Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive 3

greetings!

Hello all - I've just signed the Roll-Call not long ago and would welcome suggestions on my talk page of topics or articles in this project you'd like me to look at or contribute to. On my tak Page is some info about my bakcground and interests. Lisapollison 20:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Paranormal Watchers up for renaming

Hello, I have nominated Category:Paranormal Watchers for renaming to Category:WikiProject Paranormal articles. Please participate in the discussion. Conscious 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting it here. ---J.S (t|c) 19:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly dead...

What happened to this Wikiproject, I found it while browsing around it looked really neat is it dead? --Mulder talk 18:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been quiet, but we're still here. I think some new organization of the project page might stir things up, myself. --InShaneee 15:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be great to spark more life into the group. What can we do? Dreadlocke 00:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Couple things. For starters, we can make sure that Paranormal-related articles have the {{Wikiproject Paranormal}} tag on their talk pages, to ensure that the project is getting as much exposure as possible. Secondly, we can take a few cues from other wikiprojects and start a Pending Tasks list (for issues that affect the project as a whole) and a Collaboration of the Week/Month (to identify good or needy articles that the project wants to see improved, and encourage us all to help out with it). --InShaneee 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I added the tag to Talk:Natasha Demkina and Talk: Champ (legend). Let me know if those are proper projects for the group. The Natasha Demkina article is currently under dispute. Dreadlocke 18:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems appropriate, Great Job --Mulder talk 18:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mulder! Dreadlocke 04:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Project Member...

While moving to my new location, I've got word that Texas is still having UFO incidents going on. I've got a 3M Candlepower light and a pair of 10x binoculars, so that I don't accidentally hit a plane while hunting UFOs. The UFO incident has moved from Kaufman, Texas to a area called The Lake O' The Pines, placing what is going on near me. Maybe they're scouting Barksdale Air Force Base, which is a SAC and TAC base, a Command Base, fighter base, a B-52 base, in a nutshell, a multi tasked USAF base. Go to UFO Casebook's website for more info., latest UFO reports. Martial Law 20:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is really supposed to be a page for discussion about articles, not the topic of ufo's and the paranormal itself. --InShaneee 20:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I thought it was interesting --Mulder talk 18:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is, but this isn't a general message board. --InShaneee 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Some people, especially in the United States will actually shoot at anything that they think is a threat, incl. UFOs,Bigfoot, other cryptids. While moving, I monitored a incident in which someone reported on Coast To Coast AM that a Bigfoot had attacked them, so they shot at it with all manner of weapons, incl. a .410 and a .44 magnum handgun, hitting the monster. Why is it that people cannot comprehend the fact that people will actually shoot at certain paranormal phenomena, especially at UFOs, aliens, cryptids ? While I was in AR., I was told by a witness that his uncle had shot at a UFO with a 12 ga. shotgun, using "deer slugs". The slug hit the UFO's deflector shields, and he saw the slug disintergrate when it hit. Martial Law 23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

O.k. Mr. Law answer this, you wake up and you have a gun beside you and two grey beings approach you, two choices

1. Let them take you from your house
2. Blow them to Hell

--Mahogany 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Most witnesses report that they are somehow paralysed by the aliens. People I have ran into will shoot ET and the like. I'm in E. Texas. Here is a report that will prove interesting, go to this link In this, Guardsmen shoot at a hovering UFO. Martial Law 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As for me, I'd probably would have no choice in the matter, since the greys are rumored to be telepathic and/or empathic. I've seen a report in which someone pulled a gun on a grey, only to end up paralysed. Martial Law 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I kinda of thought that you would know I knew that I was just being sarcastic but hell does anyone know how to fight greys? --Mahogany 20:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (what's up with the sig.?)

As explained below, wikipedia is not for general discussion of topics such as this one, only article content and other editing concerns. --InShaneee 20:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm usually not one to be rude but could you please stop with this crap I created the Wikiproject and I say that you can add paranormal chat here --Mahogany 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, do not make personal attacks, as they are not allowed. Secondly, all of wikipedia is open to anyone, therefore the creator of a wikiproject has no more say in its operation than any other editor. Thirdly, this wikiproject still must follow all rules of wikipedia, including that that wikipedia is not a place for general discussion. --InShaneee 20:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're in the right I did get a bit intense there and I'm sorry, also you're right again and I'll just make a branch to this talk page so people can talk about Paranormal evidence. --Mahogany 20:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I think you misunderstood me. Wikipedia policy covering all content on any page here forbids that sort of general discussion. Creating a new page doesn't get around that. --InShaneee 20:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then it is only allowed on user pages? --Mahogany 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)(once again I'm sorry for snapping)

Well I'm outta here and I'll talk about this tommorow --Mahogany 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Essentially, yes. You have far more leeway what you choose to do in your own namespace (including any subpages of that you choose to create), but talk pages in the article and wikipedia namespace are only supposed to be used for article and editing related concerns. Sorry for the confusion. --InShaneee 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

John Lambe

I just put together this article on John Lambe, an adviser to the Duke of Buckingham who was accused of being a witch. Some of you might be familiar with him from Erik Elfman's Very Scary Almanac, one of my favorite books as a kid. If you see any glaring errors or clunky phrases, or if you have any additional information, please let me know! Zagalejo 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

From a quick glance, it looks EXTREMELY well sourced. Good job! --InShaneee 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I'm impressed! --C.Black 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Zagalejo 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Category sorting and definition problems

I was sorting paranormal pages and categories and have now problems with the categories definition to set them in general correlation to each other. "Especially Paranormal to Pseudoscience". I look for generaly correct (self-evident) definitions of the following article categories to sort the articles and categories logically into them, not assumptions...

moved to Category talk:Paranormal --Ollj 12:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack Angel (suspected spontaneous human combustion victim) up for deletion...

Come opine! Zagalejo 05:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many fire inspectors have seen evidence that can be explained no other way. Are the psuedo-Christians up to censorship, again? Andrew Homer 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Christian Fundamentalists would LOVE this case, since it demonstrates "The Fires of Hell" as far as they're concerned. It may have been the "psuedo-Skeptics" who wanted it removed. I'm in what they call The Bible Belt. Martial Law 19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles on Possession

Not long ago I added a bio stub for Thomas B. Allen (Author) (as opposed to the painter by the same name) who wrote the book Possessed: The True Story of the Most Famous Exorcism of Modern Time about the case The Exorcist was based on. if anyone wishes to add a section on the appearances Thomas B. Allen has made on numerous TV shows, I'd be grateful. I also plan to look at and/or add some articles on other modern examples of demonic posession. I added our tag to this article so our work in this area will be noticed. Lisapollison 14:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests

I could use some assistance in sourcing and expanding the Natasha Demkina article. I worked on an draft expansion of the article; asked for and received feedback before putting it into place; but after it was placed in "production", it was immediately reverted by a principle player in the CSICOP investigation into Natasha's abilities. This is my response to the reversion of added material. Any advice would be much appreciated! Dreadlocke 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

An image would be a nice start for this article --Mulder talk 17:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Also try to find a more solid source so no more reverting can be done. --Mahogany 17:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That's good advice. But the article already includes information from the only known reputable sources. It seems that the only sources for the dubious information Dreadlocke wants to include in the Natasha Demkina article are sleazy newspaper tabloids and other non-reputable sources, such as Demkina's own web site where she's promoting her paranormal "medical diagnostic" services.Askolnick 13:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate the input of anyone with experience in allowable sources for the source dispute on the Natasha Demkina draft. Thanks! Dreadlocke 19:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Source update! I may have found another source for the trip to Japan, the information is on Natasha's own website: [1], [2], [3]. Translator page can be found at: [4]. Dreadlocke 01:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have placed an RfC for the Natasha Demkina article: Biographies RfC. The RfC can be found here: Talk:Natasha_Demkina#Request for Comment. Thanks. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wizard article

Not sure if this is the right place to put it (here or the Discussion?), but...

There's currently a dispute going on at Wizard (now moved to Wizard (fantasy), Wizard (disambiguation), and a few other places. It's only between two people, so some kind of third opinion would be helpful to avoid a 1 on 1 revert war. A brief overview:

The Wizard article was apparently in bad shape and had a cleanup tag on it. User:Jc37 reorganized some parts of it and removed the cleanup tag. I saw it and rewrote it to a degree and put the cleanup tag back on. Jc37 went on to mostly revert my changes, and has since made various major shifts. He seems determined to remove practically all references to magic in the "Wizard" article, and has in fact completely removed the section on historical wizards recently (he moved the article from Wizard to Wizard (fantasy), retaining some of the historical information at Magician). He is also a strong proponent of using "black box systems" to explain Magic, something I feel that is not appropriate for an introduction on both style (Computer Science jargon) and content grounds. Jc37 is also interested in categorizing the various mage-like articles more strictly (wizard vs. magician vs. alchemist and so on), which I am neutral on, but I do not see the sources that Jc37 is using for his categories. Additionally, I feel that the new articles are poorly written, even ignoring content issues.

Ultimately, both Jc37 and myself are amatuers at the subject, I believe. I'm trying to learn more, but both of our attempts have been unsourced so far (it's just that he's been far more aggressive at editing his writing in). If anyone here actually knows folkore and historical sociology well, that would be greatly appreciated; these articles definitely need help, and that is something that both Jc37 and myself can agree on. SnowFire 20:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a new at this getting into myth. I truly beleive it would be nice to have 2 wizard articles, one about the fantasy of (for example as shown by Tolkien and Disney), and another with hard factual history and mythology - would that work for both of you? Goldenrowley 03:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To get away from fantasy scripts & wizards, you may want to bone up on shamans and the real world of the oldest spiritual religion (from Siberia - 25,000 years old). Andrew Homer 01:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And that is what? What evidence is there for such a religion? That's nearly 20,000 years before humans began leaving written records. No doubt, humans had religious beliefs back then, but what do we know of them? Just curious. Askolnick 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In your first day in Cultural Antropology class, your professor will inform you about oral traditions. Andrew Homer 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oral traditions spanning 25,000 years is not believed to give an accurate idea of a religion by anthropology today. Drawings, tools and the few pieces of art are all we go by there - though one can speculate, of course. I am curious, however, regarding what the source of these litarary traditions is; is there a book written which have gathered these old stories or is it people you or someone else has talked to? And how do you know that a given story or idea originated 25,000 years ago and not 15,000? Lundse 18:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Or 3000 years ago, when a record of the traditions may have first been written down? As for oral traditions, anyone who ever played the game of telephone should know how quickly stories are altered when passed from person to person. Beliefs recorded 3000 years ago are likely to be quite different from beliefs held a thousand years before, let alone 22,000 years. Askolnick 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

L/L Research

I have added pages on Don Elkins and Carla Rueckert. The latter is helping me correct some errors due to my faulty memory. Scottandrewhutchins 19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Papers and References

I don't know the specific name of the department, but for decades Duke University have been doing paranormal research. The most popular being that psychic test of subjects guessing which one of 5 different symbols are on the other side of a card. Andrew Homer 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The researcher's name at Duke University was JB Rhine.

No, Duke U. has not been conducting paranormal research for decades, since J.B. Rhine left the university and set up his own institute. Askolnick 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

UCLA has done research on the healing energy emminating from the hands of Olga Worrall. Andrew Homer 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And that research was published where?

No, UCLA did not conduct any such research. Perhaps a faculty member or student there may have. And where was this so-called research published?Askolnick 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Cosmobiological Academy, Aalen Germany, has done a lot of research regarding medical Astrology. Andrew Homer 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I believe they also did studies on the prognostic properties of chicken entrails. Askolnick 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the case studies at the Edgar Cayce Foundation in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Andrew Homer 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And these studies were published in what respected, peer-reviewed science journal? And they were replicated by which independent researchers? A willingness to believe is not sufficient to advance a belief. It requires compelling and confirmatory evidence. Askolnick 13:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee, and the Amazing Randi never invested a dime into any of this verifiable research. Andrew Homer 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should Randi give away his money to people who conduct shoddy research? Randi has spent an enormous amount of money on research that has and will stand up to scientific scrutiny for a long time to come. His investigations of Rev. Peter Popoff; his "Project Alpha," which showed how abysmally incompentent the researchers at Washington University's McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research were;[5] his investigation of career criminal and psychic James Hydrick, to name a few, are already classics in the field of paranormal research. Despite his advanced age, he continues to be the child telling us all that the emperor has no clothes. That's why the psychic conmen of the world and their accomplices hate his guts. Askolnick 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just had to add that Randi is not into investing in scientific (or other) research, nor has he ever claim to be. He is, however, legally bound to pay out 1,000,000$ (which can be proven to exist with a phone call or letter) to eg. Olga Worrall if she can just show that there is any special energy emanating from her hands.

Another thing is that research is not verifiable, but that a few hundred years back people believed that scientific theories could be (now the standard is more or less falsifiability). Did you mean that the research's results is verifiable (meaning repeatable?)? If so, please link to the results, reports, conclusions, etc. of the reasearch, it would be most interesting. Lundse 11:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hellow rev peter popoff

I didnt know you were involved or linked with,wikipedia parliment hall,are you that popular,posess all this,did God give you leadership over everything?This is totally amazing,praise the most high,Jesus Christ,i just happen to link into it.Oh well its Gods WILL.