that be. It could address points made by Robert Anton Wilson's book The New Inquisition, also. Template:Essay could be put at the top of it. It can go along with the other Wikipedia essays ... any thought?

J. D. Redding 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to invent new terms. Within skepticism itself, there already exists a suitable term for overzealous applicagtion of skepticism to the point of dogma, it is Pseudoskepticism. Naturally, pseudoskeptics or skeptics acting in a pseudoskeptical manner will not usually see themselves as being or doing such. People like that are ideologues. Just let it go and concentrtate on imporving articles and providing good references. That is the best way to combat deletionists. If a topic is truly notable, make sure it is shown to be just that.LiPollis 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hands Resist Him the eBay Haunted Painting

I finally got around to doing something I've wanted to do for a long time: I have recently expanded this article substantially but I suck at the new citation format. I don't know why I just don't get it, but I don't. I used a slightly older inline cite format so the info is all there. I just need an editor who is not citation-challenged as I am to come along after me and maybe spiff them up a bit. My goal is to get something from the article listed on the front page under DYK. Articles that have been recently substantially expanded are eligible. I know it's a short article but I feel it's pretty interesting. Any suggestions as to which fact should be nominated? LiPollis 11:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Project front page

Seeing how we desperately need a revamp, I have had a go at redesigning the project page here. If there are no objections I will replace the existing page with this version.

To summarize, I've re-written the scope to cover what we actually do now, not just what we used to do, I've expanded our goals to include 10 key points, and I've placed all of the commonly needed elements in a quick reference bar down the side to allow users to quickly pick out our templates and categories.

I've also been inspired by the totally excellent MIB-Wikipe-tan so very kindly designed by Kasuga and have drawn a project mascot for us. - perfectblue 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed some of the more problematic wording in that sandbox. --ScienceApologist 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You did not fix anything, you simply changed it, kindly use the discussion page in future. I want people to view MY proposal, not yours. - perfectblue 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal is wholly unacceptable to me, a memeber of this project. I have changed the wording to fix the more problematic wordings. Your version will have the effect of basically destroying the collaborative nature of this project and may even result in its deletion. --ScienceApologist 17:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
How, EXACTLY (chapter and verse, please. Don't just point to a policy or paragraph, cut and paste the EXACT passage). The sandbox version is 90% identical to the original. - perfectblue 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You pointed out rightly that there was problematic wording on our frontpage too. I changed it. Thanks for helping. --ScienceApologist 17:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the mascot; I don't particularly want to be identified as a pedophiliacial paranormal being. :o Plus, if we're meant to be taken seriously, we may want to not be represented by a cartoon character... -Eep² 16:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless FCC decency standards have changed substantially under GWB, there's nothing remotely pedophilia about a fully clothed female whom is over the age of consent, and I resent any implications to the contrary.
You might not be aware of this, but Wikipe-tan was voted in as the official wikipedia mascot in January 2006, and is now being used by various projects (Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, for example). The image is also free under GNUFDL.
perfectblue 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Er, if Image:Paranormal_wikipe-tan.png is over the age of consent, you must mean an age of 10 years old, or something, because that little girl doesn't look anywhere near 18 (or even 16). I'd just like to have a more mature/serious mascot, if any is needed at all... -Eep² 19:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipe-tan is a member of the FBI, she's a college grad and is 24 years old. - perfectblue 06:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This Wikipe-tan is an adult, but yours is not. -Eep² 07:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I just went over to military history and didn't see a mascot. Like EEP, I see no reason to have a silly cartoon girl representing the project. This isn't WP:MANGA! Totnesmartin 22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the image either. it's bad enough we have ScienceApologist undermining our credibility on our own project front page, we don't need the cartoon. Sorry perfectblue - i know you didn't mean to suggest something controversial. We just need to avoid anything that others might see as innapropriate and that might give them yet another reason to attack this project from within or from without.LiPollis 04:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Priorities, people. What about the page text? The Mascot is a trivial issue, the important points are project's scope and goals, and the ease of accessibility of the templates and info boxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfectblue97 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of UFO sightings

  • Well I was looking at this article, and I thought maybe we could enforce a uniform layout, a table maybe where all the sightings are listed cleanly because I found it hard to read (could just be me though) ... what do you'all think (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 17:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It needs converting to table format, but I don't have the time to convert it right now. Maybe someone else would like to try? - perfectblue 18:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable sortable" width=100% font=90%
|-
!Date !!Name !!City, State!!Country !!Description !![[Close encounter|Close Encounter]] !!Sources
|-
|[[1947-06-14]]
|[[Roswell UFO incident]]
|[[Roswell, New Mexico]]
|[[United States]]
|[[United States Air Force]] captures a flying saucer.
|3
|<ref>test</ref>
|}
Date Name City, State Country Description Close Encounter Sources
1947-06-14 Roswell UFO incident Roswell, New Mexico United States United States Air Force captures a flying saucer. 3 [1]
That looks good, it's similar to the Cryptids list. The only thing it needs is a column for explanation (eg Still unexplained or hoax or Swamp gas reflecting cabbage leaves off Venus, etc), and perhaps a Hynek-style classification, although that might have too much stuff crammed into each row. Any other opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
  • updated ... but I do not agree with the explanation portion (eg Still unexplained or hoax or Swamp gas reflecting cabbage leaves off Venus, etc), because then we are forcing the reader to accept something that may not be true (NPOV) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually you're right - and there could be more than one explanation on offer, which would really clutter up the table. Totnesmartin 22:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me first say thank you! That's very clean and much easier to read. In other words, much improved. If I had any suggestion it would be to add a "Source" column. This would help identify the source for each sighting and encourage sourcing in the list. They'd still be reference numbers like now, but they'd be easier to find. Thanks again! I don't have the time to, but something similar should be used for List of allegedly haunted locations. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • updated - added source in, any other ideas before the change begins? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 00:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
started - i have started the table list in the article, if anyone wants to help out that would be great (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audrey Santo

I have recently revised this article to include the Catholic Church's findings (or lack thereof) regarding the alleged miracles said to have happened in her home or as a result of prayer to her. I have not tagged the article as part of our project out of concern that such an action might be met with hostility due to her recent death. However, it really is a paranormal article. She was alleged to have manifested stigmata, "Miracle oil" was said to seep from the walls in her room and healings were attributed to her acting as a victim soul. I'd welcome input from other editors. Her funeral is tomorrow and it is likely that a push for sainthood will start soon.LiPollis 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't tag this as being part of our project. We should draw a line between faith issues and the paranormal as they draw their founding tenets from different sources. - perfectblue 06:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree which is why I have not tagged the article. I have however, recently sourced as much of it as I can and will continue to source it. Her mother and followers have asserted all sorts of paranormal activity during her lifetime and are now promoting her for sainthood. I found the subject interesting because the claims were thoroughly investigated by both skeptics (CSICOP) and the Catholic Church with both finding the claims to be without merit. I am trying to be respectful of Audrey and her family and still provide the facts. I'll say one thing - that child never had a bedsore which is remarkable in and of itself. Clearly her family loved her deeply. It will be interesting to see if any miracles are attributed to audrey's "intercession" now that she has passed away.LiPollis 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver (chimpanzee) (the alleged Humanzee)

There has been some recent news about Oliver for those interested. A very sad power struggle has been fought between PETA and another animal rights group called Friends of Animals over control of the sanctuary where he lives called Primarily Primates. It has been resolved in favor of the Friends of Animals side of things. An article was created on Primarily Primates seemingly by one of the parties to the dispute and it contains a lot of nasty and unsourced allegations against the former director, Wally Swett. The news articles I cited in my update of the article do bear out some of those criticisms but not all of them. As some of you know, I worked as an Anthropologist for a museum in the 1980s. I had some contact with primate sanctuaries then. My curiosity got the better of me and I called the newly re-opened Primarily Primates to find out how Oliver is doing. He is still alive and having his quarters cleaned. Under the 2 former administrations, his care had deteriorated to little more than being caged and fed. I cannot add that to the article since it is Original Research, I mention it because I know some of our members have a strong interest in Oliver. I would appreciate any help any project members can give me in cleaning up the articles on Oliver and Primarily Primates. The Humanzee article is watched over by another editor. What is sad is that Primarily Primates had a been a model sanctuary for many years, falling on hard times due to Wally Swett's apparent battles with personal demons. If one were to read the article now, the impression would be that the place was a cesspool and pure hell for retired apes since the day its doors opened. I realize that its not a part of this project but Oliver is and maybe there are other editors with an interest who may assist me. Thanks!LiPollis 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with overlap of to do list

(I use netscape FYI.) When I see this page, the to do list significantly overlaps the box next to it.LiPollis 01:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else see these boxes as overlapping? It's very annoying and makes it hard to read the to Do list.LiPollis 15:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should these articles be tagged with our project tag?

  • Rosemary Brown (spiritualist) - spiritualism is a bona fide religion. However, she claims to have channeled new musical compositions from dead composers. Does she fall under our project?
  • Ramtha - a channeled entity. Belief in him seems to have evolved into a new religious movement. So, does "he" fall under our project or no?

I'd rather gather input than simply put the tags on. These two articles border on religion. Its kinda like Audrey Santo. I don't mind working on them. I just don't want to start any unecessary talk page arguments about our project involvement. So far no project has claimed Ramtha.LiPollis 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

More:

  • Indigo children - not claimed by any project yet but maybe under ours? They are alleged to be kids born with special powers who have been "sent" to earth to save us from ourselves.
  • Kryon - the entity Indigo kids believers say is behind the sending of the Indigo kids.

LiPollis 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe channelled entities (and channellers) fall under this project, but I can see them falling under Wikipedia: WikiProject Occult, Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spirituality, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views (I wonder when Wikipedia: WikiProject New Age will be created) too. There are WAY too many overlapping wikiprojects... -Eep² 05:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that they all fall under our remit. - perfectblue 17:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see where they all do. I was just hoping that more members would offer some comment before I put our tag on them. incidentally, there is an accusation on its talk page that the article Rosemary Brown (spiritualist) is plagerized from Reader's Digest but the person making the claim didn't provide a link. If that's true than maybe a rewrite is in order. It also has no references. If you have time, this might be right up your alley perfectblue, given your track record of rescueing badly sourced articles from oblivion! The Indigo kids thing is a cultural phenomenon in its early stages. Even Jenny McCarthy has jumped on the bandwagon saying her autistic child is an indigo at her website Indigomoms.com (which is now being restructured - it was a full fledged website about a month ago). Southpark even had a swipe at Indigo kids with their Ginger Kids episode. I feel we ought to take an interest in these articles before thery get too bogged down in dogma. As the article stands, it is fairly one-sided and could use some input from skeptics. If anyone wants to hop over there and take a look see, I'll support any efforts made to try and provide a balanced view of the issue.LiPollis 15:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Photon Belt

This is yet another article that was deleted as "nonnotable bollocks". Some discussion: Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Science/2006_July_14#Photon_Belt. I will be proposing a deletion review on it, like I did with Bob Dobbs but I can only take so much on at one time. The photon belt is mentioned extensively by Cosmic Awareness and other chanelled entities.[8] Other sources to research/investigate: [9], [10] (which claims "The photon belt was described in the book You Are Becoming A Galactic Human [ISBN 0937147087 (1994, Spiritual Education Endeavors), ISBN 0446672041 (1995, Warner Books)] by Virginia Essene and Sheldon Nidle, [Sheldan Nidle] where it is presented as 'Channeled information'." and sources the old Wikipedia article (the only one I could get on Internet Archive is from December 15, 2005 but it doesn't have this information). -Eep² 07:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

On closer review of the Crystalinks article referenced above, I think the entire indented portion was the Wikipedia article (from Jun 2006):
The Photon Belt is a belief largely linked to some parts of the new age movement that a band of photons is going to collide with the earth and cause massive failure of electrical equipment.
There are a number of related beliefs involving the belt but they have a few common elements. The first is that earth orbits the Pleiades cluster. This is not the case. The second is that a belt of photons also orbits the cluster. No such belt has been observed (and it is hard to see how one could exist within the current understanding of the universe). The third is that earth is going to collide with this belt. A number of predictions have been made as to the date of this collision, so far none have been correct.
The first appearance of the idea appears to have been in an Australian UFO magazine in 1981. It gained in popularity after it was reprinted in the Australian Nexus magazine in February 1991.
Somewhere in the universe there must be a center star(s) which everything spins around. As matter is pulled into this center, photon beams are emitted from the top and bottom poles.
Although our planet is a distance from the center sun and the photon band that encircles it, we will eventually pass through the band. Some people say this will be the end of the world, however this planet has passed through the belt before. Electrons will not flow the same way so electronic devices on the planet will fail. Spiritually it represents a transition point but it is only a temporary window.
The photon belt was described in the book "You Are Becoming A Galactic Human" by Virginia Essene and Sheldon Nidle, where it is presented as "Channeled information".
Unfortunately, the page has no references other than the deleted Wikipedia article. I find it annoying that deleted pages are inaccessible to non-admins for viewing!
More sources: Noel Huntley (not this one), this one: PhD [11] (Amazon.com books by, or references to, him), and Amazon.com "photon belt" references.
I think one way to get an article about some esoteric/fringe idea/theory to remain on Wikipedia may be to first establish the credentials of the authors--create their pages and works, link them to existing ideas/theories/whatever, and then bring in their more esoteric/fringe theories/beliefs--which may or may not need its own article (it does if multiple authors refer to it, like hollow earth). -Eep² 09:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Found the SkepticWiki: Photon Belt article which looks like the Crystalinks one. Wikt:toroid also mentions the photon belt (I added the links):
1994: The photon belt, a huge torroid [sic] shaped object composed of photon light particles, was first discovered by your scientists in 1961 near the vicinity of the Pleiades by satellite instrumentation. — You are Becoming a Galactic Human, by Virginia Essene and Sheldon Nidel, ISBN 0937147087, pp. 27–28
-Eep² 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started recreating this article at User:Eep²/The Photon Belt if anyone's interested in helping. -Eep² 12:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have found more info on the original source of where the article is mentioned, and by who. I still need to work on the references, but they appear well researched, even if they don't appear in any "credible, reliable, 3rd-party publications". Regardless, I think there is almost enough content to warrant a deletion review. -Eep² 12:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a deletion review of The Photon Belt if anyone wants to contribute their comments about it. -Eep² 09:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay--it's restored! :D -Eερ² (t|c) 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 17, 2006 Nanjing UFO Incident

  • this article is being considered for deletion, if anyone can add anything that would be great! (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 13:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems rather bare. Why is this notable beyoond the photo? LiPollis 15:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
not sure there is alot of info out there on this ... maybe merge somewhere and redirect till it can grow? J. D. Redding 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Con AfD

Geez...now Conspiracy Con is nominated for deletion--even after extensive sourcing. Please give your comments/vote. Thanks. -Eερ² (t|c) 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of this, I have created UFO convention to expand on what contactee mentions about the, perhaps, 2 oldest UFO conventions. Filling up this page with other UFO/conspiracy-related conventions should give more notability to them in general. -Eερ² (t|c) 04:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Paranormalcreatures

See Template_talk:Infobox_Paranormalcreatures. -Єερ² (τ|c) 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some tweaks to frontpage

[12]

Issues:

  • Protoscience is not strictly relevant to the paranormal. E.g. phlogiston theory is a classic example of protoscience and is basically irrelevant to this project. Fringe science is the proper term.
  • Phenomenon as a term is relegated to agreed-upon events and objects. Since the paranormal is disputed by scientific consensus, calling things "paranormal phenomena" is (perhaps unintentional) POV-pushing.
  • Trying to pass off the paranormal as conflicting with "scientific assumptions" is pandering. It conflicts with mainstream science. Period.
  • "Scientific inquiry that departs significantly from orthodoxy:" can be summarized as fringe science. We should do this.
  • Paragraph on the scope of what "parnormal" describes is redundant and therefore removed,

--ScienceApologist 19:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the big deal? This isn't an article, it's a community of editors.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
ScienceApologist, isn't this a bit much even from you? Can you not confine your own POV Pushing to your nominations for deletion and heavy handed article edits? You continue to act as a disruptive force to this project. The above edits you suggest are clearly POV pushing and serve no real purpose other than to unflame other project members. Have you no shame?LiPollis 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It is important that our WikiProject act within the bounds of what is acceptable at Wikipedia. All I'm proposing is to make the descriptions as open as possible so that all editors feel comfortable with the aims of this project. No one, save for perfectblue below, has made any attempt to say what precisely is wrong with my edits to the frontpage. I'm waiting for a substantive reply to my rationale listed above. --ScienceApologist 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Protoscience is a big area that is getting bigger by the day, there are several overlaps with project interests.
  2. Phenomenon can be a occurrance of instance with definable bounds, this covers belief phenomona, cultural phenomona and unexplained phenomona. All of which can be used to describe the paranormal.
  3. "scientific assumptions"? So, you're saying that science has proof?
  4. Fringe science is a bigger area than the paranormal. Most areas covered by fringe science doesn't even touch on it. For example, most areas of experimental physics.

perfectblue 06:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. Do you have any citations for your claim that "protoscience is a big area that is getting bigger by the day"? Or is this just your personal opinion?
  2. Phenomenon is well defined by our article on the subject. To controversially label something a "phenomenon" when it is an alleged phenomenon is misleading.
  3. Science is a process not an arbiter.
  4. Fringe science is a bigger idea than the paranormal, indeed. However, apparently there are members of this project (such as User:Reddi) trying to expand this project's scope. If there is consensus that this attempt is misplaced, I'd support culling.

ScienceApologist 12:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


  1. I'm not putting it on a wiki-page so I can quite openly say that this is what I believe, not what I can cite to a peer review journal.
  2. Cultural phenomona?
  3. Science works on the grounds that something is false unless it can be proven to be true, therefore "if something cannot be proven to be true is is assumed to be false".
  4. Reddi is a member of this project whom also has their own areas of interest. I heavily edit pages about Western animation aimed at teenage girls, yet you've never accused me of expanding the scope of the paranormal to include the marketing of Eastern body images to Western audiences. Reddi's actions are not always representative of this project.

perfectblue 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Replies:

  1. Sounds fine to me, so let's remove the wording from the front page!
  2. Yes, cultural phenomena can be uncontroversially observed, what's your point?
  3. I don't know where you got the idea that science "proves" anything. It doesn't.
  4. That's right, because you haven't done that. Reddi has. (e.g. Free energy suppression.)

--ScienceApologist 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you have explicitly pointed at me Joshua ... here's a few notes ...
  1. There is alot of protoscience, if you would look and be objective. Much of it is "paranormal"; especially if you take mainstream science as a benchmark.
  2. UFOs are observed, according to the certain witnesses. On a completely different note, there is also anomalous phenomenon and anomalistics.
  3. What? Science, in the most general terms, is a process for evaluating and proving empirical knowledge. Are you saying that science does not prove anything? Are you saying that science does not establish the validity of something? Please answer yes or no ...
  4. Free energy suppression covers free energy (and so-called "perpetual motion machines") which seeks to exploits anomalous phenomenon and other observed events which deviates from what is expected according to existing rules or scientific theory.
J. D. Redding 22:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. You need to take a philosophy of science class. Do they require that for you to become certified in secondary ed in Kansas City? I sure hope so.
  2. Observation does not entail eyewitness accounts, which are notoriously unreliable. Consistent observation requires controls -- something which UFO accounts explicitly lack.
  3. Science does not offer proof. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again. Science is an ongoing process and can only provide evidence, not proof. Proof is the stuff of mathematical theorems and logic.
  4. So are you saying there are paranormal explanations for perpetual motion machines? If so, what's your source? --ScienceApologist 14:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. I have taken history of science classes, which is intertwined with philosophy of science ....
  2. Anomalous phenomenon have been observed, such as the unexplained sunward acceleration of some spacecraft ... UFOs are observed ... if they could be observed in controlled observations, they would not be UFO ... but IFO (Identified Flying Objects)
  3. Science is a process for evaluating and proving empirical knowledge. Falsifiability allows corroboration, eg., "proofing", them. All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof (the antithesis of a proof).
  4. paranormal explanations? Generally the ones in the history of perpetual motion ... but anomalous phenomenon (or "paranormal phenomenon") has been sought to explain them ... J. D. Redding 19:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Question about the "phenomenon" because I noticed you changed that word in at least one article too. Here you changed it to "things". In the parapsychology article you changed it to "events". You argue that it's because it's an "alleged phenomenon", but in your edits you didn't change it to "alleged things" and in the parapsychology article it already said "alleged paranormal phenomena". Only you would know, but it looks like you just have a problem with the word itself being used. The reason I ask "what's the big deal?" is because "paranormal phenomena" is commonly used, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Why tweak that wording?
--Nealparr (talk to me) 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Context is the big deal, Neal. It's kind of like the word "theory". While people talk about "theories" in a colloquial sense, on Wikipedia we avoid calling certain things theories unless they have certain features (especially when we are dealing in the context of science). For example, a "conspiracy theory" is not a scientific theory, and so referring to a conspiracy theory in an article that is relevant to science as simply a "theory" is problematic. "Phenomenon" works the same way. In science, all "phenomena" are uncontroversially measurable and observable. In paranormal studies they aren't. Word choice is important. --ScienceApologist 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The rest isn't exactly neutral either. Deletion of protoscience, I'm fine with that (other editors might not be). Rewording to fringe science, no problem on my end.
Changing "Paranormal" from "current scientific assumptions" to "science", is not neutral. You already said in your other edits that fringe science covers these, which is against the grain of science, so where's the neutrality in saying fringe science now means nothing?
The problem is with the word "assumptions" not with the word "science". --ScienceApologist 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Changing "Parapsychology" to "rejected or ignored by mainstream scientific consensus" is totally not neutral. First, the guidelines specifically say that "rejected" is not neutral. Second, there's plenty of articles in Nature, etc. to show that it hasn't been ignored.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't say it is universally rejected, just that it is rejected or ignored. Sometimes it isn't ignored, but in those Nature articles it is rejected. To put this another way, can you point to a source in a mainstream publication that indicates that the mainstream scientific consensus is not to either reject or ignore parapsychology? --ScienceApologist 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to "ostensible phenomena" on the paranormal part, which translates to "represented or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so". That nicely sums up paranormal phenomena. I did remove the "that are currently either rejected or ignored by mainstream scientific consensus" part on parapsychology because even if true, it's just argumentative and unnecessary. It's just a WikiProject. What content guidelines apply here? I don't even know. I know that when speaking of context, you'll find that this isn't an article that puts comments like "reject" -ion into a context where it doesn't sound argumentative. There's no sourced content here to back that up. There's no discussion. Here it's more like a dictionary definition because they don't have the space to cover context. In dic defs, they don't make argumentative statements like that.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 01:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
@Martinphi. "Ostensible" means that we will assume it exists so that we can talk about it, without actually saying it does exist. It's neutral, but also far stronger than the wishy-washy "if they exist". The phrasing "if they exist" implies that you might actually be talking about nothing. In rhetoric and prose you have to start with something to talk about. Ostensible solves that problem by saying "it may not exist, but we're going to assume it does for the purposes of this discussion." Notice that the Parapsychological Association recognizes and uses such rhetorical qualifiers themselves [13].
--Nealparr (talk to me) 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with your edits, Neal. --ScienceApologist 02:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Glad to be of service.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 05:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protoscience

Note as there were no objections to removing protoscience from the scope of this project, I have therefore removed them. Note, please, that protoscience is a term used mostly for ideas which presage scientific theories/disciplines. For example, phlogiston theory is often considered a protoscientific form of thermodynamics. I don't think that the scope of the Paranormal WikiProject is to delineate between protoscientific and scientific forms, so the subject was removed. --ScienceApologist 13:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AA-EVP article has been deleted

This article (American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena) has been deleted. See here for more information. The primary reason given was because of a lack of notability, despite evidence to the contrary provided back in February by Nealparr and others.

I am beginning to feel that efforts to present credible paranormal articles on Wikipedia are futile. There are too many hostile forces here. When a fairly good article about a fairly noteworthy organization is deleted, and other articles which are no more noteworthy (but favorable to skeptics) remain, it undermines this encyclopedia and totally destroys the credibility of these agitating forces for me. --Careax 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that deleted articles can't be viewed by anyone; you have to ask an admin to restore it--assuming they even will. I've had some success with this recently, regarding The Photon Belt (but I already had an extensive reworked version when I requested the old one be restored to User:Eep²/photon belt so I could compare) and speedily deleted article I had just created, Paul Shockley (now at User:Eep²/Paul Shockley). But, really, it seems to depend on the admin. I wish deleted articles could at least be viewed without having to get an admin to restore them. -Єερ² (τ|c) 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Eep². I don't know if I have the patience or time to fight this battle. I only created this article originally because I found a red link, and was trying to improve Wikipedia. Not because I have any specific interest in the society. But in researching the organization t did seem notable enough to me.
A search of "american association of electronic voice phenomena" on Google reveals "about 942" results" ("aa-evp" returns about 12,000 results!). I'd hardly call that a pittance. And as others had pointed out, the AA-EVP has been mentioned in several books. Sadly, that discussion was on the talk page, which is now inaccessible. I was, however, able to recover the last version of the article proper via a Google cache. Although there's no point in re-creating the article, as it'll just be deleted again.
I recommend other paranormal project contributors make local backups of any article they feel could be vulnerable to this ongoing witch-hunt. That way they can either backup any claims made during a deletion restore challenge or post it on a more friendly wiki. --Careax 01:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Google's search results are screwy. Clicking on the last page (on the initial search results page) comes up with only 383 hits. Regardless, I'd still say that's notable, but it depends on how the "consensus" (consensorship)'s analness is feeling at that particular time. It would seem a deletion review may be in order, but you'll have to find "credible, reliable, secondary" sources if you hope to have a chance of passing, unfortunately. Since you created the article, you can start by asking who deleted it to restore it as a subpage of yours (like User:Careax/American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena) so it can be sourced better before deletion review nomination (as I did with The Photon Belt). It's a pain-in-the-ass, and it takes time but, unfortunately, that's what appears necessary in order to remain on Wikipedia these days (didn't used to be this anal). Anyway, once the article is restored I'll help find reliable sources. I'm a bit busy trying to keep Conspiracy Con alive at the moment, however. :/ -Єερ² (τ|c) 13:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is another example of why we need to know about these Afd. Let's get a bot built to inform use that they are happening. - perfectblue 17:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth mysteries

This discussion has been going on for a while, but I just saw it now. Zagalejo 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] paranormal user template

I made a Wikiproject Paranormal user template but haven't figured out how to make visited links not appear black which, to me anyway, disappear in the black background. I tried adding a stylesheet code for visited links but it didn't work. Any ideas? Oh, and I used "user_paranormal" cuz it was free, despite there being a Template:User_Paranormal1 and Template:User_Paranormal3. The one I made is still a bit cartoony for me but it was just a quickie. -Eep² 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool template Eep. I have this from another user:

The code for that would be:

Display Text

Change the "Text" to the title of the article, and "Display Text" to whatever text you want to display. You must enter both the title of the page you are linking to and the display text, even if they are the same. This is equivalent to the code:

study of paranormal phenomena Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know how to change the font color but I am referring to the visited link color, not the standard font color. Oddly, that seems to work, but it doesn't honor visited link changes. Ah well. Oh and please don't reply on my talk page, which doesn't give any context as to what you're replying to. Thanks. -Eep² 07:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sure- sorry it didn't help. I didn't really think you'd see it here if I didn't put it on your talk page. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It did help. :P ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 08:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel's Hole. Zagalejo 03:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spring Heeled Jack

Spring Heeled Jack has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Resurgent insurgent 01:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] yet another AfD: Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 10:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UFO Day

  • very little info and not a single reference in the article, i tried searching for it but no results, it has a warning template that it may get deleted, if anyone wants to help expand on it that would be great ... UFO Day (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Bot

Users interested in maintaining and improving articles that fal under the project might be interested in This. It lists articles with our label that have been listed as needing verification etc and can help us to better target our efforts to improve the quality of coverage of the paranormal.

It would be great if somebody could transclude it onto the main project page so that it will be easy to see where we still have work to do.

perfectblue 15:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

  • can we just list the code for the template instead of showing both the code for the template and the actual template itself, it seems to take up alot of space on the main page and I have found that to be very annoying (could just be me though (:OP ) ... i rather just list the code (saves a lot of space) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the template:- just needs to not be used so the whitespace to the left of the sections on the right is removed. I removed it but then the tasklist moves next to the member infoboxes (on 1440x900 resolution and "simple" skin anyway), which isn't that bad but there must be a way to force just that section to not be overlapped without having to wait until the end of the right-side sections. I tried other "clear" templates but no luck. OK, I used a nested table and it seems to work now. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Having the templates on the main page allows users to see what they are about. The names themselves aren't very clear. For example, ParanormalPeople is about people who work in paranormal fields (ufologists etc) not about people who are intrinsically paranormal in themselves (Harry Houdini, for example). - perfectblue 15:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing you can take advantage of are collapsable sections. I'd recommend using them for the to-do list, infobox templates, and I'm trying to find a sortable+collabsable table for the deletion nominations. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 21:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Exopolitics#Education

  • current debate over whether or not a "non-credit course at a community college" count as notable data to use in this article ... any insight on the talk page on your opinion would be great! (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Teslascope#Article_rewrite

  • someone just rewrote the entire article and I undid their revisions, please share your insight in the talk page, this is a very important article (at least i think so hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 01:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban of User:ScienceApologist

Please comment at: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. J. D. Redding 16:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see one, are you suggesting that we make a complaint? If so, please please take a a look at what I wrote on the Rfc for the Paranormal as I included several examples there of his/her behavior in that. Particularly when it comes to making impossible demands.
perfectblue 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

They removed it ... after a brief time. J. D. Redding 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image for use

Image:Nuvola apps konquest.png Found this Image:Nuvola apps konquest.png .. thought I'd post it here. J. D. Redding 04:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] collaboration of the month

  • i think we should nominate Dropa as the next article to clean up, has potential from what I can tell Nima Baghaei 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me putting your name on your comment, Nima. Anyway, I second this proposal. The article was awful when I came across it months ago, and it still is now. Totnesmartin 09:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • hehe no problem (:O) yah i hope we can all work on it, it seems to have so much potential (i could be wrong, who knows hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 13:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loch Ness Monster anagram

I'm trying to find a source for the origin of the joke anagram "Monster Hoax by sir Peter S" - unfortunately my books don't mention it, and websites either name "the London papers" or Scottish politician Nicholas Fairbairn. Any answers? Totnesmartin 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried searching Google Books? I have been finding that very helpful lately in sourcing articles and claims within articles.LiPollis 01:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I found this in the New York Times archive:
"London, Dec. 18 (Reuters) - A Scottish member of Parliament has discovered an anagram for Nessiteras rhombopteryx, the name applied to the fabled Loch Ness Monster by a United States researcher, Robert Rines and a leading British naturalist, Sir Peter Scott.
Nicholas Fairbairn, the MP, announced the anagram in a letter to The Times: 'Monster hoax by Sir Peter S.'
Sir Peter, a long-time believer in the monster, said last month that its existence was proved by underwater photographs. Others remain skeptical." ("Loch Ness Monster Shown a Hoax by Another Name." New York Times 19 December 1975. p. 78.)
Unfortunately, I don't have immediate access to the Times of London. Hopefully, though, this is enough to point you in the right direction. Zagalejo 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Belated thanks! I'll put this in as well as the book cite that I'm trying to tell myself I didn't travel 20 miles to find... Totnesmartin 10:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case

Been out on a case. The people in Arkansas had claimed that some UFOs are demons, The Devil, that kind of thing. My primary witness, a former USAF NCO said it was some kind of military training. Still here from time to time. Martial Law 01:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say about people from Arkansas, don't you?
perfectblue 14:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Paranormal Barnstar
This brand new Barnstar is hereby awarded to all worthy recipients, curtesy of Perfectblue97, who has just designed it for the project.
Love it! Should we vote on who gets it, or just hand them out as we may? Totnesmartin 14:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like it.

According to Wikipedia guidelines anybody can award any Barnstar to whomsoever they feel merits it. Personally, I'd like to see our Barnstar going to users who work to put paranormal entries on a sounder footing by making sure that they are well cited and evenly worded (pseudo-skeptic proofing), rather than being given out for pure bulk contributions. But that's just my preference. You can award one to anybody you feel deserves it.

perfectblue 15:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, too damn funny. Is that an actual crop circle? If so, I think you need to give a more specific source on its image page... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this where you got the image from (and then edited)? If so, you should credit it ("based off of this image")... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 09:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's great =D Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful! Geir 09:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It is very cool but I'm wondering also if some kind of permission or credit needs to be given since it is obviously based on this image:
http://www.hyperflight.com/images/pentacle-crop-circle-2002.gif
Still, it's a great barsntar! I just wish I could grasp all the intracacies of wikipedias image use polices. LiPollis 10:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It was inspired by the August 02 Beckhampton Pentagram, but with the Wikipedia Barnstar in the center. - perfectblue 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if the aleans will file a copyright suit? :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If they entered US jurisdiction in order to file or fight a suit they would be liable to all sorts of class action suits from farmer claiming that they'd sliced and diced their cows, and from rednecks claiming that they'd given them the probe. - perfectblue 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And another AfD: Mel's Hole

They just keep a comin'. Please look at the artilce and consider weighing in with an opinion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel's Hole The nomination asserts that it is unsourced. it IS sourced to the best of our abilities. SInce the sources are all radio shows and a few newspaper articles, we did the best we could. All other references are from rabid hole-searchers message boards which we can't cite. - LiPollis 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This AfD was mentioned a couple days ago a few entries up, actually, but thanks anyway. :) ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thankfully it survived but in a greatly truncated form. Still, a small and well-sourced article is better tha no article at all, right?LiPollis 10:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to some of us; if this were international politics, nuclear war would've been unleashed long ago. --Chr.K. 13:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd compare the treatment of the paranormal around here to ethnic cleansing and Witch trials, but anything that I said would likely be deleted under WP:something that wasn't originally intended for this purpose but is not being used to stifle the fact that belief exists regardless of science. - perfectblue 20:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a mainstream publication. As such it will never be a good source for the paranormal. Thats neither bad nor good... it's just how it is. I've long ago accepted it... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I for one don't accept that the mainstream can't cover the paranormal. While there might be disputes over the existence of phenomona, it is undeniable that unscientific phenomona have been defined in terms of terminology, that they are believed enough to make them notable, and that there has been research into them (even if it is sometimes flawed). All of these things are perfectly eligible for inclusion. To deny them because science doesn't believe them is tantamount to going into an art gallery and destroying all of the impressionist paintings because they aren't photographic representations. - perfectblue 12:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crimson Circle article

Crimson Circle article

Hi folks! I've been working on the article found here User talk:Geir Solerød/Crimson Circle. To day I published it under the title Crimson Circle (Shaumbra). Within one hour it was deleted. As you can imagine I become very upset, after all I did put a lot of effort into making the article. Please give me your opinions.
I also wander what experience you've gained on matters like this on Wikipedia. Is there an attitude against articles with paranormal matters? Geir 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have some minimum notability requirements, but if you can find some newspaper/magazine sources that discuss Crimson Circle, then you should be fine. Wikipedia does allow articles on the paranormal as long as they are neutral in tone.
That said, it's not entirely clear to me from your article exactly what the Crimson Circle is. You might want to take a few steps back and think of how to describe this organization to someone with no prior knowledge of it.
Good luck! Zagalejo 17:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I notice that every single source was produced by the group itself. This generally isn't a good idea. Try citing a paranormal magazine etc that has spoken of the group in instead. - perfectblue 18:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Is there an attitude against articles with paranormal matters?", put simply, yes. There are those who consider belief in the paranormal to be dangerous and those who consider it to be stupid, both groups dislike the idea of paranormal content on the internet because they fear that it will encourage belief. They fear even the acknowledgment of the existence of belief, particularly when that belief is in contradiction to science or at least to the principles of science from their particular standpoint. You can have a page up about an obscure school in the middle of nowhere that nobody has ever heard of, with no citations to prove it's existence, and it will still be there in a years time withut even a "Fact" tag on it, but you try to put up a page about a somebody who claims to be psychic who made international headlines after apparently cracking a police case, and it will be AFD on grounds of notability in 5 minutes flat. - perfectblue 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hell, even doubling theory, which was developed by a PhD and covered in an allegedly major European scientific conference, was quickly AfDed after I created it. Ridiculous! Please contribute to its AfD. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 05:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but the way that the page is written lends itself to deletion. There is very little information on the topic in question, it brings in several side topics but doesn't explain their relevance or the topic's relevance to them and it is written like a summary of an entry rather than an entry itself. I'd like to help, but I'm neither familiar enough with the topic to expand the entry or with the terms of reference enough to participate in the Afd in more than a token way. - perfectblue 07:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why it's a stub--I had only just started it when it was almost immediately AfDed... But the links/references go into more detail of what it is, but I did provide applications (as was covered in the conferences featuring the theory)... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 07:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
What exactly was the delete criteria. Was it Notability? I suggest that you look for some mentions of the topic from third parties and avoid bullet points. - perfectblue 09:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your time and concern! I think I've learned that dealing with topics like this on Wikipedia, I have to do my homework better. Thank you! Geir 13:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Bot (redux)

Hi! Perfectblue asked me to run the aforementioned project page list, and the bot's been running it daily. First, I'd like to know if anyone has found it useful? Should I keep it in my bot list? Second, if the answer is "yes", I'd like to move it to a project page, say Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/To do from bot or something like that. Since I don't watch this page, would someone reply on my talk page? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electrogravitics/paranormal debate

What I would call reasonable doubt has been cast over whether electrogravitics should be under the purview of WP:PARA. Please study the article, and make your assessement, so a classification can be assigned, or the article culled from the list. --Chr.K. 06:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Having had several articles AfD'd recently (many on grounds of there's no such thing, make it go away), should we set up some notability guidelines for paranormal articles? Perhaps looking at relevance/impact of topic, usefulness of sources etc. Any ideas? Totnesmartin 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that many of the people who want such entries deleted have a fixed mindset that goes "It's not considered real by anybody that I consider important, it's not notable". - perfectblue 18:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree w/ Perfectblue97. J. D. Redding 05:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
So you think establishing notability guidelines would make no difference? Possibly, but perhaps it could help, when starting new articles, to know what's likely to make the cut. Not all AfD's lead to deletion. Totnesmartin 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
With a few exceptions, I can't help but feel that the notability Afds that I've seen relating to thing project have basically been people wanting things that they don't personally believe in out of Wikipedia.
Personally, I think that as soon as we produce a notability guide, skeptics will jump on it and use it against us. On one hand we will be slammed for "writing a charter to publish non-notable bunk", and on the other every time we try to do something that falls outside of our guidelines we will be accused of breaking our own standards. On top of this, users certain users whom I will not name here ("cough" hyperskeptics "cough") will demand that they get a say in proceedings and will try to steer the guidelines in such a direction that it will exclude sources that we consider valid and will create a cutoff point that we consider far too high. No, I think that notability guidelines will be another big headache and an argument waiting to happen.
perfectblue 09:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
We need to become the first Wikiproject to create a Notability Rating Scale alongside Quality and Importance, if it hasn't already been done. If it has, do what whoever it was did, only better. --Chr.K. 12:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This raises one all important question, "Notable to whom?"
For example, Nordic Aliens are highly notable in Europe and in Britain (where they are said to show up and to tell people that we need to stop polluting the planet and to quit fighting with each other if we want to make it as a species) and have been so since the 50s based on the percentage of abduction/contact claims that they are referenced in. However, in the US they are rarely if ever mentioned, and are often only spoken of by the looniest of the loons (who seem to believe that they "sometimes show up alongside greys", and that they have a fetish for raping women and seducing men). In Europeans (thus non-English language) terms they are probably the most notable group, in the US they are not really all that notable.
Equally, from our perspective something is can be considered to be notable from a cultural/social perspective alone. If X million people believe it, or are interested in it, then it is notable. While from a skeptics perspective it doesn't matter what everyman thinks only what scientist think. For example, the Grey shows up in about 70-75% of all US abduction reports and was made famous by Fire in the Sky and the X-Files, making it notable to us. However, most scientists dismiss them as being biologically unlikely, and lacking in empirical evidence (and so not worth consideration as anything other than an exercise in human psychology), making them not notable to a skeptic.
How would we balance these opposing views in any notability guidelines?
perfectblue 19:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of alleged UFO-related vehicles merge with Alien spacecraft

I would have to disagree with this. Primarily because many of the entries on List of alleged UFO-related vehicles are neither alien, nor spacecraft.

  • Black helicopters aren't alien or spacecraft. They are just high tech helicopters in which people related to various conspiracies are said to travel.
  • half of the Black triangle myths are about top secret US/Russian aircraft like the stealth etc rather than aliens or spacecraft
  • The Chupa are mostly tied in with stories of spirits rather than aliens (they are said to be from a spiritual dimension/plain rather than an alien planet).
  • Green fireballs. Again, often more often thought of as being an unidintified natural or man made phenomona rather than alien or space related
  • Would be POV pushing to describe Identified flying objects as alien spacecraft. Especially as they are quite frequently said to be government disinformation, unidentified natural phenomena or terrestrial vehicles.
  • Lenticular Reentry Vehicle, man made, plus it is an orbiter not a spacecraft
  • Military flying saucers, man made and mostly said to be aircraft rather than spacecraft
  • Mystery airship, said to be German, not alien. Also not spacecraft.
  • Nazi UFOs, again, totally human in design and either prop or jet aircraft, not spacecraft. Not even built using alien technology.

perfectblue 17:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detatched talk pages

Image talk:Paranormallogo1.png is a talk page about an article that apparently does not exist. If it can proven that the item in question does, then the image needs to be connected to; if it no longer exists, discussion for whether the talk page should be likewise eliminated, to be held here. --Chr.K. 08:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the logs, it was deleted since it exists on Commons. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 10:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Correct, the image is now on commons. - perfectblue 10:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
There then needs to be some sort of link across to the image itself, so that it can be given classification. Without identifying what's there to begin with, such is impossible. --Chr.K. 14:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why black?

I wanted to ask why the paranormal templates including the "Paranormal terms" infobox is styled in black? Why not for instance green? Wikidudeman (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

X-files : ) --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think green would look more lively. From the Ectoplasm of the Ghostbusters. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the infoboxes and chose black for two reasons 1) It is synonymous with the paranormal, from the X-files and MIB toBlack triangle UFOs and black helicopters, 2) Other projects aren't using it. - perfectblue 07:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
If they allowed image backgrounds, I'd have the paranormal templates pimped. Do they? I've never seen them.
--Nealparr (talk to me) 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

By "Pimped" do you mean "jazzed up" - colorful - decorated - stylized? The answer to that is three fold. 1) Infoxboxes are supposed to be informative not decorative and as such should be kept simple. Thematic colors in the headings are generally the most that are ever used. 2) It is technically possible to use code to create decorated infoboxes but it is not advisable as said code and the capability to view it varies considerably between different web browsers and so should be avoided. 3) Would you take a page about technical terminology used in parapsychology seriously if it was plastered with the X-files logo or pictures of aliens etc. It's best to keep page styles down to Earth, even if the topic isn't.

perfectblue 09:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of WikiProject Paranormal

I think that one of the parameters for the scope of this project should be reconsidered. I found that the article for the Kensington Runestone has the tag for this project, and I really don't think it could be classified as paranormal. However, under the stated guidelines, it could fit in this category on the basis that it is beyond what is considered to be scientifically plausible (see below).

"Paranormal phenomena * An umbrella term used to describe a wide variety of reported anomalous phenomena, including any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed possible/plausible under current scientific understanding."

I think the "plausibility" criterion should be taken out. Being implausible doesn't make something impossible, and I really think that only phenomena that are impossible under the current understanding of scientific principles should be allowed here (ruling out the Kensington stone).--Tabun1015 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, our scope has always been a little hazy. Personally, I don't see anything paranormal about the Kensington Runestone. Zagalejo 01:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
"Yeah, our scope has always been a little hazy..." I will second that assessment. --Chr.K. 20:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is important that we keep the plausibility criteria in for one simple reason. There are things that come under our scope have which are "hypothetically possible" but are discounted by science/scientists as being implausible by virtue of Occam's razor. For example, the existence of aliens is possible, and it is hypothetically possible that they have been coming over here and probing rednecks, but it is highly implausible.

As for the specific example that you cited. I'd be OK with you de-tagging it. It's more of an archaeological issue than a paranormal issue. Are there any notable myths about it having paranormal properties, or having been created through paranormal means?

perfectblue 14:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any claims of it having paranormal powers, and in any case there are none in the article, so I removed the tag for it.--Tabun1015 04:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to Carajou?

...I'm STILL waiting for him to produce that evidence showing how the Pogo 22 disappearance wasn't a completely bizarre mystery, so that I can get on to asking him about the Flight 441 U.D., next. --Chr.K. 13:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You could try asking Karajou over on conservapedia. Looks like he's moved on. Totnesmartin 11:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Mmm. Maybe he actually read what happened, and ran. --Chr.K. 12:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
He never struck me as the running type. I seem to recall he had a lot of flak about uploading images, and maybe he just got fed up of the hassle. Totnesmartin 13:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Found this:20:38, May 15, 2007 EVula (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Carajou" (per user's right to vanish) which only says when, not why - except that it was at his own request. Totnesmartin 16:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agreed with his demand that everything on the Triangle be referenced/sourced, but not with his POV statement at the top that it's just a sailor's legend; after I basically called on (demanded) him to bring up the files on Pogo 22 and others (but especially that one), as he said such things were easy if one tried, I've waited for about four months now. Basically, him not being around ticks me off, since he made such a stink about people like "us" (those who are quite certain anomalous events occur therein) not being serious about the article's presentation. --Chr.K. 07:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A legend? I thought that it had been scientifically established that that whole region was prone to unexpected sea/weather conditions that made it deceptively treacherous. - perfectblue 18:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently not established enough for the liking of the pseudoskeptics. --Chr.K. 14:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's what marks the difference between a skeptic and a pseudoskeptic. A skeptic will accept it when a meteorologist and an oceanographer get together and say that the entire region is known for freak squalls and sudden high waves, and that losses to such events are most likely the source of the triangle's notoriety, whereas a pseudoskeptic will not only refuse to accept that that the area is any different from the pond in their local park, but will also refuse to believe that other more than a handful of people believe that the triangle is real.
This is why we can have such trouble with these individual. They won't accept an explanation outside of science, or inside of science. The only explanation that they seem to like is that "it's non-notable fiction, made up by some guy whom nobody listens to and nobody is interested in".
perfectblue 17:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, that is not the major source for the triangle's notoriety, as the most important cases have always been the ones that involved very little meteorological influence, if any at all. The Witchcraft, circa 1967 I believe, disappeared from the utterly calm waters of the shoreline, inside a two-minute pass from beach searchlights, and hasn't been seen since. --Chr.K. 20:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Xenu" paranormal tag

I've come to wonder if WP:Para is involved so as to bolster the number of FAs we have, from one to two. There is no reason to have this in what is hopefully a project about the exploration, preferably in line with rational scientific method, of that which the current mainstream paradigm does not yet accept, ranging from unexplained objects and disappearances to psionic eminations, spectral apparitions and more. Mr. Hubbard's "theories", meanwhile, have no backing whatsoever in archaeology, nuclear physics, or hell, even demonology. The article should not be in WikiProject Paranormal, but rather WikiProject Religions, which is what Scientology claims to be (rather than, say, a tax-evading cult). --Chr.K. 14:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, but don't get upset, please hear me out. While the name of the project is "Paranormal" we actually cover a very wide range of topics that are nothing to do with ghost, ghouls and things that go bump in the night. In fact, we pretty much cover everything that is related to aliens and UFO (We don't cover pure fictions such as the X-files or Saucer movies etc). This brings Xenu within our remit. The fact that there is a religious crossover isn't really that important to us as it's the aliens at the core in which we are interested.
If you look at entries with our tag, you'll see that we already have ones that deal with contactees who founded religions/cults, the hypothesis that we are the product of alien intervention/colonization, and many other beliefs things in which there are Xenu like parallels.
perfectblue 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
"a project about the exploration, preferably in line with rational scientific method, of that which the current mainstream paradigm does not yet accept", personally, I think that that is far too restrictive a goal. We can't neglect the popular culture aspect of the paranormal, nor the way in which our society has shaped/been shaped by unscientific beliefs. For example the belief in UFOs alone has spawned a multi billion dollar industry of films, books, documentaries, TV series, merchandise and conventions, all of which exist more or less independently of rational Ufology. - perfectblue 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
True, but there is sizable evidence to prove the very existence of the UFO commercialization industry, which in turn was spawned solely by the legitimate sightings and reports of witnesses, a sizable number of them credible (despite the claims of the Pseudos). What evidence is there, in any field, to support the "Xenu hypothesis" of our planet's history, outside Hubbard's, and/or other Scientologists', claims? Remember, this was the guy who said "If you want to make real money, start a religion." By including him, and what is obviously not backed by common sense, we in fact assist the pseudos in accusing us of being willing to include/believe anything bizarre-sounding, whatsoever, so long as it disagrees with the mainstream. Anti-mainstream should not be what the project, and the subject in turn, is about. --Chr.K. 19:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
To summarize, then: We should have high standards, which Scientology does not live up to. And no, I do not believe that is a subjective statement; arrogant me, eh? --Chr.K. 19:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. Our primary lead for inclusion should be notability, not credibility. We're not here to make the Paranormal sound rational and credible, because it often isn't. Instead we're here to ensure that what accounts we do include are written in a rational and credible way. To be brief, it doesn't matter if Xenu is in any way a mirror on reality, only that it is notable and that belief in/about Xenu is recorded in as neutral and accurate a manner. - perfectblue 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "What evidence is there, in any field, to support the "Xenu hypothesis" of our planet's history, outside Hubbard's, and/or other Scientologists', claims?" - We're not here to provide evidence of his claims being true or false. That's not what Wikipeida exists for. Our primary task here is to accurately describe Xenu in the context of Scientology, and to record what is said about it by those outside of Scientology. This might include quoting evidence for/against it, but only if said evidence comes from an outside source. Wikipedia policy on Original Research prohibits us from publishing our own ideas and conclusions.
  • "By including him, and what is obviously not backed by common sense...." - Something doesn't have to be backed up by common sense in order to be notable. We already cover plenty of entries about things that go against the grain. Urban legends and conspiracies, for example. We also cover things that are known to be false such as the William Hope Fakes.
  • "assist the pseudos in accusing us of being willing to include/believe anything bizarre-sounding" - Xenu is notable in Scientology and criticism of Scientology which gives us a mandate to include it in Wikipedia. The pseudos can fume all that they like, they don't have the casting vote.
  • "Anti-mainstream should not be what the project, and the subject in turn, is about" - The byword is and always should be "notability in context". Which Xenu is.

perfectblue 12:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why, then, are purported sightings of and encounters with angels included in the religious wikiprojects, but not the paranormal one? Reported encounters with angels were considered unexplained enough to merit inclusion on Unsolved Mysteries, back in the day. EDIT: And, while I'm at it, explain to me how Xenu is a paranormal, rather than religious subject. --Chr.K. 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp AFD'd

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp. Zagalejo 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just upgraded it from Stub to Start on both the Paranormal and Cryptozoology rating scales, due to the recent editorial editions; not only does it remain, it moves up on the proverbial list. An outright success. --Chr.K. 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bots

  • i am not sure how to use Bots in wikipedia, but maybe someone here does ... what i wanted to do was use any bots to go through the Category:UFOs and clean up all the articles there and all the articles in its subcategories automatically ... i figure they need a good cleaning -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Clean up"? What exactly is it you want to do? - perfectblue 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • get Bots to go through and fix any wiki links and inter-wiki links, grammer issues (example: typos), the format and style of articles, and whatever else is usually done during a cleanup -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
maybe you could find a bot that does all that, go to its creator (should be linked on the bot's userpage) and ask them to set one up for you - perhaps just ordering it to sweep particular categories. They'd probably be pleased that someone likes their bot! Totnesmartin 19:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • i went ahead and requested on a couple of bot pages, hopefully I will get some results -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Do tell us if you do! Totnesmartin 21:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)