Talk:List of ghosts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spike in visits[edit]

I'm very curious. August 22, 2011, this article had a strange, (even spooky) spike in visits, 5x higher than normal.[1] Ghost did not.[2]

Does any know why? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing[edit]

I can't help but feel that this list would be more useful if explicitly fictional ghosts (such as the Macbeth ghosts, DC comics characters, etc.) were separated out from folkloric/attested-in-real-life ghosts such as the Blue Lady. They aren't really the same type of entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.195.164 (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, feel free. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 January 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus no arguments were put forward for a move that were based in our naming policy, and the argument that something that doesn't exist is necessarily fictional or mythical didn't gain consensus (and involves language semantics to the point where I would want to see a strong consensus for it before weighting it heavily.) The opposes made a decent case based on our policies and guidelines, but in the end, this RM was essentially two camps that disagreed on what they wanted the name to be, and couldn't come to an agreement. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ghosts → List of ghosts in mythology and fiction – Per precedent of articles like List of one-eyed creatures in mythology and fiction and Petrifaction in mythology and fiction. The current title implies that ghosts exist in real life, which has not been proven. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed name, if for nothing else there's Abraham Lincoln's ghost in America's White House, which has quite a bit of historical back-up and sources. Even Winston Churchill claimed a clear sighting (although he was known to hit the sauce on occasion, including this one). So that one entry, and I haven't gone though the list to find more, has no relation to the proposed name. Other wording? Or just keep as is. Thanks (and "Boo!"). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unless scientists suddenly come out and say that ghosts and the afterlife exists, I'd say that pretty much all modern ghost sightings are a type of fictional narrative, and would fall under fiction or legend.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • We were discussing this below when you brought the same discussion up here. Please see below for full discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The simple "list of ghosts" does not imply anything or make a strong statement about them being real or not. We also do not need to move Devil in popular culture to Fictional devils in popular culture or Definitely real devils in popular culture. The present title is fine. This is also not necessary just for consistency with another article. (and "Look behind you!") Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Popular culture" implies the subject is not real. There is also no List of demons, but rather a List of fictional demons. That is because List of demons would imply that the demons are real.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the Abraham Lincoln's ghost page is probably sourced enough (I haven't checked) so that Wikipedia can't neutrally label it as fictional. There may be other ghost pages on the list which are adequately sourced as well, which forces us to stay neutral and not label all ghosts as fictional. Saying 'List of ghosts' covers all the bases with brevity. As for demons, there is a List of theological demons which is a horse of a different color. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It remains well and truly within the realm of fiction until the sightings are corroborated by hard science. The sources merely indicate that actual people had sightings, but not that the ghost was real. Just like a UFO sighting, a ghost sighting can be any number of things, that isn't necessarily a ghost.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ole Abe aside, the page is already sectioned, so there is actually no problem with the present name. The sections cover the nom concerns. The present name fits all of the criteria for titles. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • List of demons is split into theological/mythological and fictional entries, so we could do the same here. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • No need for two pages, as this page is already sectionized. And where would the Abraham Lincoln ghost page fit into those pages? It's not theological, or mythological, and we can't call it fictional because it is real-world sourced with testimony by quite a few credible public figures, so calling it fiction is 'taking sides' and would fall outside of our neutrality policy. As I mentioned, best to just leave this page as is and work the page to make it the best possible. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a fictional creature fiction is not against Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It is currently scientific fact that ghosts don't exist, and and claims to the contrary are just that, claims.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's what I mean. You are saying that Wikipedia should decide that ghosts don't exist, and that this is a scientific fact...but, what are your sources on that? Where is the conclusive door-shut study that covers all of past, present, and future human history and each individuals experience? What you are saying sounds like personal research, that in your life you've had no evidence of ghosts. Others claim the opposite. I personally have had no direct experience with ghosts, that's not a "spiritual gift" or "human potential training" result that I have. Indirect? Plenty. Both from before the fact and after the fact testimony and incidents in which I have been involved in. But neither your opinion or mine counts in this type of discussion, we only report what the sources say, and I've heard of no credible source which rules out, for all time and space, the existence of ghosts. If only one credible incident has been reported - and I keep coming back to Abe Lincoln's ghost (and I'd hope he'd do the same for me) - then your premise has to be questioned. We are an encyclopedia, not a issue-decider, and should be "fair witnesses" to the same degree used in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land ("it's white on this side"). If there are sources which say that at one time or another someone has reported something which can possibly only be explained by being ghost-related, then we cannot dump the entire subject into a fictional category and at the same time claim neutrality. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not completely in doubt that ghosts exist. But I would never say that ghosts existing is a fact that should be alluded to in any encyclopedia. There is nothing that ever confirmed they do beyond hearsay and pseudo-science. Similar to Bigfoot, they should be considered fiction until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bigfoot has her own fans. But neither myself or people I know have ever run into her. I've never heard of anyone in a position of political power claiming to have either seen or been in the vicinity of Bigfoot. But this Lincoln's ghost thing, that's another side of the penny. I've never had much attention on it, and it seems interesting because of the position of the people and the location of their claimed sightings. On a quick read there aren't many serious sightings listed, but the ones that are seem pretty good. I did a fast look at the talk page, which seems to contain information about a possible incorrect use of a sources used for the Churchill story and some of the others, so it might turn out to be a wreck of a page filled with incorrectly sourced information. But if some of the reputable sources hold up, shouldn't we describe Lincoln's ghost as a mystery and not as fictional? Putting the story into Wikipedia as a fictional tale would be directly accusing those who reported or report seeing President Lincoln's ghost or Richard Nixon's goblin of lying to gain attention by making up a theater-like fictional story (which, by the way, has never occurred in the White House) or that they were playing a verbal joke on everyone. Maybe in Churchill's case it was 4-D spirits enduced chess. Or likely the whole Churchill story never happened and someone fabricated it, just made up something out of thin air. It all rests in the sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: Regarding the issue of Abe's ghost, and its potential effect on the suitability of the proposed title, I think there are three things worth considering:
1. The proposed title doesn't say that the all ghosts are fictional, but that they are "in mythology and fiction". "Mythology" does not imply that its subjects are non-existent, and folklore is adequately covered as part of mythology. The article as it stands currently labels Abe's ghost as "folklore", so the proposed title wouldn't be saying anything about the fictionality or non-fictionality of Abe's ghost that the article doesn't already do.
2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a bunch of people saying that they saw something is not that. Neutrality still allows us to label Elvis dead, after all, and there are plenty of people who say that they saw him, too. That in Abe's case some of those people are famous, or are experts in non-ghost-related subjects, does not change that. However, since the title wouldn't say that Abe's ghost is fictional, whether saying so is appropriately neutral or not doesn't really seem relevant to this RM.
3. In the event that that extraordinary evidence about Abe's (or anyone else's) ghost actually does show up someday, it would be very strange for those documented-as-real ghosts to share a list with everyone-agrees-they're-fictional ghosts like Hamlet's dad in the same way that fictional countries aren't on the same list as the real ones, they're at List of fictional countries. There's a whole category of "Lists of fictional things" because we don't generally leave fictional things of a certain type on the same list as real things of that type, although I'm sure there are some lists here where that's not the case. If that day came, Hamlet's dad and Banquo would likely be at List of fictional ghosts, and the real ones would, I can only assume, be at... List of ghosts. We wouldn't call that article List of real ghosts, after all.Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice analysis. Thought this would be a fun RM. (Edit: thinking on this, I still support leaving the page as List of ghosts, for brevity, and then dividing that up in-text as myth, fiction, and folklore, near what the page divides like now) How about List of ghosts in myth, fiction, and folklore - that looks good, kind of rolls off the tongue, and could give editors the incentive to work on and expand the list to make a very interesting page. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to that title either. The only thing I'm opposed to is the current title, really.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the current title is fine and works well. It doesn't claim that ghosts are either real or unreal, but adequately lists notable personifications of the concept "ghost". It fits all the criteria for a page title. I was just temporarily playing with the name above in case the page was built over a graveyard and has to be moved. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like List of ghosts in myth, fiction, and folklore as well. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE. The proposed name adds redundancy and because we don't need to treat our readers like idiots. -- Netoholic @ 10:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd think that superstition about ghosts is a lot more widespread than, say, unicorns or wizards. I think it's altogether conceivable that someone who just watched some episodes of Ghost Hunters thinks that ghosts exist and that the article title confirms it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Everyone will see "list of ghosts" and interpret that in the way that makes sense to them. The proposed rename is both extremely un-CONCISE, but also inject unnecessary WP:POVTITLE. If you don't believe in ghosts, you'll not read that article name and suddenly think "OMG, Wikipedia actually thinks ghosts are REAL!". But if we rename it, someone that believes in the possibility of ghosts would say "Wikipedia is trying to convince everyone that ghosts don't exist". Why make that implication for a small percent of readers when the majority of readers are grown-up enough to know without being explicitely lectured. Again, give some credit to the readers. -- Netoholic @ 11:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's very level-headed, Netoholic. Well put. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Darn tootin', Netoholic. Thank you. It is concise. List of ghosts says it fine. Readers can read the article and make up their own mind about its entries. And we can go to the article and make it even more worth reading. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Move - Cause many of these "ghosts" on this list have already been shown to be debunked, for example the Bell Witch. If there is no evidence of them existing, and/or evidence is shown that they are debunked, then what else is left?Sgerbic (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Images[edit]

Is it ok to put images in this page? Since its a list page. Not too much images, maybe 1 or 2 in big sections like Asian/Middle east etc? Danial Bass (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_ghosts&oldid=1207415833"