Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive 8

Possible Original Research instered into Crybaby Bridge article - could members take a look?

It appears a well-meaning skeptical editor has inserted some original research into the article. Their argument is fascinating and possibly worthy of conclusion if it can be found to be something other than original research. From what I see, it seems that they have done the old "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" routine also known as: WP:SYN. This is a wikipedia No-No. In their overhaul, they also deleted a lot of other unrelated material. On the talk page I requested feedback rather than just delete the OR material because it is an interesting argument. My issue with the proposed hoax theory is that as described, it fits the pattern of internet fueled folklore which is not the same thing as a hoax., it is merely another type of folklore. The term Crybaby Bridge may be traceable to the Shadowlands website as the editor alleges, but the folk tales of such bridges certainly pre-existed. Most were simply referred to as haunted bridges. Please take a look and weigh in with an opinion if you can. As always, this project welcomes documental skeptical viewpoints on such paranormal topics with the issue here being documented. My hope is that we can document BOTH the folklore about such sites AND the skeptical viewpoint that they are all just fruit of the Shadlowlands 'tree" so to speak.LiPollis 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Require him/her to document all the material presented. If it is not done, excise it, and explain that it must be referenced, whether for or against. --Chr.K. 21:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Question of scope...

Just passing through to ask a question... Is it within this project's scope to include articles that deal with the paranormal in fiction?

The reason I ask is that I've come across articles that seem odd to be included:

Etrigan the Demon: Dealing with the comic book character (a fictional demon) and the various comic book series in which it was featured in the primary character.

Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis: Dealing with computer game that used Atlantis as a setting.

I was wondering if like articles should have the project tag added, or if these cases should have it removed.

Thanks

- J Greb 07:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those articles fall under our scope. Feel free to remove the tags. Zagalejo 07:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

the Cryptozoology wikiproject used to (putting tags on The Little mermaid etc) but we don't, normally. I think we have enough to do as it is. Etrigan eh? Does he still talk in rhyme? Totnesmartin 21:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that articles on paranormal fiction would fall under our project if they have a decided impact on society's attitudes or perception of the subject they delve into. Simply having reference to paranormal activity would mean we would have to include practically all Stephen King novels, for instance. Though I am a major fan of King, such should go instead to the Wikiprojects on fiction writing. --Chr.K. 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I strongly disagree with items of fiction being included under our tag. If something is fiction written as fiction (as opposed to an urban myth or a hoax which are fiction written with the intent of passing themselves of as fact) then it should be clearly demarked as being separate. We already have enough trouble as it is with the less than scientific of the neighborhood skeptics who accuse us of promoting fiction as fact when we talk about UFO sightings etc.

With this said, I have no problem with reference being made "to" works of fiction within paranormal entries. For example the page about greys includes a lot of details about their appearance an devolution in the public consciousness, which of course includes the X-files, outer limits and so on which are relevant as greys are as much a social/cultural object as they are anything else. - perfectblue 17:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

NIDS marked for deletion

FYI, National Institute for Discovery Science has been marked for deletion as a non-notable corporation. --Careax 15:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not relating to this case specifically, but...... I sometime wonder what percentage is greater, the percentage of people who are unaware of the notability of a subject when they afd-notability tag if, or the percentage of people who are aware of the subjects notability who are afd-ing because they'd rather that the subject wasn't notable/know? - perfectblue 20:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalised articles

Another wikiproject (WP:MEXICO) has a small section listing frequently vandalised articles, and asks members to keep watch on those pages. Is that worth doing here? Or is the watchlist and semi-protection enough? Totnesmartin 08:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The types of edits that we have problems with are mostly POV pushing and skeptical content blanking/source removal. These are primarily opinion based edits rather than outright vandalism so they fall quite some way outside of edits that it is permissable to hate. Due to this, if we were to put up a list of the pages under our remit that we have the the most problems keeping clean we'd be open to claims that we were purposefully slapping WP:AGF in the face.

As for stereotypical vandalism, we don't really attract very much of that. Do we? - perfectblue 08:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A few articles do. Loch Ness Monster is my most edited article, and most of those were vandalism reversions. I do assume good faith (sometimes, I admit, through gritted teeth), unless someone replaces the page with THERE IS NO SUCH THING, or POOOOOOOOOP! Totnesmartin 08:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC) ((perhaps I shouldn't say that here?) Totnesmartin 08:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to find that instead of saying that there is no such thing, people tend to delete the sections about people who believe that there is such a thing, which falls outside of vandalism rules except where it's big enough to count as blanking. - perfectblue 09:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with List of paranormal subjects

I created a spin-off of the main paranormal page's "subjects" so that I can summarize the more notable ones in a more encyclopedic fashion. I don't really have the time to work on the List of paranormal subjects page as I'm focusing on the main page. It needs sources and descriptions, better intro, and so on. If anyone wants to tackle it, it'd be much appreciated. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I would have to strongly contest your inclusion of topics such as Reflexology, Homeopathy and other alternative health beliefs/practices. Alternative yes, Pseudoscience maybe, paranormal no. They are to the paranormal what miniature golf is to professional cycling. - perfectblue 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not my inclusion. That's just what's accumulated on the paranormal page over the years. Part of the help that's needed is weeding out things that don't belong there and adding ones that were missed. To start, I copied over the list verbatim. I believe those entries originally came from Randi's list of paranormal topics in his challenge FAQs, so reliablitiy would be an issue. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

join

how do we join?--Sonicobbsessed 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just sign the participants section. Happy editing! Zagalejo 05:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Killer Badgers

I'm thinking of doing a page on the Iraqi urban myth that British soldiers released man eating badgers (later proven to be honey badgers forced to shift habitats by human incursions) around Basra to terrorize the locals. [1]

There is already a little about the story under Ratel, but I want to expand it out into a full urban myth/conspiracy entry. However, I'm stuck for a name for the entry as there appears to be no single name that I can use. What does everybody else suggest? I was thinking Killer badger (Basra).

It's a notable story in Britain and made the BBC news (The BBC is Britain's largest news broadcaster and is universally a WP:RS source).

perfectblue 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

killer badgers iraq gets 312,000 google hits, with a few from reliable news sources (and quite a lot from "hey wow" sites). Go for it (if I may use an eighties-ism)! It probably needs to be a different article, it would be silly in ratel and frivolous in an Iraq War article. Totnesmartin 08:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

RS opinion

Hi. I noticed that Fortean Times falls under the scope of this project and I wanted to get opinions on whether or not it was a WP:RS for Factual errors item #3, which is currently under dispute for volating WP:NOR, and we're trying to find an appropriate source for it. Here is the relevant Fortean Times article. The WP article is What the Bleep Do We Know!?. A movie. It's a looong dispute, but if you want to read up on it - it starts here. Fortean Times doesn't look too reliable to me- but I'm not that familiar with it. Thanks! Dreadstar † 08:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I get FT every month, it's pretty reliable - that is, it depends on news media for some of its material, and essays etc for the rest, so its as reliable as the news media and the people who write for it. But it's not a credulous "hey wow" magazine, often pointing out errors in reports etc. Totnesmartin 08:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Foretean Times should be considered a totally reliable source for ideas, opinions, the existence of belief, and for what people said that they saw (If somebody said that they saw a UFO then it can be taken as given that they believe that they did) and for the careers of skeptics/believers. I also personally believe that it is mostly reliable for science too (It's certainly reliable for reporting on pseudoscience), though I don't believe that skeptics would accept it as such and you would have a fight on your hands if you tried to proffer it as a scientific source near the pseudo-skeptics that sometimes show up. - perfectblue 17:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it..;) The editors want to use it as a source to debunk what seems tobe a paranormal claim:

“When the tall European ships first approached the early Native Americans, it was such an ‘impossible’ vision in their reality that their highly filtered perceptions couldn’t register what was happening, and they literally failed to ‘see’ the ships.”

..how South Americans could see the boats that the explorers landed in, but not the ships anchored offshore. Their shaman stared out to sea and by imagining what he was looking for, was finally able to make out the ships. He was then able to point them out to others, until at last everyone could see the ships. The shaman could do this because he alone was open to the possibilities of strange things from other worlds

Sounds like it's a good source, from the statements above. Anyone disagree? Dreadstar † 17:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

FT is certainly a reliable source to say that "this is X's hypothesis", which is all that's really needed. As for paranormal? This isn't a paranormal claim, it's a psychological one. It's not that the ships were invisible to the natives because their minds overrode their eyes through some kind of witchcraft, it's simply that they didn't recognize the ships as a threat or a usable resource (not an enemy, not food, etc) and so didn't register them as being important until somebody whose life didn't revolve around hunting and gathering (and so was able to take more time to contemplate things) pointed at them and said "hey, those shapes over there, they look interesting. What do you suppose they are".

Most suburban Americans will simply not see the odd fire ant about their yard until such time as they get bitten by one, at which point they will start to notice them everywhere. - perfectblue 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bet they'd notice those fire-ants a lot sooner if they were the size of those European sailing ships! (shades of...Them!...;) Dreadstar † 18:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, you can be sure of one thing; no matter what size the ant sooner or latter a pseudo-skeptic will come along and deny that millions of people not only believe that ants exist, but claim to have seen them. They may even claim that the lack of peer reviewed articles about fire ants found in astronomy journals proves that ants are not notable in popular culture. - perfectblue 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL! That is splendid, perfectblue! Dreadstar † 08:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Fortean Times article itself relies on sources indicated by the numbers next to claims. For example, footnote "1" refers to "Candace Pert, Molecules of Emotion, Scribner, 1997" (the links are in the blue box to the right). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a neat one:

“The ship passd within a quarter of a mile of them and yet they scarce lifted their eyes from their employment; I was almost inclind to think that attentive to their business and deafned by the noise of the surf they neither saw nor heard her go past them.”

Cook's diary 27 April 1770 at southseas.nla.gov.au

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cook's Diary? Are you sure, I could have sworn that it was Joseph Banks (who accompanied Cook) who wrote that. - perfectblue 07:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology accepted as GA

Persistence pays. Parapsychology was accepted as a WP:Good --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, has anybody updated the project front page? - perfectblue 20:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I put it in the GA list, not sure where else it would go. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Page hijacking

Somebody has hijacked the project's page about the Iraqi Killer badger urban myth and has redirected it to the page on the Ratel, cutting out almost all catagorizations etc that link it to our project in the process. They placed a merge template on it and redirected the page within 24 hours, completely insufficient for anybody to object. I create the page and I wasn't even notified, as the creating project a notice should at the very least have been placed here.

perfectblue 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, it was very quick. What was the rush? And i see your reversion has been reverted. Totnesmartin 16:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is the perfect situation to put up a de-merge/split tag. Under no circumstances should an entry about real life animal be merged so utterly with an distinct urban legend. It's like Merging the page about characters from the lion king with the page about lions. - perfectblue 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Feline Psionics

I would appear people in New England have encountered a new form of precognition. "Oscar the Cat predicts patients' deaths" I say we create an Oscar the Cat article on him. --Chr.K. 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Might be better at Telepathic Animal Communication, although that article is a bit crap at the moment. And what of all the other future-telling, mind-reading and psychic-danger-warning animals in the literature? Totnesmartin 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles on all of them, if I had my way, but for now, likely simpler to have additional sections for each such animal in an all-encompassing animal psionics page. EDIT: Btw, are you back? --Chr.K. 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Back from where? or what? Totnesmartin 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that there was already an entry on animal sixth senses? Shouldn't this be part of that? I don't believe that this is notable enough to have its own page and that it would be Afd on Notability grounds by skeptics. It has more chance of survival as part of something bigger. - perfectblue 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal preference would be a large article with lots of sections rather than a slew of stubs. It would also be easier to include examples that wouldn't justify even a stub. Totnesmartin 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made articles about psychic animals Lady Wonder, Don Carlos (double sighted dog) . There was also a psychic goose but I couldn't get any info on it. Puddytang 17:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Indigo Children

The article indigo children was soliciting help from experts. Should probably be under project paranormal if anyone is interested. Puddytang 17:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

For some unfathomable reason, nobody has seen fit to mention that the arbitration results are in and can be viewed here.

perfectblue 07:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Friday night drinking is my excuse : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Geographically speaking, it's still Friday night in some parts of the world. If you lived on the west coast, the good clubs would be getting ready to open. - perfectblue 07:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall, it's gone a little better than I expected. To summarize the good parts:

It' OK to call people contactees or psychics as these are cultural labels rather than statements on the existence/validity of aliens or psychic abilities. As such, putting so-called or alleged etc in front has been ruled against. Precedent permits the inclusion of beliefs that exist in popular culture and not science. Beliefs without scientific foundations/incorrect scientific (pseudoscientific) foundations exist and are a valid perspective for discussion. Saying that something is paranormal (or new age etc) is sufficient framing to set somethig apart from proven scientific fact. So, explicit statements about not being accepted by mainstream science, or not scientifically proven are unnecessary.

Probably the most important bit. Regarding epistemological status, if something is believed to exist but not proven to exist, discussion of the controversy and belief is the important part. The science forms part of the content, but it not the entire content.

perfectblue 07:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My analysis is mostly the same, but I'll add a few things for clarification.

• Contactees/psychics are cultural labels and need no other qualifier. Statements about someone's supposed abilities probably do. Ex. Sylvia Browne is a professional psychic. She is said to have the ability to... etc (or some variation on that).
• I wouldn't say "so-called" and "alleged" have been "ruled against", but rather that they don't necessarily add anything new to the discussion. The WP:WTA are guidelines rather than rules.
• Pop culture is a notable view and can be included along with the scientific view, even if the two aren't compatible.
• I didn't see anything about "explicit statements about not being accepted by mainstream science, or not scientifically proven are unnecessary". I may have missed that part. I do think they mentioned that the scientific view doesn't have to be the main view covered (science doesn't have much to say about unicorns), but I think it may still be necessary regarding the "epistemological status" of many paranormal phenomena, especially when science is invoked as part of the epistemological statement. For example, a statement that suggest that there is scientific evidence for EVPs would be framed heavily by the mainstream scientific view that the evidence isn't largely accepted.

One last thing, that is actually very, very important, and may cause the case to be reopened.

• Reverts are heavily frowned upon and they intimidate users from participating. Strong caution is advised on reverts, and edit wars aren't tolerated.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, most reverts were made by skeptics blanking the edits of project members. We aren't their keepers and cannot be held responsible for their actions. This is a matter between them and the arbitrators, it is not our concern so long as we keep our house in order.

As far as I am concerned, principles 1, 3, 6.1, 6.2 and findings 5, 11, 12 protect all valid edits by ensuring that popular culture and unscientific beliefs can be recorded "as believed" alongside side mainstream science because they are part of the framing of a topic and the discussion of it in total. - perfectblue 19:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars always involve at least two parties. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if our house is in order then it will be obvious that we are not the inciting party. The arb validates the inclusion of correctly framed beliefs, urban legends and paranormal etc. If there are a few rogues in our ranks who add outlandish and invalid content, then they should be dealt with as individuals. However, if the skeptical community chooses to persistently begin edit wars over valid content then it is they who will get the raw end of it. - perfectblue 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators were very clear on their dislike of past edit wars and almost passed a one revert per week rule on all these articles, applied to everyone. This was for Rational Skepticism Project participants and Paranormal Project participants alike. They weren't particular on who incited the edit war, whose fault it is, or anything like that. They don't care who's right. They simply don't want any edit wars. It is highly advised that if even the most well founded edit is reverted, rather than revert it back, take it to the talk page or bring it up to the arbitrators. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if edit warring was somehow justifiable in the past, we have bigger sticks at our disposal now. I've found that there are other ways to keep POV content out of articles. I think that if we behave ourselves, and do not edit war, then policy makers will take our side in the future, since our edits are, at the least, much more NPOV than many skeptical advocates. However, I also believe that if we take this ArbCom as an excuse to eliminate skeptical positions, we will not only be POV-pushers of the most hypocritical kind, but we will lose in the end. We want NPOV articles that present all notable, documented and sourced POVs, not ones which gloss over skepticism, even where that skepticism is not well founded in research.

Saying that something is paranormal or psychic, even if we have links, is not sufficient skepticism for an article. Where the subject is taken seriously by a significant number of people, as with psychics as opposed to unicorns, the skepticism needs its own section, and it needs to be explicitly mentioned in the summary.

We can say "Sylvia Browne is a psychic," as long as we present, with a special section in the article, her malfeasance, and so long as we explain, in the summary and criticism sections, (and on the Psychic page) that all psychics are said by skeptics, to not have the powers they claim (and explain the reasons sufficiently). The word "psychic," per the ArbCom, is a cultural artifact.

The ArbCom actually gave us more than I even thought we needed. We have to use that power responsibly, or we will wish the ArbCom never happened. We mustn't revert war. I, for one, have been getting along fine without the need, though most of the worst skeptical offenders have not been editing. We have other tools now, and our problems are known to those in high places. We should use those tools instead. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The most vocal of the skeptics have declared themselves to be a separate group from us, with a separate agenda. Therefore, if they also choose to disregard the arb, a distinct line should be drawn between us. If we keep our house in order we can justify our inclusions and edits beyond reasonable doubt. - perfectblue 20:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just glad that the arb verified that belief forms as an important a part an argument as scientific evidence. I've been arguing this one with skeptics for ages, they just wanted to delete anything that wasn't done in a lab regardless of whether or not it had an impact. - perfectblue 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There are some, as on the current EVP talk page, who think the ArbCom didn't change anything. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD

Bigfoot in popular culture is up for AfD. Will future generations ever learn about Steve Austin and all that Boron? You can help decide! Totnesmartin 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

El Chupacabras

I need some help from people interested in paranormal matters, the thing is that as part of my work with WikiProject Puerto Rico I'm interested in raising Chupacabra to Good Article during this month, however since I am not exactly used to dealing with articles concerning the paranormal, I can't really get an idea of what I should be doing here and since it seems WikiProject Cryptozoology is a little inactive I figured you guys could help me. -凶 00:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, why isn't the article titled Chupacabras, as you spell it in your message header? If I remember my Spanish grammar correctly, that's the standard form for a compound noun, even in the singular. The Spanish version of the article uses the final "s" in its title, so I think we should, too. Zagalejo 02:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you are right, when we Puerto Ricans named the creature its full name was El Chupacabras with the "El" included, however there is a redirect blocking the location. -凶 02:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You can usually move an article over a redirect by hitting the "move" tab at the top of the page and following the instructions. Zagalejo 04:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Already tried it, the sistem is denying the move. -凶 04:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's weird. Well, anyway, I'll take a look at the article to see if I can make any suggestions for improvement. I'll give you some feedback as soon as I can. Zagalejo 05:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, your help is appreciated :) -凶 09:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, some general comments:

• It's always good to represent the skeptic's viewpoint, preferably in its own section. For example, I've read somewhere that most of the alleged victims of the Chupacabras actually do have blood in their bodies, but the carcasses aren't examined closely enough to notice it. I'm not sure where I read that specifically, but skeptical approaches to the Chupacabras should be pretty easy to find. (Try Skeptical Inquirer and similar publications. And even paranormal-friendly writers like Jerome Clark have their doubts about the Chupacabras.)
• In the history section, it's not clear to me when we're talking about the Vampire of Moca and when we're discussing the Chupacabras. Some additional info on the Vampire of Moca would also be interesting if it's available.
• The article, as a whole, could benefit from better organization. I would devote the "Alleged sightings" section to reports that have not been conclusively debunked. Then I'd create a separate section for the misidentifications (eg, the coyotes with mange) and hoaxes.
• It might be cool to learn about some of the major researchers into the Chupacabras phenomenon. Scott Corrales is one name to remember; I'm sure there are others.
• Though "In popular culture" sections are controversial, I think one could be justified here, as long as we limit it to important things (e.g., movies that are primarily about the Chupacabras - there have been several.) Zagalejo 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are just a few suggestions at the moment. If you need help tracking down resources, let me know. Good luck! Zagalejo 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's important to remember that this page should be about the myth of the creature, be sure to include the different angles and perspectives of the myth. If it's a verifiable and notable part of the myth, then it should be included. - perfectblue 13:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Covering the paranormal isn't too difficult. What you need to do is to remember that there are usually several different strands to each story:

1. The Myth: What is said about the topic, which is verifiable as having been said but which may exist entirely independently from empirical evidence
2. The belief: What is believed about the topic which is to a greater or lesser extent based on empirical evidence/circumstantial evidence/witness statements but which is put forward as if it were mostly empirical (What people say is evidence, regardless of whether it really is, such as footprints that have never been proven one way or the other).
3. The Facts: What science has established about the topic using empirical evidence
4. The extrapolation: What scientists and skeptics believe about the topic but which they can't back up with empirical evidence (usually, "It's never been proven, so it can't be true", rather than "It's been proven not to be true", or "X is most likely...).

Usually, it is best to start off by introducing the myth, its geographic and time origins, and its contents. Next either apply Belief Facts and Extrapolations chronologically, (X happened in year Y), or divide all three up in to a for and against structure.

perfectblue 17:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I will begin my work when I log in Wednesday, cheers. -- Caribbean~H.Q. 20:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles nominated for deletion via WP:PROD

I've added to the 'Paranormal Relevant Deletion History' section of the main WikiProject page content relevant to notifications about articles nominated for deletion via WP:PROD. Some formatting damage has accrued, but nothing fatal. I hope that this addition does not unduly violate scope of the section or WikiProject members' interests. If you would prefer another notification venue for this deletion nom class, or none at all, please provide your input here. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In case anybody didn't hear, I commissioned a tag reading bot for the project. Anything within our scope that gets tagged with a fact, cleanup, delete (etc) tag will be posted here. - perfectblue 07:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Very cool! Dreadstar † 08:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very nice. As far as I've seen, yours is the only WikiProject with a fully automated deletion notification solution; I've updated User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals accordingly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename request for West Coast air raid

I'm trying to get West Coast air raid renamed to Battle of Los Angeles; as nutty as the proposed new title sounds, it's what the media and historians prefer calling it. "West Coast air raid" seems to be an invention of Wikipedians. Whether you agree with my position or not, feel free to contribute to the discussion here: Talk:West Coast air raid. Ichormosquito 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support that request. If these claims are true then the case is good, but it's a surprising title to me. Often such renames are reversed a short time later, so I think some wider discussion would be good value. Andrewa 10:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Support "Battle of Los Angeles" is the most common name for the event. Zagalejo 18:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Support: most common name. - perfectblue 16:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Support, belatedly: the name was coined by newspapers in the aftermath of the event. I'll research it more in Dolan's work, for all pertinent information identifiable. --Chr.K. 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Los Angeles should be nominated for GA-status

It looks pretty detailed and deserving, now. Thoughts? --Chr.K. 11:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Eyed Kids (2nd nomination)

Black Eyed Kids is currently up for deletion. I don't know much about this topic myself, but if you do, feel free to come to the debate. Zagalejo 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've re-written this and sourced it to a third party, could a couple of people come by and attest to this. I'd hate for this page to be deleted based on comments made about the original version which no longer apply. - perfectblue 12:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, the more I see this kind of thing happen (the article was AD'ed), I think I'm coming to genuinely HATE several of the pseudoskeptic Wikipedians involved. I mean, real seething rage stuff...and I think I'm coming to be upset, as well, at other WP:PARAers who don't share this sentiment. --Chr.K. 11:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychic surgery

There's an interesting dispute happening on the Psychic surgery article. Since it was mentioned on WikiProject Medicine, thought I'd drop a note here too - since it has this project's tag as well. Dreadstar † 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The page seems to have attracted some fanatic haters. There's even opposition there to reordering the sections to put the criticism section after the history section, where it belongs. - perfectblue 10:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi notable myths

Does anybody think that Wikipedia has room for a page about urban myths spread over the internet that are not notable enough to have their own pages (at least in the minds of skeptics) but which nevertheless exist?

perfectblue 13:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? Zagalejo 22:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the list of deleted urban myths. Camp fire stories and so on, localized bigfoot/ape myths, myths spread through chat rooms and website, and so on. The Haunted Stitch doll would be a good example. - perfectblue 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a page on local Bigfoot myths seems doable. Are there any reliable sources that discuss the Haunted Stitch Doll? Zagalejo 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The crux of the problem here is "how reliable does something have to be to report on a myth?" From my perspective, so long as a myth is properly framed as being a myth it merely requires sources verifying its existence as a myth. Which can be anything from a peer reviewed journal about local lore, to a website reciting well known camp fire tales. Unfortunately, there are those among us who appear to believe that no source is reliable unless it is reliable to speak for the contents of the myth, rather than for the existence of the myth (they might, for example, ask for newspapers story covering The Hook or police reports of an actual hook incident in real life, then deny that the myth or sections of its content belongs on Wikipedia because such sources have never existed owing to the myth being nothing more than a myth). This tends to lead to them deleting popular culture sources. - perfectblue 10:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I share your frustrations. I think an article in Fortean Times or something similar should be reliable enough. Snopes should also count to verify the existence of a myth. Has anyone actually challenged these sources?Zagalejo 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fortean Times and books by Charles Fort have been challenged more times than I can recall. As above, pseudo skeptics (the opposite of a true believer) bash sources like these constantly. The often claim that because they are not reliable sources for the science of a myth then they aren't reliable sources period. They simply don't accept the fact that we are trying to use them to prove the existence of a myth as a myth, not the existence of a myth as a fact of science or history. Some of them seem to be misguided and don't differentiate between proving the existence of a myth and proving the contents of a myth, while others seem to be intent on sweeping Wikipedia of any and all references that differ fro their world view. It's like an evolutionist trying to deleted a source showing that X million people believe in creationism simply because they feel that if it is shown that people believe in it then it must have some credibility. Alternatively, it's like a Creationist deleting sources saying that X percent of teachers refuse to teach ID because they think that it's harmful to science, because they are afraid that it will cause people to question creationism. It's silly, isn't it. There should be nothing wrong with presenting a myth as a myth and a pop culture artifact (EG the modern myths surrounding alien abduction) as a pop culture artifact. Yet some people simply can't stomach that beliefs and stories exist and persist independently from scientific and historic reality. - perfectblue 07:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue, you should know better than that. A pseudoskeptic is a true believer, while a real skeptic is the opposite of a true believer. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Er? (and I apologies if you were being sarcastic) but a True Believe will believe regardless of the evidence, while a Pseudo Skeptic will not believe regardless of the evidence. Therefore they are opposites. A real skeptic will not believe without evidence but will believe with evidence therefore they are not opposite of the others (the others are not evidence based while the other two are not). - perfectblue 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

real skeptic is somebody who won't believe without evidence but will change their mind when presented with suitable proof. Whereas

Entombed animal

I have created an article about entombed animals. If anyone has suggestions for improvement, let me know. Zagalejo 05:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Weeeellll, you've only got one peer reviewed journal entry as a source. I suggest that you find about a couple of dozen more, and maybe a signed affidavit from at least 2 serving Republican senators (or a serving 4 Star General), else the pseuodoskeptics will question its WP:V. - perfectblue 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It'd be better if there were some sources located in the page. --shade11 | (Talk • contribs) 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've cited four sources. What are you looking for, exactly? Zagalejo 05:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology made FA status

Parapsychology has received Wikipedia:Featured article status. Congrats to everyone who participated! --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Shooting Case

Got one for you for the Bigfoot article. It is hdbrp.com/Shooting%20Cases.htm - Police and hunters shoot at Bigfoot. Just some shooting reports. 205.240.146.131 03:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt very much that the pseudoskeptics would suffer that site as a source. I know I would object to it on WP:RS grounds. I suggest hat we avoid it in favor of more credible reports. perfectblue 16:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Damnation" is part of WikiProject Paranormal?, and other subjects...

Why? Especially since the article is more about the profanity "damn" than the concept of damnation. Even then, damnation would be better suited to a religion WikiProject, no? -- 12.116.162.162 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects aren't exclusive of eachother... but yeah, I agree... this does seem like an odd choice and I wouldn't really have a problem with it's removal from the project. ---J.S (T/C/WRE)

This is a faith concept, I've detagged it accordingly. Occasionally this comes up in the discussion of ghosts or myths, but even then it references faith roots. Having it here sets a bad precedents. - perfectblue 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this up again just because it is like acid to my mind: Xenu should NOT be part of the project, because at best, it is a religious subject based on...unique...novelistic premises (see possibly future article "Bad Science Fiction") by a man who openly stated that the "real way to make money [was to] start a religion." Other than Hubbard's dubious claims about souls getting sucked out (...or what the **** EVER...[/slightly POV outlook]) through the use of prehistoric H-BOMBS (?!?)...what does the article POSSIBLY have to do with reported examples of the paranormal or unexplained (to ask once more)? That it's "something strange" could almost make it in, if only anyone has actually seen any actual evidence other than Hubbard's word for the stuff that's claimed. As it stands, if Xenu makes it in, what keeps the Islamic claim of Muhammad being taken up in a flaming chariot rather than dying from getting in? What about the information on the Chinese concept of Chi, which is connected to Taoist precepts, among others, about life? Xenu, as said, is at best a RELIGIOUS concept (if not cultic...), not a paranormal one, since paranormal, to even exist, has to accept scientific study of such claims as the backbone for anything, otherwise there'd be no concept of Normal in the first place.

PLEASE remove Xenu from the project listing. --Chr.K. 12:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Xenu can be dumped (and my impression is that it should be), but I wanted to comment on the demarcation of "paranormal", since it seems to be coming up quite a bit. The use of the adjective "paranormal" is almost always to describe a phenomenon, which is an "observable event". Putting the existence of actual paranormal observable phenomena to the side for a moment, and just assuming that such phenomena is real, it is still something that assumes an observation by someone. Theoretical concepts, like Xenu from millions of years ago, or the theoretical concept of a race of Bigfoots living on Venus, are not by themselves paranormal. Something has to have been observed (and it must lack an apparent scientific explanation). The concept of ghosts as souls of the departed isn't even paranormal until someone claims to have seen one. The concept of chi is not paranormal. Someone saying they have the ability to be able to use chi to heal someone would be a claim of a paranormal ability. Someone saying they met Xenu would be a claim of a paranormal vision. Concepts and theories are not by themselves paranormal.

Now I'm not saying that does or should limit the scope of the paranormal Wikiproject. That's more a matter of choice on the part of the community. Some topics have overlaps that may warrant inclusion eventhough the topic itself is not particularly paranormal. Stonehenge, for example, is not really a paranormal subject. Weird phenomena reported surrounding Stonehenge does make it related however. Same thing with the Pyramids and the Bermuda Triangle. It's a judgment call. I would personally borrow from the notability guidelines and consider whether the paranormal phenomena surrounding the subject is notable to the subject itself.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. I vote strongly that Xenu stays in the project. Yes, Xenu forms part of a religious dogma, but Xenu "himself" is an alien (according to Scientology)and the story of Xenu involve aliens being brought to Earth and directly influencing the history of human civilization. Thus this is basically another UFO/distant origins/ancient astronaut conspiracy story. It should stay in the project for the same reasons that UFO cults and contactee religions stay.

I can't say that I understand your motives for wanting Xenu out. When von Daniken says that ancient Andean religion was started by aliens nobody blinks an eye at the idea being part of the project, yet when Hubbard says something similar its cries of out out out. As for Muhammad, Muhammad wasn't beamed up by aliens or ghosts. His story is solely concerned with religion.

perfectblue 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In Chariots of the Gods?', von Daniken makes the suggestion that angels and/or divine personages were/are in fact extraterrestrial intelligences with access to technology far beyond humanity of that (or even our current) age. This connection should therefore include all similar ancient mythological or religious stories, no? Muhammad's "religious" connections would, according to ancient astronaut theorist von Daniken, imply that Muhammad was an alien contactee. Now, from a POV perspective, I myself don't believe that, but if Hubbard's claims regarding his stories are taken as legitimate Paranormal rather than religious material, why not include all such stories of visitation by non-terrestrial beings, in any and all cultures? Be aware that Wikiproject Paranormal is now (and to my distaste) connected to other Wikiprojects on religions. Also, if we're going to have material that is not backed by scientific inquiry (unless, that is, we're going to include all the material by rational scientists showing how Scientology is not supportable), we need to divide it up into different sections, because I can only assure that the article that I recently nominated (the Battle of Los Angeles) has a H/LL of a lot more objective testimony to support its occurrance than Hubbard's does. --Chr.K. 01:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Muhammad was an alien contactee", then this would be on von Daniken's page as it would be his hypothesis. It would likely fail notability for Muhammad's page unless supported by a Koranic scholar or the subject of a big controversy.

What makes a Koranic scholar more notable for the page than von Daniken, and his own field? This is, obviously, completely subjective thinking, while purely objective thinking would quickly be capable of getting out of hand. --Chr.K. 12:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• "why not include all such stories of visitation by non-terrestrial beings" If it uses a warp drive or wears a spacesuit, then it's in. If they are divine origin, then it's out. That's my line.

Your line is wrong. I can claim right now that the aliens are of divine origin, not extraterrestrial...and I wouldn't be the first; theologian Chuck Missler states compelling evidence for such notion in a book called Alien Encounters (copyright 1997), showing how often different "alien" intelligences make the claim of coming all this way to state that Christianity is wrong. This is not a diatribe on the subject, as it is a point-blank statement that the subjects DO crossover, and not ludicrously (Jacques Vallee is another who has pointed out, though rarely if ever outrightly, that spiritual forces could be the source of a vast number of the reports). To take this crossover notion even further, The Bible Code is a paranormal, utterly strange phenomena if I've ever heard of one (I can only assure you that the Moby Dick comparison does not mirror even 1/100th of the level of the BC phenomenon)...but it's connected to a religious work, and is often clumped into "crazy Christian thinking," along with assertion that it is from God, rather than (as original author Michael Drosnin believes) simply an 'Outside Source.'

To reiterate: your line is wrong. --Chr.K. 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• "legitimate Paranormal" Paranormal is just the name of the project (see below), in reality we deal with aliens too (it's hard to find a short name for a project that deals with aliens, ghosts and legitimate branches of science, too), and Xenu is specifically named as being an alien in Scientology texts. ETs are ETS are ETs. Scientology doesn't even hold that Xenu had any religious powers, he was just a dictator.

Scientology holds that he attempted to blow souls up through the use of Super-H-Bombs. I'd like to see the explanation on how that works. In other news, we need to set down a list of precepts that divide legitimate sightings and reports (of which there are countless) from the outrightly outrageous and idiotic (Hitler's and JFK's Brains Were Brought Together for Secret Argentina Summit Meeting in 1983). --Chr.K. 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• "material that is not backed by scientific inquiry" The recent arbcom actually decided that scientific inquiry need not be a deciding factor as we often deal with thing where the science of the matter is irrelevant to in belief/the existence of the subject matter. For example most urban myths, all but the most notable hauntings, UFO sightings, Contactees. Put bluntly, scientific inquiry is irrelevant to a campfire story about an Indian burial ground, and no scientist worth their salt would risk damaging their reputation by trying to prove/debunk it, yet all that it would take was for a kid to get killed acting it out and it would be worthy of inclusion on grounds of notability alone.

In other words, it's fine to lump together into one big group the 1976 Tehran UFO incident and the Tale of the Hook, despite the fact that the one involved radar and visual confirmation of the unexplained, and the other being an urban legend based off the notion of teenagers being murdered by a psychopath while in the process of having sex in the backseat. Wonderful. --Chr.K. 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• "all the material by rational scientists showing how Scientology is not supportable" That's your call, but please do it on the Scientology page and not here, and be prepared to face the wrath of the angry Scientologists.

It is my fervent desire to give extensive nod to their troves of indisputable wisdom, but this inevitably requires that they actually show some. --Chr.K. 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• "we need to divide it up into different sections" That's why we have categories. We're too few in number to have a separate project for ghost, aliens, myths and so on and there are just so many cross overs. It's not practical. They'd be merged back together within a year.

Very well. We need a "Nutjob Cult Belief" category or subProjectg, and tag Xenu as such...after all, that was the summary given by TIME magazine in the 1980s, a rather notable source. --Chr.K. 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Battle of Los Angeles .... objective testimony .. support ...Hubbard's does" I'd have to say that the two subjects have very little in common apart from aliens being mentioned in both stories. BLA is about a real life event that has as yet unexplained factors (what was being shot at, if anything, for a start) and which has sparked many hypothesis. It is notable for being real and unexplained and for being the subject of conspiracy stories. Whereas Hubbard's case is that of a belief without proven foundation that is notable for its controversy and it's famous adherents. You're not comparing like with like. That's like comparing the mystery of who built the sphinx to a bigfoot sighting. - perfectblue 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Aliens have never been mentioned in the Battle of Los Angeles, ever; the source of the lights and/or objects remains undetermined to this day. Also, the Sphinx is actually sitting there, in Egypt, and reports of unexplained biped lifeforms are numerous on more than one continent. Please show me (or have someone somewhere show me) physical evidence that Xenu actually existed, other than the fact that nuclear physics does indeed allow for thermonuclear weapons, or that late-1970s jet airliners can travel trillions of kilometers through interstellar space. --Chr.K. 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Nealparr. I think that you've misunderstood the nature of Project Paranormal. We needed an all encompassing project name, and "paranormal" seemed short and sweet. However, the project does not deal exclusively deal with the paranormal, it deals with a great many things that aren't paranormal, too. For example it deals with hoaxes and perfectly explainable phenomona, as well as branch physics and pseudoscience. We also deal with debunking. Members such as myself delight in a good solid debunking, it proves that science works. In fact, maybe half of all pages tagged with our tag are actually about pop culture artifacts such as urban myths and legends or weird and wonderful claims by guys such as David Icke and Bob Lazar; Most of which are about bad science and bad history rather than spooks and ghosts, or stories such as that of Mel Walters. Basically, if it claims to fall out side of known science, or has aliens and things that go bump in the night in it, then it's fair game. - perfectblue 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

All-encompassing is not in the project description/mission statement and really only represents the viewpoint of some of the project members. In any case, if that is to be the scope, the name would need to be changed. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject SciFi or Wikipedia:WikiProject Fringe Science would be more appropriate. The name "paranormal" and the mission statement/description "having to do with the paranormal" causes confusion on talk pages of non-paranormal subjects. It should be somewhat limited in scope. Xenu is not really a paranormal subject just because it deals with aliens. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we are on the same wavelength here. Project:scifi implies fiction (the fi in scifi is fiction) while much of we are dealing with is facts (facts as in "A real myth", not as in "the myth is true", an das in a proven hoax or a belief that it can be verified that people hold). Besides, most people would think that scifi means startrek and so on. Project Fringe science would be equally problematic. For example, how would you square fringe science with entries about mainstream science like archeology which can become entangled in the paranormal by association? or with things that exist in popular culture that are noting whatsoever to do with fringe science (the black eyed kid urban myth, the haunted ebay painting myth etc). As for Xenu not being in the scope because it deals with aliens, what about UFO cults and ancient astronauts, Xenu could be counted under both. - perfectblue 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep it just about the paranormal and not be all-encompassing. At the very least the topic should have a strong connection to the paranormal and not just a weak connection. UFO cults involve many paranormal-related phenomena and claims of appearances and abilities. Ancient astronauts involve evidence of past visits by extraterrestrials that is contrary to the accepted historical timeline. UFO cults and ancient astronauts are not by themselves paranormal, it's the peripheral phenomena that make them strongly associated with the paranormal (same thing with straight religion and mythology). Xenu doesn't have that same strong connection. 1) Because it (supposedly) happened millions of years ago, and 2) Because there's no evidence or direct observation left behind to be unexplainable by science. By comparison, it's just a story. The story of ancient astronauts is a mythology that the case makers believe is made through evidence. That's the big difference. It's the same difference that regulates unicorns and dragons to mythology and out of the realm of paranormal. Once a sighting takes place, or evidence is found that might suggest actual real unicorns, it moves from mythology to paranormal. Until then it's just mythology. Jesus turning water into wine is mythology until someone claims to find a cup that causes miraculous healing and is tied to Jesus and used to hold the water/wine. Paranormal is strongly attached to phenomena. Without phenomena, it's sci-fi, mythology, and so on. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: The biggest connection between UFO cults and the paranormal isn't actually UFO phenomena. It's channeling phenomena. The paranormal aspect is that the cult leaders claim to be in contact, typically by channeling or telepathy, with extraterrestrial races. That's what makes UFO cults, alt-spiritual movements like Theosophy, Spiritualism, etc. paranormal-related. For the purposes of this project, I feel (and it's the written mission statement), that this project deals with the paranormal side of it. The rest is properly a mythology/religion project. There's some overlaps, to be sure, and some of these things belong under more than one category. But if it's not really strongly related to the paranormal -- biography of Madame Blavatsky for example, or the religious side of Wicca -- it doesn't really belong here. Blavatsky's psychic stuff, sure. Wiccan spellcrafting, sure. The "normal" stuff (Xenu mythology, etc.), not really. Hubbard channeling Xenu, sure. Xenu as an alien character in a religious movement's mythology, not really. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is my belief, perfectblue, that this reality does a disservice to the legitimate anomalistical studies, such as ufology, cryptozoology and xenoarchaeology (the study of the weird structures found on Mars, etc). There should be a subdivision between the urban legendish material and the anomalistic or paranormal. --Chr.K. 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Except, that we don't just deal with science, we also deal with myth and popular culture. I stand by my position, Xenu is a myth/text about an alien impacted on the course of human history, therefore it should be included just like the modern myth about the pleadian aliens and so on. - perfectblue 17:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Pleidean story, on legal grounds, has more than one witness to its implied veracity. Xenu does not. --Chr.K. 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If two people were to claim have MET Xenu, here and now in the present, I would agree it should go here. Since they haven't, it should go in Religion only. --Chr.K. 01:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Von Danaken never claimed to have met an ancient astronaut. Do claims of race memories count? - perfectblue 17:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Veracity aside, the Pleadians are a good example of what I'm talking about above. Pleadians themselves, whether they exist or not, are not by themselves paranormal. What's paranormal is the host of psychics/channelers who say they are in contact with them telepathically and/or channel them. A Pleadian ship (UFO) wouldn't even be paranormal. A Pleadian ship that goes faster than the speed of light and delivers its passengers to Earth intact would be. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So, the ghosts of the people whom Xenu is supposed to have murdered aren't paranormal, nor is the claim that people recover memories of past lives about Xenu? I'm surprised at that. - perfectblue 17:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A "find on page" search of the Xenu article returns 0 mentions of "ghosts". "Past lives" is only mentioned once. How notable are those paranormal phenomena to the actual Xenu story? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what you might be looking for is a spin-off article that would be more closely tied to the paranormal, for example Xenu (paranormal aspects) which would cover the ghosts and whatnot. This would solve the question of scope in the same way that the Jimmy Carter article wouldn't be under the scope of the project, but Jimmy Carter UFO sighting would. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, I can accept the notion given by perfectblue that a single overall name for the subjects is needed; however, I would've chosen the name to be Wikiproject:Unexplained, which is a pretty simple standard. In such case, the notion of Pleadians being claimed to be real, and the concept of channeling them, would both apply to the overall term. Then again, given that the very existence of Pleadians would at least give pause to many worldwide held beliefs, it could be argued that the term paraNORMAL is far too specific in modern practice. --Chr.K. 22:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Unexplained? but much of what we right about has been explained, which is the whole point of it, the skeptics would eat that title alive saying that it tried to lend legitimacy to anything under its auspices. What about photographic sprites, the William Hopes ghost photographs, the Carter UFO sighting, and so on. All of which have been explained and are no longer mysteries. Unexplained also implies that the subject is a real mystery which is simply not the case in the case of paranormal urban myths which are nothing more than spook stories that have become notable through their spread and duration. - perfectblue 17:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology FA dispute

As you might expect, there is now a dispute on the Wikipedia:Featured articles page over whether parapsychology is part of psychology or part of Religion, mysticism and mythology- in other words (in all reality), there is a dispute over whether it is to be given the status of science. Your opinions would be welcome. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: This is getting big. What I at first assumed to be the usual paranormal-hater turned out to be a member of the Arbitration Committee! He kept edit warring parapsychology back into mythology and religion, then when I flagged the article, he reverted that also, and protected the page.

Link to the FA page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe some of the silly arguments that are being put up there. Parapsychology as religion; Would that would make James Randi a cleric and PEAR a seminary? Parapsychology as mythology? Well, I guess that would put Edgar Cayce on par with a Unicorn, and would make William Hope some kind of legendary figure. - perfectblue 12:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The functional issue was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The issue of abuse of power by a member of the Arbitration committee was never resolved, however. I asked that it be explained how such a dispute could be taken to the next level, and by the silence which greeted this request, I assume that the Arbitrator -an individual editor- has total power on that page, with no recourse. He is also willing to edit, revert, and protect the page based on his POV regarding the paranormal. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Latin America

Has anybody got anything good on that story about the impact in Latin America that apparently made loads of people ill. As a current event it can be sourced from new sources rather than academic sources. - perfectblue 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found This which I think would be a perfect source. It passes WP:V and WP:RS and includes a skeptical analysis from named experts. The only issue, what to call the article itself. If only we could get a good fair use image. - perfectblue 17:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Natural events usually get titled (eg) 2007 United Kingdom floods, so 2007 Peru meteorite strike seems fine to me. Does this remind anyone else of Backwater by Brian Eno? Totnesmartin 10:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the tabloid approach (pop culture style naming), for example Carangas incident, but I guess that's not to everybody's tastes and I can see it drawing the ire of the pseudo skeptics like a magnet. - perfectblue 17:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it's on In The News at the mo (yer tis me dears), so we've been beaten to it. Still, we can go over there and add our tuppenyworth... Totnesmartin 16:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Badbilltucker

Lately User:Badbilltucker has been adding the project paranormal banner to a lot of pages. While I commend this effort, I've got a few issue with some of their choices. For example, putting the banner onto Archaeological forgery and Etruscan terracotta warriors, Tiara of Saitaferne. As these pages stand, these pages and a number of others that have been tagged make no real mention of the paranormal, either in popular culture or in research controversy, and have no visible links to the paranormal at all.

I don't think that it would be very helpful to round behind the user and second guess (Wikistalking?) them so I've dropped a quick note on their user page. Does anybody here feel like dropping buy and saying hi, thanks for the assist, but ...., or should we leave it for the wider community to vote with their edits?

perfectblue 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Electronic voice phenomena has been nominated for GA status. The more eyes on it the better. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Colors

It's come to my attention that the colors used in some of the project stuff -the white print on black background- isn't as lovable as it could be. I don't know where this stuff is set, but I'm wondering if maybe there could be some better colors? I've thought it needed improvement for a long time, and now another editor took out a box and called it ugly, so I know I'm not alone. But it seems to be set project-wide, so I can't just go change it. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"lovable?" We're talking infobox for the paranormal here, not kittens and bunnies. Black is there perfect color. All of the infoboxes, the main logos, and so on use black. Changing the project colors would require that they all be re-written, too. Which would not only create more work, but would also risk breaking the consensuses that we have already established on appearence and suitability.

You should also be aware that infoboxes and taxoboxes for different projects have their own colors so as not to create confusion between them. If you use the colors used by another project you risk blurring the lines, which should be doubly avoided in a project like ours which places its template on so many different pages that are covered by other projects, too. For example, you wouldn't want to have the cryptozooology infobox being confused with a zoological taxobox. One is about myth an dthe other is about Science fact, having the same colors would be "problematic". The same goes for geography, history, biography taxoboex (Not to mention creative fiction projects). We can't use a color already taken by anybody else whose ethos (fact or pure fiction, etc) clashes with our own, which sharply cuts down our choices.

Also, by making the project "lovable" rather than Gothic we run the risk we not only risk loosing our identity, but we also risk the ire of those who disapprove of the project. I can just imagine what they'd saw. They'd accuse us of trying to use a light and airy scheme, or more serious looking one, to try and make the paranormal seem like science or "harmless fun" (graphical POV pushing, if you will). Efforts to introduce a "lovable" mascot were met with consensus against for similar reasons.

We are the X-Files of Wikipedia, and black is the most appropriate color. I for one wouldn't take an entry about MID or spooks seriously if it were pink or pastel.

perfectblue 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really look like X-Files to me. By "lovable," I just mean a little less unpleasant to look at. As far as being afraid of POV-pushing from others on Wikipedia, I had no idea X-Files fans were so darn lilly-livered. They can hang themselves: we can do whatever we want graphically. In terms of Gothic, I don't see anything appropriate about that in particular.

As far as it being too much work, now that's a good reason (:

For a mascot, I suggest your Wikipetan, or something spooky: lovable or unlovable.

I'd like to suggest to members of this project that they shouldn't modify their behavior based on the trollishness, POV-pushing or accusations of others. I've been all the way through ArbCom in defense of NPOV on paranormal articles, and if that's what it takes to prevent the kind of silly snarking you're afraid of, that's what we should do. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a lot of work. You change the color in one place and it changes the colors everywhere. That's why they're templates. That said, I don't really like the boxes in articles at all really. Talk pages, etc, just fine, and black is a good color. But they look bad in the articles and I doubt an article would reach featured status with one in it.

I also don't know why every conversation here has to have a hostile "us vs. them" or "the skeptics are out to get us" comment. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't look at me! Don't look at me!! I didn't start it, SHE started it!!!

I don't really like the boxes either- don't seem to be much use. Hate the colors though (-= ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, it looks as if things have gotten off on the wrong foot. I'll rephrase my comments above.

1. We already have a consensus in regards to the main paranormal logos. This being the likes of the "P-files" and the "man being abducted" logo etc, these use the same white on black/black on white scheme and would there would either need to be consensus to keep them as they are or work to change them and accept them.
2. I already tried and failed to introduce a less heavy look and feel to the project (mascot etc), what we have at the moment is the compromise that we reached then. While I don't believe that things should be set in stone I don't want to see a return to some of the infighting that we had back then. There were some less than friendly exchanges.
3. As a project that crosses many boundaries, we need a firm and fixed identity that visually separates our infoboxes from the infoboxes of other projects. This is especially important as we often place infoboxes that deal with "facts of belief" onto pages where there can legitimately exist taxoboxes that deal with "fact of science" as well as infoboxes that deal with facts in geography, literature, history and so on. It would be "problematic" for our infoboxes to resemble those of other projects. For example, if we were to place a paranormal creatures infobox on a page about vampire bats that also contained a zoology taxobox we need to make clear that our infobox is easily distinguishable from the science based taxobox. The same runs true for any science based boxes. We need a separate look to distinguish the science in their box from the culture in ours. This cuts down our choice of colors quite a bit.
4. In relation to the above, black and Gothic is good framing for the topic.
5. Black and Gothic is actually very appropriate. Think Men in black, darkened rooms, black projects, Gothic mansions, redacted documents. It's a nice theme. Sure, we can change it a little, maybe make the fonts less heavy or something, but the current colors are highly thematic. There is a lot of pop culture association.
6. As for Us V Them, well, I'm afraid that we've been the "Them" for a long time now in the minds of neo-conservative editors and pseudoskeptics. I'm not one for self censorship, indeed I've publicly campaigned against it outside of Wikipedia for years (not really relevant here, though), but I'd rather not start an argument now that things are settling down. It'd only take a couple of pseudoskeptics to come along and say that we're trying to make our project infoboxes look like another projects boxes in order to associate unscientific ideas with facts and it'd start the whole nasty ball rolling again.

As for FA status, while I'd like as many FA entries as possible, I think that the very nature of the project will mean that people will vote against nominations on principle regardless of the infoboxes we used. I've seen it quite often, we put up a citation confirming that a belief is real or that claim was made, and they try to knock it down on the grounds that the source wasn't a scientific one, even though we're dealing with pop culture and not science. -

perfectblue 08:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the look perfectblue, and the colors. Aside from them being clunky and not likely to remain in GA/FA articles, there's no reason to change them. Like you said, the majority of articles are unlikely to reach that status. I especially like the logos. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I'd known it was this heavy a subject, I wouldn't have said anything. Infighting? I'm sure there's good reasons for what's there. I was only trying to make the colors a little nicer. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Robert Dean (Ufologist)

Anyone know about this guy? If so, head over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Dean (Ufologist). Zagalejo^^^ 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I left the actual message at the Collaboration talk page, but it seems like people don't check there very often... Cheers!! Ninety^{wazup?Review me}_{My ToDo}^{sign here!} 20:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Precognition

Precognition is now up for Peer Review, if you want to add your ha'porth. Totnesmartin 09:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Radionics

The article needs attention, and has been the subject of POV-pushing. Currently protected. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gurdon Light

Need a paranormal tag on that article. Thanks. 65.163.112.214 03:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal infoboxes

Discussion here, have your say. - LuckyLouie 04:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion belongs here, please move it and provide a link. - perfectblue 09:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

NealParr suggested I notify this project of the discussion as a courtesy, which I did. Any moving of the discussion will have to be done by someone else. - LuckyLouie 17:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

NealParr should never have had to have suggested it, notifying the parent project should have been right at the top of your list. Not notifying us would be a serious breach of trust and would have left you open to the serious allegation that you were trying to build a one-sided consensus that excluded project members.

I'd also like to point out that you should have personally notified the creator of each of the templates. For example, you raised concerns about the wording of the instructions on the template, but you left it up to chance that the creator would see this single posting here and in time to post an explanation of their text. This is the Wiki-equivalent of absentia. I trust you see where I'm coming from.

perfectblue 18:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Noticeboard on fringe theories

In case, for some odd reason, you didn't notice the telepathic announcement made to the Paranormal project members earlier (apparently in July when the page was created), this post is to make sure everyone knows about this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

I'm surprised all the members of the paranormal project weren't informed when it was put up for AfD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

Very surprised indeed.

It was created by User:Moreschi Contributions. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are people out there who do not want ANY forums to exist which demonstrate that fringe, paranormal, or unscientific beliefs exist. They appear to be afraid that acknowledging the existence of belief will lead to the continuation of belief and the questioning of current thinking.

Such people would like nothing more than to silence both believers and debunkers because they are both drawing attention to a belief that they themselves would rather didn't exist. - perfectblue 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

True. However, such people should not edit these articles out of existance because this is wikipedia. Articles on all possibilities are allowed here, and we may be benefitting a science in our midst.brickdude 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Chitauri

Somebody is trying to gather some interest in creating a new Chitauri page after the certain users managed to AFD it (It was a rather weird debate as I recall, for some reason some people argued that it should be deleted because there were more notable uses of the word Chitauri; mostly in Marvel comics. And I don't recall there being any deletion criteria that hinge on there being a more common use of the word). For more information see Talk:Chitauri

perfectblue 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A new Chitauri page is in need of creation. However, to avoid the deletion of it like the previous one, perhaps it could be labeled as Chitauri (Paranormal). Either way, I'm all for helping out. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gathered some ideas and material, but I'm planning to use it as a sub heading on David Icke. I feel that the forces at play against paranormal entries will simply try to AFD a pure Chitauri on notability guidelines again. It's got more chance of surviving as a redirect to a section on Chitauri on Ike's page so our it would be more productive to start there. Maybe it will grow and be split out, maybe it won't but it's still more likely to survive there. - perfectblue 19:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That should work for now. I'll look around for some lesser-known bits.brickdude —Preceding comment was added at 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal Image deletion: have your say

[2], anybody have an opinion on this?

Honestly, I wonder at some people.

perfectblue 20:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What a confusing argument. It doesn't seem to make sense, and if I could have voted, I would have stuck with keep. BRiCKDuDE102692 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Haunted Locations

Not sure if this is allowed, but is it possible for lists of haunted locations per country, city, state, etc., to be created? It would be far more accurate than the current List of haunted locations. All in favor and who wish to help say so so we can get this on track. BRiCKDuDE102692 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that a more localized list would probably be targeted for deletion on notability grounds. There's strength in numbers here. Things that might not pass notability individually can pass notability if they are part of something bigger. - perfectblue 20:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why not start a project for there articles? It would give it support and allow others to help with it. I don't know how to request a project, but this one might work. BRiCKDuDE102692 20:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've had a look at creating projects, could project paranormal be a parent project for the aforementioned? It would get much support mainly because people like to put their town "on the map." We should have no problem gathering the necessary information. I would like to ask whomever is in charge of project paranormal if this could be allowed. I don't think it would be nice to create it and then stick it on like a parasite or something...brickdude 05:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a list of "haunted locations". I think that it would be very difficult to compile the info into a good article without POV or original research and with reliable sources. I think perhaps an article with a list of the very most notable locations where hauntings purportedly occur might work, but that's about it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I suppose it would be better to do that. Regardless, we need to replace or improve list of haunted locations. brickdude^_^ 01:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(Important) Note about Arbcom proposal

An editor has proposed that all editors who belong to this project be prohibited from editing scientific or skeptic related articles. I thought everyone here should know this due to the possible implications of every member here. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, do any of us really ever edit scientific or skeptic related entries? Aside from everyday stuff like TV shows or current affairs, I mostly only ever edit Paranormal articles. perfectblue 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WTF!? Horrible, horrible proposal. This assumes we're just a bunch of nuts trying to push a pro-paranormal agenda. I, for one, consider myself a skeptic. I just enjoy reading about UFOs, cryptids, ghosts, etc for the entertainment value.

Though I don't think I've actually made any serious contributions to a purely scientific article, I'd still hate to be banned from such articles merely because I signed my name to a project page. Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the motion will be given serious consideration, it's just too silly. In effect it would ban all project members from editing anything to do with geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry and so on, even though the vast majority of these entries have never been the site of a Paranormal-skeptic dispute.

Of course, it would also be problematic in situations where an entry crosses over, like Parapsychology. We see it as being the scientific face of the paranormal, but they don't, would that mean that we were banned from it or not, or that we would only be banned from it if we believed that it was a science, but not if we thought that it was hokum?

perfectblue 20:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A LOT of the members of this project are either skeptics or scientists or both who happen to be interested in the paranormal and editing such articles. Banning them from scientific and skeptical related articles just because they are a member here is simply absurd. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite an unfortunate and poorly considered ArbCom proposal. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Relax. It's just a user's proposal to the ArbCom. It will not happen. The ArbCom is generally conservative- which may be good, because it is not able to actually fully consider much of the evidence placed before it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WTF! I've just added my name to the "participants" list - should I revert/AfD all my non-paranormal zoology edits? </sarcasm> Totnesmartin 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that the editor beleives we the members of Wikiproject:Paranormal are completely insane. Of course they probably treat this project as a fictious collection rather than a study of the unusual. As I have said before, some people just can't accept the fact that weirdness is a part of everyday life. And to wikidudeman yes some of us are scientists and skeptics, but there are also paranormal invvsetigators like myself here too. (I don't mean this as a negative statement, but rather just a fun fact)BRiCKDuDE102692 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, thanks for letting the members of Wikiproject Paranormal know of the Arbcom. This Arbitration case is important for them as was the last. Totnesmartin, in answer to your question, if my remedy were accepted in the whole, the answer to your question would be no. Members of this project could still edit any article in Wikipedia, the proposal simply prohibits adding material to physical science which is not backed up by mainstream publications. Zagalejo, I consider myself a skeptic as well, basically an open-minded skeptic of paranormal material. Whether one is skeptical or not; should not matter to obtain really good articles dealing with Paranormal subjects here at Wikipedia. I wouldn't consider anyone here 'a bunch of nuts' other than myself from time to time; you wouldn't be banned from any article (see above). Perfectblue, you would be banned from nothing (see limitation mentioned above), you could still edit and contribute to scientific articles at free will and to physical science articles so long as it is mainstream (backed up by reliable well sourced information); you could still edit Parapsychology as there is a section in the remedy which allows Paranormal and Rational Skeptics editors to edit this article (because of the same reasons you mention). Ceyockney and J.Smith, it is rather well thought out and looks to the root problem with these Arbcom cases; otherwise I would not have proposed this solution. In all, the main effect is to limit Rational Skeptics members from editing the main area of paranormal articles, (though they may edit skeptics or criticism sections thereof) and to limit Paranormal editors regarding physical science to mainstream material. BRiCKDuDE103692, I am a member of this project and although I sometimes question my own sanity with the decisions I make; I consider members of both projects rather rational whether skeptic or paranormal in orientation. It is only the few who make it harder on the rest of us. Martinphi, you are correct; it is only a proposed solution, Arbcom could reject it. If anyone here has a proposal to make my remedy more fair in your light or of your own to tackle the root problems, I am all ears, well eyes, as is Arbcom I am sure. I am also open for discussion on removing my remedy and replacing it with something all here think would be fairer to all concerned.--Northmeister 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Members of this project could still edit any article in Wikipedia, the proposal simply prohibits adding material to physical science which is not backed up by mainstream publications. That's not clear from the proposal as currently written, but I can live with that. I mean, this is just WP:RS, right?

Reading your response, it actually seems like your proposal hurts the skeptics' project more than this one. I think Rational Skeptics should be free to edit any paranormal article, as long as they do so with care. Plenty of unsourced junk accumulates in the main areas of those pages, and the skeptics could help with cleanup. Zagalejo^^^ 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Physical science? in the context of editing, what EXACTLY is that supposed to mean? For example, does that mean that I couldn't edit an entry on earthquakes? Where's the sense in that? What about things where there is a dispute over whether something is science or not, or mainstream or not? What about alleged black technology, are anti-gravity devices physical science, are conspiracy claims about microwave or energy weapons physical science. To me they're urban myths with basis in popular culture but not science, but unscrupulous users could stand up and say that because they relate to physics they are covered even though the entries themselves would have no scientific content.

It's quite frankly, its also completely unworkable, particularly where new members were involved. Join the project, loose your right to edit half of Wikipedia, but don't find out about it until some admin nails you to the ceiling.

It's not going to work. censure must be handed out on an individual basis based on individual transgressions. For example, I've not done anything to deserve being booted out of physical science entries as I rarely, if ever, edit them (I usually stick to popular culture), so why should I be censured for the actions of others?

perfectblue 09:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be listed in the urban legends category

A template on this page is causing it to be listed as part of the category. Not sure if this proper . Also afraid removing might screw up the page. Ridernyc 10:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, which page are we talking about. The project page, yes? - perfectblue 12:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Ridernyc is talking about the project page, not this discussion page. I've posed the question at WP:VPT#Selective template-based inclusion in categories of how one might use a template like {{urbanlegend}} as an example in an instructional page like WP:PARA without being added to its "includeonly" category. (Anyone who doesn't understand that gobbledegook, don't worry; I'm hoping a MediaWiki guru will just tell us what stuff to tweak. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Eureka! Nihiltres pointed me to a practice which appears to be fairly common: adding a "categories=no" parameter whenever one wants to display a template but not automatically include it in the usual category that template adds. One must add some arcane conditional text to the template itself (described for the brave at User:Willscrlt/UBX/categories), after which it's easy to suppress the category. Thus:

{{urbanlegends|categories=no}}

allows WP:PARA to show what the template looks like on the tagged page, but doesn't add WP:PARA to Category:Urban legends. I've updated the template and tweaked its use here so WP:PARA is no longer in that category. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Untagged Articles

Unbelivably, Paranormal is not tagged, and I don't know how to tag it...can somebody tag it? brickdude 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And Unidentified Flying Objects...brickdude 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And Cryptozoology and Parapsychology...is there a tag for WikiProject Paranormal? brickdude 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

They're tagged on their respective talk pages. See Talk:Paranormal, for example. Zagalejo^^^ 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh terribly sorry about that...brickdude^_^ 19:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Help

To all monsieurs, mesdames, and madamoiselles of this project: what exactly can one do to greatly assist this project? I am willing to help, but I am not quite sure how to go about doing so. I apologize for consuming time, but can someone light a path? Or, in this case, direct me to a lesser traversed path? brickdude 03:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much every paranormal article could use additional references (from reliable sources) and some copyediting. Lots of them should also be rewritten for neutrality. Do you have a specific area of expertise? Zagalejo^^^ 05:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes. My expertise is ghosts and Parapsychology (check my userpage to see why). But I'm open to help on anything really. I'm just not used to not having an agenda...brickdude 06:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi brickdude, check out the parapsychology WikiProject. There is a list there of articles that need help. See you there (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of users out there, whom I won't name because I could be spoken of badly for doing so, whom might question your contributions in this field. Specifically they might quote wiki-regs at you such WP:V, WP:RS and WP:Fringe and they might accuse you of something called POV pushing. Don't take this personally. Your standard response to such actions should be to find the strongest possible sources from the most well regarded publications, individuals or institutes, that you can find and use them as the basis of your entries to show that you are acting in good faith and that all of your information can be traced to valid third party research. You should also put in as many strong sources as you can, if you can find anything from reputable mainstream scientific journals put it in, even if you already have other sources that you think are sufficient, put it it. When dealing with things that appear in popular culture, such as famous haunting stories or UFO sightings, find as many sources from big name newspapers as you can, too. Avoid sourcing to shows like ghosthunter or to personal websites or low circulation books. Also avoid anything overly flamboyant or that has more provocation than substance. It sounds like a tough regiment, but we've had a lot of arguments in the past with the above unnamed users over content and the better and more reliably sourced something is the less trouble it is to defend your edits if the need should arise.

perfectblue 19:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any problems I may have caused. My intentions are not as such, but sometimes my beleif in the paranormal creates some POV issues. I do not wish to be a nuisance; I want to help the best that I can.

The problem here is that some of the best tibits of information are found in lesser-known publications. I shall find better information to back up my edits. Thank you for informing me of this problem. brickdude^_^ 19:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to be NPOV when you're on one of the sides. However, if you can put yourself in someone else's shoes then hopefully it wouldn't be a problem. Liking a topic is actually an advantage - if I didn't believe in the paranormal then I wouldn't have amassed my largish book collection, which I can bring to bear on various topics. Also my lifelong interest can help me judge if a statement "rings true" or "smells fishy". so don't worry too much about believing. and if you get it wrong sometimes, it'll just get altered a bit (or reverted if it's really bad). Another thing that helps me is having interests outside paranormal subjects, where I can edit while waiting for my temper to cool down after some pseudosceptic finally ^$%^$s me off. Totnesmartin 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black-Eyed Kids (BEKs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black-Eyed Kids (BEKs). Come opine! Zagalejo^^^ 18:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Another case of people who without an interest in the subject area trying to say what is and isn't notable? Seriously, I wonder if people claiming notability ever actually look before they AFD, or is this simply a case of "I've never heard of it so it can't be notable. I've never heard of most Australian cricketers therefore they can't be notable, can they? perfectblue (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist case closed

This long-running case has finally closed. The result is at the link. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I like point 4, it goes nicely with the ARB com decision that a page should detail controversy where it exists.

perfectblue (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good News

The recoded To do list is now back on line. It reads all paranormal entries and flags up any with specific tags on them. - perfectblue (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashtar Sheran merge proposal

I've placed a merge tag on the above article. Please add to the debate! Totnesmartin (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal Stub Template

I'd like to change the icon on the paranormal-stub template from the photoshop of a ghost walking down some stairs to the P-files logo. The former isn't at all clear when shrunk down to that size, I had to expand it to full size simply to see what it actually was. A the P-Files is one of our project logo's I think that it should be on the template.

perfectblue (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, either nobody objects, or nobody is reading this. I'll give it a day or so and then change the image if nobody can give a good reason not to. - perfectblue (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead! Totnesmartin (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, who does read this page? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have it on my watchlist! :) Zagalejo^^^ 02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I read it, for a start. - perfectblue 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Occasionally. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No to fiction

In relation to the above, I've just detagged Mogdaan, it's a movie monster and thus not part of the project. - perfectblue 13:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done a whole shedload (and will continue after me chip butty), and also removed several articles about ancient sites (Carnac etc) for which no paranormal claims are made in the text. Totnesmartin 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed over 40, and added 2: Mad Gasser of Mattoon had had our tag removed by "anon"; Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 has a paranormal connection because of the ghost story attached to it. Totnesmartin 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Will-o'-the-wisp/Ghostlight Merger Damages Wikipedia Credibility

Ghostlight is currently merged with Will-o'-the-wisp. the intro for the latter causes readers to believe that a ghostlight is in a swampy area, when in fact the Marfa Lights, a ghostlight in Iran are in desert locations. This kind of bulls**t will damage Wikipedia's reputation by the fact that some of these things are seen in non-swampy land, even in desert lands. Suggest that this merger NOT take place at all. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WTF is with the continual merger with these two articles ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is a silly merger, but for another reason. It implies that ghost lights are a form of will o the wisp, when it is the other way round. Will o the wisp is a form of ghost light that refers specifically to a limited subset of ghost lights found in a limited subset of European and American folklore. - perfectblue (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The moment you find a reliable source for this contention, let us know. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Magic (Harry Potter)

This article is covered by our project. Why? it's entirely fictional. Is anyone propsing that it's real? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

All paranormal stuff is fiction. Nick mallory (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the attitude that we don't need here. There's a difference between something being fictional and something not being real. To put it simply, Harry Potter is self professed fiction that exists solely as a work of fiction, the paranormal exists as myth, legend and belief which is proposed to be true or which was at one time believed to be possible. If something is written purely for entertainment and never professes to be anything more then it should not carry the project banner. - perfectblue 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not very helpful here.

I would remove the tag, as that article doesn't really fall under the scope of this project. Zagalejo^^^ 02:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Totnesmartin 15:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I put it there in the first place. I'd keep it as the article's topic has a significant bearing on how young people come to perceive paranormal phenomena later. __meco 17:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a point, but as Zagalejo said, this project doesn't cover fictional works. Magic is better covered by the occult wikiproject, which also covers the article. However we could replace the tag if anyone else can put up a good argument why we should cover fiction. Totnesmartin 20:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets not get into including fictional works in our scope unless there is a demonstrateable impact within one of the paranormal sub-topics. As to Nick's POV statement... lets just move on. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about this and if keeping fiction out is to be basically a no exception rule, let's not include it. However, if exceptions are to be granted this one certainly warrants some serious deliberation. __meco 12:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that we can't make "rules" here, but I think that it should be agreed to the extend that we are permitted to that we avoid adding the project tag onto fiction that is published as fiction for the purpose of entertainment, even if it contains elements of the paranormal, or if it is inspired by something that would otherwise have the project's tag on it. For example, the film Fire in the Sky would be out, even though the Travis Walton abduction (on which it was based) would be in. There, of course should be some room for fiction to be tagged if there is sufficient reason, because some things are ambiguous. - perfectblue 15:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible exceptions to the non-rule would be (for example) the Book Thin Air, which was cited as fact by philadelphia experiment writers, only for the authors to reveal that it was actually fiction. so a work of fiction that impacts on the topic that way could be covered. But yes, let's not cover fictionalised/dramatic adapations like Fire in the Sky or the project would get ridiculously big, and there are relatively few of us currently engaging with an already wide-ranging project. Totnesmartin 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There will be cases where we would want "fictional" works in our project.... but there should be some impact in the "real-world" paranormal... stuff. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there will alway be some exceptions. For example: The Travis Walton experience would be one, as would many ".... in popular culture" that involved cryptids, spooks and UFOs, etc. - perfectblue (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot and Project updates

SatyrBot is now updating the project maintenance a little differently than before. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/To do list short and each of the sub-lists: Cleanup‎, ‎Expansion‎, Expert attention‎, NPOV issues, Verification‎, and Wikification‎.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Very cool indeed. - perfectblue (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing Trend

I've noticed a rather disturbing trend of late. Several users have been posting issues relating to this project on the Fringe Science noticeboard rather than on this notice board: Including a couple of relating specifically to our templates. Project members should be aware of this and should check the board regularly.

I don't know where policy stands on this, but I have concerns about any attempts to raise consensus for/against something relating to the project where project members are not made aware in sufficient time to say their peice.

perfectblue (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You've brought up a good point. I've entered a reply to your note at WP:FT/N#Infobox Paranormalterms to address your concern.

I had previously mentioned a similar concern on the talk page of the noticeboard. It seems to me that the instructions for the use of that page need to be improved to make the process more fair and transparent. Comments are welcome in that regard on the noticeboard talk page in this section. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Price (remote viewer)

I don't know much about remote viewing, but if anyone does, they might want to stop by this discussion. Zagalejo^^^ 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

UFO Watchdog

UFO Watchdog is used to criticize people like Linda Howe, Richard Hoagland. When evidence is found criticizing skeptics, such as Philip Klass, criticisim is not permitted. Evidence is on ufowatchdog.com is on the "Hall of Shame, 7th entry on it". When I or someone else places it, it gets tossed, while it gets to stay in articles concerning "pro paranormal" people and some investigators. Why is that ? It criticizes both sides. I was directed to go here about this matter. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This needs settling real FAST, since someone could take this the wrong way, and it will make Wikipedia to appear to be "Pro Skeptic", and that may be used by other sites, such as Jeff Rense's website AS evidence of a sick govt. conspiracy (Maybe the CIA operation called Operation Mockingbird and/or the Robertson Panel, both used to manipulate all media, incl. Wikipedia) that he and others may be promoting. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Seen this matter. Where is the Third opinion ? Why is it that paranormal investigators and those who "pro paranormal" as someone put it have UFO Watchdog used AS evidence of criticisim against them, and UFO Watchdog's evidence of it criticising skeptics NOT allowed. Is Philip Klass Sacred or something ?! I thought Wikipedia is not censored. 65.163.112.28 (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Remote Viewing Template up for deletion

The Remoe Viewing Template has been listed for deletion on the grounds that "remote viewing is obsure".

Make your views felt here

perfectblue (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Requests:

• Armed confrontations with the paranormal - Some paranormal reports do in fact mention armed confrontation, there are both military and civilian reports of this nature, such as people shooting at UFOs, aliens (The Kelly-Hopkinsville Encounter is one example), Bigfoot. 65.163.112.205 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Honey Island Swamp Monster - a Bigfoot-like creature seen in the Southern Louisiana area. 65.163.112.205 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone help me with these requests ? 65.163.112.205 21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Armed confrontations with the paranormal sounds like an article I'd read, but I'd need some good sources to write about it properly. Apart from various rednecks people firing at UFOs or Bigfoot, or that Camp Dulce place or whatever it's called, I don't know that much about it, and I don't really know which UFO websites are reliable sources. Can anyone else help?

There was that Terran UFO where they fired on it, information was released on that by the US government and so counts as WP:V/WP:RS. perfectblue (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

When was that? I gave up on ufology ten years ago. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Honey Island Swamp monster looks more promising, however, one or two usable sources online. I'll have a start at it for you. Totnesmartin 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

HISM is go! Totnesmartin 23:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see the first one surviving an AFD unless extremely well sourced. - perfectblue (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My fear precisely. Just the title alone would have AfD fingers twitching, never mind the content. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets first find sources that show that "Armed confrontations with the paranormal" is a real topic of study and wouldn't just end up as a collection of unrelated events. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as UFOs and cryptids go It IS a real topic in popular culture (message boards, self published book), though think that that won't count for anything with the local skeptic population, and as far as UFOs go several accounts were researched by both the UK, US governments as part of wider UFO investigations in order to determine if there was a threat (they concluded that there was no evidence of a threat). However, I would have to say that there is no real research going on outside of kooksvile,loonytune land (read: UFO conspiracy nuts and people who think that bigfoot attacked them). Unless anybody can demonstrate to me otherwise I have to concur that any entry would just be a list of unrelated events. While I could "tolerate" a well written list such as that, I doubt very much that it would survive an AFD unless it was backed up by a serious weight in citations (For me, such weight would have to be fOIA'd documents demonstrating serious government research into the topic, or similar fro a university, etc). - perfectblue (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think armed confrontations with the paranormal would be better as a classification category, not a subject unto itself. Descriptions of the militancy or lack thereof in the events in question should be part of the articles on the events themselves that inspired the violence, not the violence itself. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Request: UFO Watchdog

Since a dispute has arisen concerning why this website can be used as evidence of criticizim of pro paranormal people and paranormal investigators, and why it cannot be used as evidence of criticisim of skeptics, when in fact it criticizes both sides, this should be a really interesting article. Evidence on there has been found criticizing Philip Klass, but when placed, it is NOT allowed, while it is placed as evidence of criticisim of pro paranormal people, investigators, and is allowed there. Evidence concerning Klass is Hall of Shame 1, 7th on that list, and I've checked the underlined sections on him AND CISCOP as well. You would'nt believe what I've found about Philip Klass there as well. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Website is www.ufowatchdog.com. From there, go to Hall of Shame 1, scroll to the 7th entry on that list. Also see the underlined matter about Philip Klass and CISCOP as well. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You might be surprised what some of us know about Mr. Klass. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

HHO verification & introducing myself

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia (as an editor) but I've followed wikipedia since it was a wee project with just a few thousand pages. I have over the last few years grown interested in fringe science, but being non-american I do not subscribe to either the UFO-group mentality that some fringe science proponents exhibit, and I am also annoyed at the militant attitude of some skeptics. I feel both these angles are american cultural phenomenas rather than productive ways of looking at anomalous phenomenas or odd results from science. Being scientific minded I still think we will find odd things when we look closer, as this has been par the norm for all science. So I feel overly skeptic attitude is detrimental to find the truth behind some claims.

My current annoyance has been the problem of finding good material on HHO, even if there are tons of reproductions (and I believe claiming all these to be false is akin to belief in conspiracies). Anyone have familiarity on this topic? The current article is abysmal and only discusses strawmens. The phenomena of reproductions is interesting in its own, and could he discussed as well. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What anti-UFO skeptics are militant? Some random bloggers? If that is the case one can cherry-pick "unreasonable" people from any "side" of a debate (like UFO existence). If not, who and why? Voice-of-All 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I rather want to focus on the reader experience. For example; I followed the California Drone incident. Known skeptics reported they spotted radiosity-artifacts. An Xbox-blog said it was part of the Halo viral. People would then later on refer to these skeptics even though there was no concrete proof in either of these reports, and it is exactly this which annoys me. We who went to primary sources would find that the "Halo viral"-claim was unfounded. The radiosity-claim had no technical underfounding except a similarity. So in this case it seems skeptics were just "acting" skeptic without being as rigirous enough to actually "bunk" the meme. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and some more about myself: After following the wars over so many articles I figured I could join the wikiproject to help out since I feel I am fairly balanced and might help at making the discussions more global. I hope this is well receieved. :) --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is HHO? Is this like HBO, a TV station?- perfectblue (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He may be talking about this: Oxyhydrogen#HHO. Zagalejo^^^ 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the hobbyist name of producing cheap hydrogen. HHO has a short blurb, but is the traditional usage of the term. Water fuel cell is also another popular name, however the article deals with only a specific design. The story is rivetting, and last time I was google reading about the stanley meyer design I found enough articles and primary sources to make an interesting story take shape. However the current article deals way too much space pointing out that it is impossible rather than describing the circumstances and the actual results of attempts to verify it. One notable aspects (which I have not found any WP:RS about) is using pulse modulated electrolysis other than speculation from people who haven't tried to faithfully reproduce it. Going to wikipedia was a miss on learning much on this subject. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, the entry on the water fuel cell does almost nothing to discuss Meyer's design, conspiracy beliefs surrounding it, or even the mechanisms of how the cell was supposed to work. You tend to get a lot of that on Wikipedia. People see that something is a hoax or is fake and they concentrate on the fact that it was bunk rather than on explaining the history or impact of said topic. You could have a race riot caused by a false accusation, and people will edit an entry to cover the fact that the accusation was false and that there was a riot, but they will either ignore or remove anything detailing why people believed the accusation or why it was made in the first because they feel that doing so is an attempt to justify it. It's the same with UFOs. A UFO is proven to be a weather balloon and editors will fight tooth and nail to keep out details of people who thought that it was a UFO and that it is being covered up, because they think that including these things is the same thing as saying that the weather balloon was an alien spacecraft. - perfectblue (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Was Philip Klass CIA ?!

Read all pertainable articles, and this page. May explain what is going on. 65.163.112.28 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Example of pertainable pages? --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Philip Klass - Article

• UFO Watchdog used to criticise "believers", paranormal investigators, NOT permitted to be used to criticise skeptics( UFO Watchdog.com, Hall of Shame 1, 7th on this list)

• • Wikipedia: UFO Watchdog used to criticise "believers" and investigators, no reliable evidence of it criticising skeptics, such as Philip Klass.
  • UFO Watchdog: Site criticises Philip Klass and CISCOP, other skeptics as well as believers and investigators.

• Operation Mockingbird
• Robertson Panel - Convened in 1952 to "reduce" intreast in UFOs.

Does this help ? 65.163.112.28 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

People criticised incl. Linda Howe (conwoman), Richard C. Hoagland (some kind of nut, conman). 65.163.112.28 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Paranormal edits

Hi, I've picked up on a significant number of recent "paranormal" edits into articles about Connecticut places that may deserve some attention from this group. Some of the edits seem productive, others a little sketchy; but it's a subject I don't know a whole lot about. Please refer to this user's recent history:[3]. for information. Thanks!--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. This is the edit history of a single user who appears to have an interest in the paranormal and Connecticut. Is there a problem here, are they POV pushing or being disruptive/uncivil?

Project Paranormal is basically a loose umbrella groups of independent users with a similar interest, we aren't an admin groups and we have no ability to control or police our members. If you believe that there is a problem with this user I'm afraid that there's not much that we can do other than to offer advice to you/them or offer mediation on an informal basis (basically, offering more advice, again). Admins must deal with all policing issues.

perfectblue (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I have no overt objection to the user's contributions as the subject matter doesn't interest me much, and as I said, I don't know a whole lot about it. We all have our realm of interest(s) on Wikipedia, and many of us like to see those realms of interest well cared for. I advised the editor to seek out this project & work with all of you as a way of engaging him/her in producing quality work; it looks like s/he has. For your part, you may wish to reach out to him/her, and or contribute to/review his or her work, as it pertains to your project. That's about it--No bad faith intended or assumed. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I did put some template tags on a few articles that were written with a strong magazine-oriented POV voice. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments

I was toying with the idea of running for admin and since I often participate in discussions about paranormal and fringe topics, I was hoping to get some feedback on my editing. Anyone interested can participate in my RfC at User:Nealparr/RfC. Thank you in advance. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingoodie hammer PROD

PROD now on at Kingoodie hammer, if anyone's interested. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Philip Klass Talk Page

Someone asked about the page being biased towards skeptics, since evidence against a famous one is not allowed there, yet similar evidence is used against "believers" and those that investigate paranormal matters. Is this template appropriate for the Philip Klass article ?

{{POV|Date = January 11, 2008}}

The references to Philip Klass are above this one. Just helping a IP. 65.173.105.225 (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I kinda feel that source is very biased. Is it really used as a source in other articles? --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It sure as hell is. See Linda Howe and Richard C. Hoagland to mention a few. 65.173.105.225 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Request: Alien Races/Alien Species

This is to refer to the different aliens that witnesses, abductees have encountered. Can this be done ? 65.163.112.28 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Some sources are: MAAR, UFO Casebook:SEARCH:Alien Races/Alien Species, Budd Hopkins's website. These and others do refer to the different aliens that witnesses, abductees have (allegedly) been in contact with, such as Reptoids, Greys, Insectoids, Nordics. 65.163.112.28 (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Google:Alien Races/ Alien Species. That should be of some assisstance. 65.163.112.28 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC) :D

This is a article request. Can someone create this article ? This sounds like a real hell of a article, if created. 65.163.113.142 (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

While I'd like there to be some kind of entry along these lines, I can't help but feel that it would quickly become an embarrassment unless rigorously policed in a manner that would be in danger of breaking wiki-regs. My experience tells me that a page like that would likely either languish in obscurity for a while before being AFDed on WP:V and WP:Notability grounds, or it would attract editors who A) Don't understand its purpose and who fill it up with fictional aliens B) fill it up with all kinds of non-notable speculative conspiracy cruft from David Icke wannabes.

In my opinion, a better solution would be to produce a list of alien races that links to the entries that we already have on grey/gray aliens, Nordic aliens etc. Entries which pass notability on their own.

perfectblue (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC of interest

There is an RfC on WP:CiV that may be of interest to the participants of this project. Dreadstar † 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Save the Years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience articles!

I tried to create a series of articles designed to act as a timeline of subjects related to the paranormal and pseudoscience. As soon as I had done so it was immediately marked for deletion. The reason? I hadn't created any of the articles yet! Yup. Apparently if you want to make a timeline, you have less than five minutes to detail hundreds of years of history or your work will be deleted. Then, after a desperate scramble to create as many small articles as possible to satisfy that guy, about three other guys attack it because of how poorly developed it was! Yep. The articles had been up for about ten minutes and they were already being deleted for lack of content! Does this make any sense to you? Me neither.

If you think that a timeline detailing major paranormal sightings, theories, literature, debunkings, exposed hoaxes, pseudoscientific movements, lives of researchers, etc would be a worthwhile endeavor, please help me out over here!

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw the AFD before I saw this, but just to repeat myself, I've suggested that the pages be userfied so that you can fill them in more before they go into mainspace- that way you don't have to worry about the timescale. It looks like being a big project, so I guess you wouldn't complete it, but if it's filled in more then at least they can't AFD it for lack of content. MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, will do. Still, I'd like to try to avoid them being deleted right now as opposed to trying to recreate it in the future. Thanks for your support on the AfD page. :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there should be some time to try and fill them out, with the hope of swaying some decisions towards keep, unfortunately because there's nine pages it's a big task. It looks like all the articles would need more content and referencing to have any chance. I would suggest perhaps concentrating on filling up one of the years, with proper referencing, rather than spreading effort too thin- if one can be proved worthy then it would justify later effort on the others. MorganaFiolett (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephenville, Texas UFO

See the Ref Desk:Misc. about this matter, there are pixes of this UFO. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WTF

WTF! Why was the article Ghost Light MERGED into Will-o'-the-wisp ? WTF is that about ? All articles that reference "Ghost Light" are all messed up because someone had mistaken this with another article. 65.163.112.205 06:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen who merged it, let's just say that that user would prefer that there were no paranormal entries on Wikipedia aother than those written about debunking. - perfectblue 15:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Light is generic paranormal terminology, will-o-the-wisp is specific phenomona from folklore, they should never have been merged in the first place. It's like merging Republican Party with George W Bush. - perfectblue 15:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Its MERGED again, by the same guy. The article is under attack !!!! 65.163.115.114 (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see a case for a merge (seems to be the same topic, just from two different angles) , but ScienceApologist (for it is he), is making no attempt at merging the information. Personally I think merge requests for any article should be mentioned at wikiprojects, where there is a larger body of expertise to discuss the pros and cons. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Merged Again! Ghostlight is NOT a "Will-o'-the-wisp". The Spooklight is one ghostlight known to burn people. 65.163.115.114 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that there is a case for merging. Will-o'-the-wisp is an object instance from several different folklore tales, whereas Ghost Light is terminology used in the paranormal. You'd never get a debunker announcing "I've been researching Will-o'-the-wisp", they'd be laughed out of the seminar hall.

I definitely think that there is call for the project being noticed and I'd like to see it become policy that it be done, and to be included as an instruction on the merge tag. Some mergers are simple, like merging a contactee group with the person who founded it, but other's need expert attention. This was made pretty clear by the way that the Will-o'-the-wisp merger was handled.

SA's "enthusiastic" but doesn't appear to have any expertise with Western folklore, as evidenced by the fact that they merged the whole thing backward. They redirected Ghost light TO Will-o'-the-wisp as if ghost lights were a form of Will-o'-the-wisp, rather than the other way around. Seriously, that's like redirecting "List of Republican Presidents" to "George W. Bush".

The whole setup now tacitly implies that Asian legends lantern carrying animals, American legends about dead railroad workers, and all of the other forms of ghost light, are all derivatives of European Will-o'-the-wisp folklore when in fact some are much older, and most evolved completely independently. This kind of thing makes the project look sloppy and is a reason why experts should be involved from the get-go.

This, of course, goes without counting the simple fact that most studies into Will-o'-the-wisp revolve around anthropological and literary studies aimed at recording culturally significant folklore, whereas studies into ghost lights are primarily investigative debunking and pop-culture recording. I'd hardly call them compatible, let alone interchangeable, terms.

It's kind a weird though, if I were to try to merge a page about pop culture references to the paranormal with a page about a serious piece of cultural anthropology, I can't see SA letting it go without comment. I wonder what makes Ghost light and Will-o'-the-wisp different for them to flip their normal editing habits so drastically? Normally they are the first to stand up and say that the paranormal is minority fringe, now here they are standing up and saying that one of the most easy to debunk parts of the paranormal it is actually part of a mainstream subject like as folklore. Go figure.

perfectblue (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume people here realize that ScienceApologist is basically making the claim, through the article, that none of the ghost light stories can in fact possibly be spectral entities, ie actual ghosts, and therefore, we are allowing a pseudoskeptical POV into our midst. --Chr.K. (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You aren't the first person to think that, or to say it out loud. - perfectblue (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are no reliable sources that state spectral entities exist, I'm not sure what is pseudoskeptical about preventing this kind of characterization in articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You've just proved the point nicely. Take me, I'm a true scientific skeptic, this means that I require the same burden of proof from my skeptical explanation as I would from a believer proposing a paranormal explanation. In contrast, a pseudo skeptic would require no proof of their own explanation and would simply apply ockham's razor due to a lack of evidence on the opposing side.

Put simply, A pseudo skeptic will say that a UFO sighting was caused by a weather balloon based on the fact that nobody can produce a chunk of UFO. While I won't even consider arguing this unless I can at the very least demonstrate that somebody upwind actually put up a weather balloon within an acceptable time frame. That's the difference between a skeptic and a pseudskeptic. A Pseudoskeptic requires only a lack of proof, rather than disproof.

You also seem to have forgotten that the Arbcom cleared the way for belief, myth, folklore and legend to be included when it stated that (Decision 6.1) the purpose of a page is to discuss all notable aspects of a topic, not to reach a correct conclusion. This means that irrespective of there being evidence of the paranormal being real, the paranormal must be included because it is part of the debate. Also (Decision 3) which states clearly that existence in science is irrelevant in many cases. Additionally (Decision 6.2, fact 12) it said that saying that something is paranormal is enough to tell the reader that science has just gone out of the picture, and that this is perfectly acceptable.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ghosts are extraordinary claims. There is no extraordinary evidence for their existence. Ergo we should not be putting on airs that ghosts may exist any more than we would put on airs that the moon was made of green cheese. Science does not go out of the picture and no one has ever stepped in to say your interpretation of that arbcomm decision was correct. In fact, almost everyone who reads about your interpretation of it (except for your cadre of friends) disagrees with you. Good luck forming consensus on that. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the Arbcom. You claim to be skeptical of the paranormal and that it's study is not counted as a science, yet at every turn you treat it as if it were hard fact by requiring hard fact.

Either you believe that the study of the paranormal is a cultural study and therefore should requires cultural verification, or you believe that it is a scientific study and therefore requires scientific verification. Which is it? Is the paranormal real and scientific or is it unreal and cultural?- perfectblue (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cadre of friends"? Are they related to the "usual suspects" referred to here? It looks like you suspect people who disagree with you of collaborating against you. Don't go there. Paranormal explanations and assertions are notable if made in notable publications - we don't have to say they are true or untrue. Why can't you accept that? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And the existence of ghosts that interact with the material world is simply contrary to various laws of physics. There's nothing pseudoskeptical about it. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, unless somebody has conducted an experiment which determine this to be a fact, then it is merely a hypothesis, and unless somebody reliable floats this hypothesis somewhere verified you can't include it in Wikipedia. Doing so would violate WP:V and WP:OR. The point where skepticism becomes pseudoskepticism is when the skeptic forgets that their hypothesis requires the same level of proof as any other.

You are also forgetting two very important things. Firstly the fact that nobody has proven that ghosts exist is not a barrier to their inclusion because of their place in popular culture *, and secondly because "the belief that ghosts are real and that they can interact with world" is both verifiable and notable in culture, then this belief is valid for inclusion in Wikipedia. *. Also, simply describing something as being a ghost automatically tells the reader that the line demarcating science's boundaries has already been crossed * and that what they are reading isn't to be confused with hard scientific fact.

On top of this I should remind you that WP:NPOV requires that all notable sides of the argument be included *, not just the scientific perspective. - perfectblue (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. One doesn't conduct experiments to disprove the existence of something. For example, one doesn't conduct experiments to disprove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. NPOV does not mean we throw mainstream science out the window. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, UFO Norge has done ie a lot of experiments and field work in order to find explanations on phenomena. And their research yielded results that could retroactively describe previous reports. Your inability to disprove FSM is mainly because you subscribe to a specific philosophy of science. According to many methods FSM can be written off. Especially analysis of the historical origin: It is just a meme. :) --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

UFO is just a meme too. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger of the articles. The two terms do not refer to the same thing, though the topics are related.

No experiments need to be conducted to have articles about Ghost lights and Will-o'-the-wisps because they are not scientific articles, they are articles about cultural artifacts.

If anyone would like to use these references, here are a few books that mention ghost lights. When the page opens in Google books, use the right-hand search box and enter "ghost light" in quotation marks to find the pages with the term listed:

• Haunted Heritage: A Definitive Collection of North American Ghost Stories
• Weird Texas: Your Travel Guide to Texas's Local Legends and Best Kept Secrets
• Haunted Heritage: A Definitive Collection of North American Ghost Stories
• Chicago Haunts: Ghostlore of the Windy City

There's more on Google books if anyone wants to search. I didn't look for Will-o'-the-wisps but there are probably even more of those. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't show that Will-o'-the-wisps and ghost lights are different. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are grasping at straws. this calls "ghost light" the international term for such phenomenas. Also you are selectively responding. I debunked your FSM as a historical internet meme. Science hasn't come even close to explain UFOs. However other kinds of research, such as historical, psychological and mythological research might explain it. Now accept that rational skepticism isn't wiki policy, nor the international scientific majority. Real scientists accepts that hard science can only explain a subset of the reported phenomenas. And real scientists will not claim that it is debunked when you lack hard evidence. Your claim of pseudoscience is just an opinion that some self-publishing skeptics use to pander to people like you. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

From the source you quoted: "Australian dictionaries define the ‘min min’ as “a will-o’-the-wisp, allegedly seen in outback areas.” ScienceApologist (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Look closer. It states the international term is "ghost light".Benjaminbruheim (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME seems to apply here. We have a good reason to have only one article. Will-o'-the-wisp is fine. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

As some might have noticed, there is a debate over at this article. And there is by now a minor consensus, but this is now overshadowed by a debate on how fringe subjects really should be portrayed. Certain editors thinks the debate should be moved to policies, but there isn't a singular policy that is problematic. Anyone have any suggestions on how to go on?

Personally there are a few problems I see with the way the policies are now stated, some suggestions:

• Pseudoscience is a problematic term
• RS makes it impossible to use fringe sources as primary sources

• This introduces bias since mainstream science doesn't "know" about the subject
• The fringe sources is often the primary source

• Using mainstream science makes it possible to dismiss subjects on a priori reason (and thus introduces POV)
• A lot of fringe subjects isn't using "hard science"

Benjaminbruheim (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to remind the people who are opposed to including non-mainstream opinions that it has already been determined * that where paranormal entries are concerned NPOV requires that all noteworthy arguments be included. This applies even if said opinion flies in the face of mainstream opinion. This determination was not reached once but twice *

You should also remind them that it has also been determined that where debate exists the purpose of a Wikipedia entry is not to reach a scientifically accurate conclusion, but rather to represent said debate for all sides. [4]. This means that even if an opinion is total bunk it can be included base on the fact that it is part of the debate. - perfectblue (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories requiring merging?

Hi WP:Paranormal. Should Category:Mediums and Category:Spiritual mediums be merged? Or is there some subtle distinction of which I'm unaware? DH85868993 (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

An idea

I'm an outsider, but someone should look into making a Wikipedia ad for this project. 65.75.191.236 (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melon heads

Here's another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melon heads. Zagalejo^^^ 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow that was confusing...brickdude^_^ 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New AfDs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in Libya

Totnesmartin (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

You may be interested in this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Panspermia

Why is panspermia included in project paranormal? It's a valid scientific theory; one with little to no evidence, perhaps, but certainly not "fringe" or "paranormal." There is nothing unscientific about the idea that life might have been brought to Earth on extraterrestrial objects such as comets. I learned about the idea in high school science classes and college biology courses, and they certainly weren't treated as quasi-scientific or paranormal in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbutler1986 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a recurring phenomena in UFO literature. I am surprised if there is an article on this exact subject already. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As Benjaminbruheim said, this is a common topic in Ufology and in various conspiracy beliefs. Usually, in paranomral circles its known by other names such as Distant Origin hypothesis or "alien ancestry". Variations on the topic are also found in various stories about Atlantis and Mu, and by people such as David Icke. - perfectblue (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Grinning Man Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

May need Help

I seem to have a strange vanity bent vandal (work that one out). He is quite aggressive and determined. He has come back 3 time using diff ISP addresses 144.134.48.24 144.134.71.8 and 144.134.48.159. I have reverted the changes he keeps making and this time have left his link in to see what he does. But I may need some help on this one. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_ufology&action=history. Regards Vufors (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yep will need some help... he came back aggressive and determined... even with his link in, he will take no quarter on this - He is looking for a fight. HELP! Vufors (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He is back again this time as 144.134.71.135. I have left his link in the code, but he is on a mission. Do we have any Project Paranormal Admin? Vufors (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, first things first you've both violated the 3 reverts rule. This is not good. You could BOTH be blocked for a set period for persisting in this manner.

Secondly, in order for an admin to get involved (they are general, not project based), or for anybody her to offer you worthwhile advice, it's best that you present a clear account of what's happening. For example, what is the crux of the argument? Why do you disagree with this editor's edits? Which policies are involved?

Thirdly, WP:NPOV requires that all significant arguments be addressed. If both of your arguments represent notable and verifiable perspectives then they could potentially both be included. Alternately, if neither of you can demonstrate notability then both of your edits could well be deleted.

Lastly, you're both citing blogs. This is strongly discouraged under Wiki-regs. Try to find book with good sales figures and a notable author.

perfectblue (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • Thanks perfectblue for the feedback. Firstly I reverted the ISP changes as per the Wiki rules and with the Wiki Warnings. Next If the unlisted ISP is not going to play the Wiki game, either in the comments section or at their own talk then how does a member of the Paranormal group keep the integrity of the original text in place until the dispute is settled. The only way out that I can see is to endlessly keep editing until the ISP gives up or talks?Vufors (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As it's an anonymous editor you could ask for the page to be semi-protected. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Call. That may be the way to go. Would you believe all is quite at this time? He may have taken the hint? I have been in a few semi edit wars and was able to get them into the talk area, but these encounters cause/create endless grief. The odd thing about trying to maintain the status quo against a determined edit freak is that it brings down the reversers credentials. On many occasions I have had no interest in the issue etc. It’s like a form of ego vandalism or pigheaded vandalism, the culprit thinks that he is absolutely right and will take no medium road or advice. Vufors (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Winged cat

Howdy folks, I accidentally stumbled on this article, and about died. Maybe someone here cares enough to add inline cites to it, and rewrite it so it doesn't seem to state that Winged cats actually exist? Murderbike (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, they may exist in so much as belief in them exists. Most things in the paranormal don't actually exist, not in the sense that you could study one in a lab. - perfectblue (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire! Winged cats exist as a rare genetic mutation. See this for details. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this just further proof of the myth? - perfectblue (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you prove a myth, doesn't that make it a fact? Anyway, the point about inline cites is good, so shall we do that instead of arguing? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, perfectblue...a lot of them do exist. --Chr.K. (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add some inline citations. In relation to the above, what I meant was that the link that you provided demonstrated that there was a myth and suggested a source for it. That's no the same as proving that a myth is fact. In order to demonstrate that this was fact you'd basically need to find a cat with actual wings (bone, muscle, etc). - perfectblue (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Poor dirty deformed genetically altered critters. The article isn't promoting the paranormal, looks to me. The opposite. And perfectblue, it looks to me like they have pics of cats with extra limbs or furr extensions. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can find pics of Bigfoot, but that doesn't mean that it's real. As ever the question here should not be whether winged cats are "real", but as to whether there is a real and sustained (verifiable and notable) myth about them, and 1) what the contents of the myth are 2) what it's origins are. Things would go much smoother if on Wikipedia if people stopped seeing things as to do with the paranormal as being things/object/happenings and viewed them more as beliefs/myths about things/objects/happenings. for example, it's near impossible to prove that somebody was abducted by aliens no matter how notable the story has become in popular culture (The hill abductions, for example), it's far more productive to record the fact that they believe that they were abducted and why/what happened in relation to it. The paranormal is 90% believing and 10% proving. - perfectblue (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Sourcebook Project has enough reports of unexplained hominids that something is real, alright. Also, your argument seems to be at direct odds with discovering things, objectively, via empirical science. By such science, I am quite convinced UFOs, for instance, do exist...as well as people believing that they've seen such objectively real things. Stating it to be, "well, someone's BELIEF that they did," is possibly the worst disservice to scientific exploration of the unexplained that could be possible. --Chr.K. (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain what your saying, but I can empirically demonstrate that 1) many people believe that they've seen UFOs (lights in the sky) and 2) that the many people believe that UFOs (lights in the sky) are really alien spacecraft. From where I'm standing this is what is important as far as Wikipeida goes.

"Are UFOs alien spacecrafts?" is a completely different question from "Do people see unexplained lights in the sky?" which is also a completely different question from "Do people believe that UFOs are alien spaceships?". The second and third questions are where we should be directing the majority of our attention. The first question is a wild goose chase run by scientists who deny everything that they can't see in a gas chromatograph, regardless of whether or not not it is real, and loons who believe anything that they read on the back of a cereal box.

Belief in UFOs has significant social, cultural and comercial implications (Just look at the impact of shows like the X-files) and is therefore notable and important to Wikipedia. Actual science surrounding UFOs as "alien spacecrafts" can basically be boiled down to a couple of short sentences that more or less read "People believe in them, but scientists can't find any evidence that they exists", which doesn't exactly provide much that we can use. We should be concentrating on the tangible impact that UFO beliefs have on our society and culture (not to mention on Hollywood's lots), and not what may or may not be hidden in a military storage closest near Roswell.

perfectblue (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, enough scientists found evidence of the existence of tangible, inexplicable craft operating in the atmosphere of this planet that they were dubbed the "Pro-UFO contingent" by the supposedly fair and balanced faculty of the Condon Research Committee; this occurred just before the former were surreptitiously kicked off of it in favor of...others...supporting the much more militarily-palatable "theory" that there was nothing to the subject other than either hoaxes, misidentified mundanities, or "mass hallucination" (much like the extremely massive hallucination that you and others like you use and update Wikipedian pages on a regular basis, eh? Just because there are tens of thousands of us doesn't mean anything, by such logic). All these theoretically "unsustainable accusations" I can quote from no less a source than UFOs and the National Security State, Vol. 1 by Richard M. Dolan, an Oxford graduate who became drawn into the subject via his research into Western (as well as Soviet) policy during the Cold War, and whose work, specifically, contains more than 100 pages of bibliographic material to back up his own studies. Officer Lonnie Zamora's calmly lucid testimony concerning an egg-shaped metallic craft was taken so credibly by scientific, and even more tellingly, military, personnel involved in investigation into the 1964 Socorro events that the military commander in question quite calmly stated his belief that it at least had to be an aircraft from the nearby missile range (if not something else; i.e., a concretely real, solid object), even though no schematics for a craft matching the dimensions he reported has ever been uncovered. I could go on, but it would be pointless; "scientists can find no evidence" is as believable a statement (propaganda) as the once-claims that the Spanish navy attacked the U.S.S. Maine in the late 19th century: it was believable until people actually bothered to stop and check...and some people still haven't checked. --Chr.K. (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, incidentally...since this section is supposed to be about Winged Cats, and all... --Chr.K. (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

UFO incidents

Does anyone have any idea what criteria need be met for a UFO incident to have it's own article, and what type of sources can be used etc.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Stay away from random websites and stuff. Stick with mainstream newspaper/magazine articles and levelheaded writers like Jerome Clark. Which incident would you like to write about? Zagalejo^^^ 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now the climate on Wikipedia isn't right for every notable incident to have an entry of its own, it's best either to pick only the most notable or to cover several incidents on one entry and then to spin them off if they become developed enough to survive on their own.

As a rule of thumb,you should concentrate on incidents that several notable authors (such as Jerome Clark) devoted an entire chapter to rather than which one or two lesser known authors have written books about. Multiple sources tend to be a better indicator of notability. Anybody with a typewriter can publish a 500 page book on a UFO incident, but if takes notability for 50 notable people to write 10 pages each.

When dealing with modern sightings it's also good to find ones that were reported on by several mainstream media outlets. The UFOs that buzzed that military jet in Mexico are a good example. There aren't that many books about it but it was reported on by CNN, ABC and the BBC (bigtime British network) so it counts as being notable and verifiable in a reliable source.

Avoid sightings that were only reported in local tabloids, or which got one-hit entries in UFO magazines or which were covered by seminars at UFO swap-meets but nowhere else. Also avoid sightings where the primary coverage is in a book written by the witness, which are barely covered elsewhere. Also avoid things that you can only cite to the Discovery Chanel or to cable TV documentaries. This isn't notability in the traditional sense and questions might be raised over their reliability.

It's also important to remember that a sighting doesn't have to be notable for being unexplained, or for being convincing. A sighting can also be notable for being debunked, or heavily written about by skeptics/pseudoskeptics. Notability is notability, it doesn't necessarily have to be from sources that agree with each other. Presenting the debate is a key part of what WP:NPOV is about.

Also, and it get under the skin of some of the editors that show up on Wikipedia, but a UFO sighting doesn't have to be related to aliens in any way. If the Military drop some flares and then handle it badly when somebody shouts "flying saucer", and this creates some headlines in both the UFO and mainstream media, then it is also notable, too. For example, Roswell has notability on grounds of the government response alone. - perfectblue (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the two I was thinking about first were Bob Taylor and the Belgian UFO wave. I don't see an article about Taylor and I did find the Belgian one but it has next to nothing in it.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put quite a lot of stuff in the Belgian UFO wave article but am a bit unsure how to do references. I have added two but would like to cite the same ref in more places without just adding it again. Can someone explain if or how this can be done.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please comment

Reality shift and Anomalous phenomenon are both being redirected since they represent original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reality shift can be deleted as far as I'm concerned. It was added by a COI editor. Anomalous phenomena needs to be written because of the reasons I listed on it's talk page.[5] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite startled by this - you remove my post here on this [6] claiming it is a poor comment and then present your own interpretation and conclusion. This is at the very least poor Netiquette and strikes me as your trying to stifle my legitimate (moderate and balanced) comment and request for input in resolving this situation. (Emperor (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

You are free to reinstate your comment as you see fit. However, I viewed that comment as advocating for meatpuppetry and inappropriate considering the audience and the tenor of our dispute. I removed it in good faith and will not object to you reinstating it. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Paranormal might be a better redirect target for anomalous phenomena. Zagalejo^^^ 02:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely there are anomalous phenomena which are not paranormal. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, but almost all the uses of "anomalous phenomena" on Wikipedia refer to the paranormal. There should at least be a link to paranormal at anomaly, since most people clicking on anomalous phenomena would be looking for a page like paranormal. Zagalejo^^^ 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That may have been where the entry stood at the time but that isn't really a reflection on what it could have been - a year or so back I left plans for rewriting and fixing the entry - that is the road we should have tried first. As I said on the talk page there is a process here and you try and fix things, if it then seems irredeemably broken you could propose a merger or put it up for AfD - basically involve the community in addressing the problem. Simply stating a possible policy violation as an excuse to turn it into a redirect seems to go against this and should rarely be used unless you've actually tried other fixes first. (Emperor (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Wait a minute, let me get this straight, SA, you censored another editor. Sorry, but that's 100% unacceptable. If another editor advocates meatpuppetry and requires sanctioning it is for an admin to decide, not you. If you have an issues with this editors comment then you should have politely informed them of your concerns and then gone to the admin if the editor had gone on to actively solicit meatpuppetry. There are those of us out here who consider many of your comments to be unacceptable, or at the very least uncivil, but you don't see us deleting them, and I'm certain that you'd take issue if we did

If you have an issue with an editor it is not your place to unilaterally take action in this manner. For the good of civility please follow procedures.

perfectblue (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to tell on anybody, admins are not authority figures: they are simply people that can push certain buttons and use certain tools. This is a Wiki. I can fix my own problems. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you believe that this is a problem and that you are fixing it? - perfectblue (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is - was it a problem? whenever I revert a couple of times when it isn't vandalism I back off and pass it on to the relevant project to sort out rather than further enflame the problem. That way we can actually work to consensus on an issue. I did exactly the same thing in connection with another project only a few days earlier and oddly no one read any sinister motivation into it.

Somehow imagining this is an invitation for meatpuppetry doesn't assume good faith on either my behalf or other members of the Project and given how public the note was it can hardly be seen as a very cunning way to somehow subvert the process. Equally, my RfA was pretty painless, suggesting I'm not the kind of editor to pull such stunts.

It does remind me why I (and I'm sure many others) are put off from editing such entries - with Believers and Skeptics pushing to get their viewpoint in and the editor doing their best to get a balanced viewpoint in gets it from one side or the other (and sometimes both). (Emperor (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

FYI - you can still access the talk pages: Talk:Anomalous phenomenon where I am suggesting we actually involve other people in discussing this and reach a consensus on how to move forward - which is the Wikipedia Way after all. (Emperor (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

It isn't easy to work with SA, but feel free to try in the name of harmony, they have a tendency to reach for the revert button a lot. - perfectblue (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to make a digression or anything, but if possibilities are still being considered for a page for Anomalous phenomenon to redirect to, one may want to consider redirecting it to Forteana instead of paranormal. Just a thought. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Except Forteana redirects to Charles Fort - anomalous phenomena was a more general stab at Forteana as there are unexplained phenomena which are being studied (see William R. Corliss and Bob Rickard's Rough Guide to the Unexplained for obvious recent examples) that needn't have a paranormal explanation (hence it not being merged with paranormal phenomena). I'm thinking of things like strange falls, etc. and the most obvious example is meteorites which were anomalous phenomena before being accepted by science. (Emperor (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

Since anomalous phenomona aren't necessarily paranormal I'd say that they best solution would be to reverse the redirect on Forteana. There was an entry there until 2004 at which point the redirect was put into place. - perfectblue (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Forteana is probably explained on Charles Fort, while a lot of people researching this area are followers of Fort (like Corliss and Rickard) it could be some people are looking into this and don't consider themselves Forteans, so perhaps it might be better to aim for a more neutral title? Anyway this might be a moot point as it is up for being merged so perhaps we can pick up the naming and improvement suggestions until we see how things go with anomalous phenomena. (Emperor (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Paranormal Wiki?

Does anybody know if there are any good Paranormal Wikis where users can post entries about myths and folklore without being hassled by people who insist that you need peer reviewed science and physical evidence to verify the contents of a campfire story? Honestly, the English language Wikipedia just picks up to many people trying to push the paranormal as being a branch of science rather than a branch of culture.

I've already tried sites like ParaWiki, but they're more orientated towards paranormal practitioners rather than researchers.

perfectblue (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll make one for you IF you send me an email. Can't discuss it here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't want to make one. I already have my own Wikiengine already up and running as part of my off Wikipedia web presence. I don't have the time to maintain any more web sites, I just want to join an existing community involved in preserving and providing information about Paranormal myths, legends and stories. It's surprisingly difficult to find sites that deal with the Paranormal as a cultural topic. You tend to get loads of pro supernatural websites where they are convinced that everything that goes bump in the night is some kind of spooky specter, or you get pseudoskeptic websites populated by people who won't accept that you don't need peer review evidence of the existence of ghosts in order for a spooky story about a local house told round a campfire to be a genuine part of a regions cultural heritage.

Honestly, it's a complete pain sometime.

- perfectblue (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Right (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Check your User space

I've just had an entry in my sandbox listed for MFD by one of the usual critics. Everybody check your sandboxes. - perfectblue (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy

Hi all, this is a request for comments on the Archaeoastronomy article which is listed under this and a few other WikiProjects. It used to be a good article, then it was reassessed. It's been re-written. Suggestions for improvements to regain GA status and move on further are extremely welcome.

In particular you may want to examine the article for POV. There is an argument put forward that current article is biased in a way that the previous version was not. You may want to see the Talk Page for more on that. Sometimes an outsider's view can bring a fresh perspective on such arguments.

Thanks, Alunsalt (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC at Archaeoastronomy

The discussion mentioned above has developed into a formal Rfc. Further comments are welcome.

Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's now at NOR/N

The discussion has now moved further to the No original research noticeboard. Any light that could be shed on this problem would be appreciated.

SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone who is a proponent of these topics want to appear

on one of these shows? Contact me if you do, or have questions.--Filll (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Taylor incident

Added a decent start to this requested topic. --Factorylad (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiinfo

Is anybody here have any experience of editing paranormal entries on Wikiinfo? It seems to have a much more pluralistic approach and different rules on POV and WP:OR that would make it a less difficult place to develop articles and build them to maturity. Any opinions?

perfectblue (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mathematically valid clairvoyance/precognition test

I've created an online experiment that utilizes zener cards to test for clairvoyance/precognition in a statistically meaningful manner. In order to acquire meaningful results I need a large number of participants. Can you help me spread the word and advise me on how I can use wikipedia to get the word out? Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. -Scotopia 10:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [7] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Tagging

People keep putting the "In Universe" tag [8], which is specifically about works of fiction, e.g., Sherlock Holmes, onto the article about the cryptid Mokele-mbembe. Could someone have a look at the article and the tag, because it seems there is no way this tag should be on that article.Niet Comrade (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Gia Principle

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

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

Timothy Wyllie

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

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

Satyr

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

The Skeptics

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

Six words: Robertson Panel guidelines,Operation Mockingbird guidelines.

These US govt. guidelines dictate to all media, incl. Wikipedia, what they will do, what they will NOT do. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This shit originated in the 1950s after Washington DC got the literal and other shit scared out of them by UFOs. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. It just so happens that for some people, Skepticism occupies the place in their lives that religious zealotry occupies in others lives. As with any large group of people, Wikipedia has activists of all kinds. I happpen to be a skeptic myself but since I am also a Folklorist and Anthropologist, I prefer to adopt an inclusionist approach to articles about fringe beliefs, new religious movements, the paranormal and other topics generally under attack by activist skeptics. My view is that it is just as irrational to attempt to delete such articles as it is to weight them heavily one way or another. A dispassionate statement of the facts about an incident, belief or folk belief including references and any notable criticisms enables any reader coming along to look over the article, follow links to references and make their own decision about the credibility of the topic. it is not our job to tell people a belief is silly anymore than it is our job to tell people UFOs are from outer space. Give them the evidence being offered by each camp, link to the source material and give the reader the option of weighing each side of it. Skeptics, fence-sitters, believers and others can work together if they work hard to keep their own personal philosophical or religious worldviews in check. Atheist editors can be just as dogmatic as those who believe in a God or Gods. To fellow rational skeptics, I say let your enthusiasm for science and rational thinking shine by cooperatively editing articles in such as way as to keep them NPOV but at the same time, give the reader the references they need to evaluate the asserted facts. Before you delete an unsourced fact, why not just fact-tag it or better yet, try searching Google Books yourself! It's amazing what you can accomplish when your true goal is to make a better article and not merely to stamp out that which you believe to be BS. if you are correct in your thinking, you should be able to find reliable sources to back up your beliefs and quotations you can use to describe them! Isn't that an infinitely more clever way to accomplish balance? I think it is. LiPollis (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

UFO vs. IFO merge issue

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

SEE Talk:Unidentified_flying_object

• You may want to follow this up, it seems that a skeptic evangelist has a bone to pick?Vufors (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• • We know this one of old, they have a tendency to try adjust article perspectives to put science at the forefront of entries about myth and popular culture. This tends to produce some odd weighings like pages about science fiction movies having 2 paragraphs about the movie and 10 about how scientifically inaccurate it was. It can't be a pretty sight to see them in an argument with a Startrek Fan. - perfectblue (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • A look at this fellows edits Special:Contributions/ScienceApologist , is not good and he has been stoped on other occasions by admin, but they seem to leave him do the mass edit thing? This evangelist has a mission and from what I can see does a mass edit then turns it into an edit war. Now granted, the page in question does need to be cleaned up, but I am not going to edit war this alien! So unless other Para folk get in and help counter this wonder of science, I would say just about all the Para pages are open to mass edits by this evangelist who don't like the your references.If you need some help leave a message and I will assist.So I am back to the real world. Regards to all. Vufors (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The UFO Article needs a total revert then ScientistApologist needs to be reported for editing in bad faith. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A healthy sense of skepticism is certainly necessary. Our articles on the paranormal should be grounded in a skeptical perspective. There's no hard evidence for any of this stuff, after all. (But that said, I do agree that editors like SA can be somewhat extreme. They're almost like the men in black.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The point that SA ALWAYS misses is that the purpose of a Wikipedia entry on the Paranormal is not to reach a correct conclusion, but is instead to document the debate. SA doesn't seem to understand that when you are dealing with a myth on Wikipedia best practice is not to demonstrate that the myth isn't grounded in science (A myth is a myth, after all. You would have to be s special kind of person to see it any other way), but rather to document the history and contents of the myth. A year or so back there was a massive arbcom (plus a couple of ones personally about SA) about this very topic which made multiple rulings which were not to SA's liking. In summary:

• The purpose of a an entry is to document the controversy, not to simply documentary scientific opinions on the subject
• That describing something using paranormal terminology does not imply that the terminology or the subject has any grounds in science
• That describing something as a UFO, a ghost, a psychic, a mythical creature etc (With appropriate Wiki links) is sufficient to inform a reader that the entry that they are looking at is not a science page
• That Wikipedia can legitimately include entries about something that is not real in science so long as it is documented in some for, and so long as it is described as above.

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

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

SA says he will merge the articles despite the fact that there are far more people voting to keep the articles as they are or are objecting to the move. I informed SA that there will be no merger and that I will file an objection. I could use some help if I have to seek help. thanks Magnum Serpentine (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

UFO article under attack!

Read it, sounds like the future version will read like it will be in compliance to Robertson Panel guidelines, also compliant to Operation Mockingbird guidelines as well. The intent is to make anyone who reports a UFO, a alien out to be loonytoons, an ass, worse. Also read commentary about a rebellion should there be alien contact as well. Should not the reader decide if a subject is real or not ? 65.173.105.243 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to do some work to the UFO article. The way it is now is much too focused on percentages of cases identified. Some of that is my fault but given the current start which leaps straight into the stats I feel my edits are good ones. Nevertheless, I support an alternate introdution by PefectBlue and would prefer to see it reinstated. (The current introduction might make part of a good subsection about %ages identified, but it is no good as the introduction to the UFO article.) At the moment though there are so many editors, many seem to be one editor, making changes that there is no point working on the article at all until we have a stable version because all the work is down the drain if the article flips to the other alternative. Is there anything we can do to put a hold on things to try to find the best way forward. At the moment it is madness in there.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Get some Admins on this then. That may stop the disruptions and the article from reading like it complies with govt. regulations, worse. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been an eye opener. These days Wiki is not a place for the faint hearted; editors need to be bold, have speed, lots of experience – nothing like the Wiki mantra, for example The Founders Rules [9] . I have seen some good edits but… it needs to settle down… keep cool. Vufors (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Also the catalyst & skeptic SA has made a complaint to admin 00:21, 2008 June 16 [10]? Vufors (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

SA has a loooooong history of refusing to accept the part that culture plays in the paranormal, they insist on trying to rewrite pages about things such as urban myths and legends so as to make science the primary focus, and if there isn't enough science to do this then they deem the entry to be non-notable.

With SA it can sometimes be difficult to tell if SA is a non-believer who sees including paranormal content is being the same as legitimizing paranormal beliefs, or if they are a ferocious believer in the paranormal who want to cover up anything that might draw scrutiny on it in the same way that senior scientologists will deny that they believe in Xenu.

Whatever the truth might be, when SA shows entries that have sat quietly for ages can become battlegrounds overnight.

perfectblue (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

War on the UFO article, Talk page

See the latest that has been going on there, such as what appear to be unauthorized strikethroughs of commentary on the talk page. I have, according to Wikipedia policies, notified some Admins as well, hopefully to put a end to this war before it really get any worse. 65.173.105.243 (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1213 articles are assigned to this project, of which 450, or 37.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sean Hannity Paranormal ALERT

On every Sunday night and on Saturday night(re-broadcast of Sunday night's show) is a show segment called Beyond Belief. Yesterday, it was about a mutant animal and kids who have psychic powers. It has been on for a few weeks. Others featured was the Honey Island Swamp Monster, UFOs, miracles, angels and demons, Bigfoot, other paranormal related matters. This airs on FOX News, as part of (usually) Hannity's America. Chech show listings and airtimes. 65.173.105.133 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC) :)

Bigfoot (?) Body found

This has been in the news for several days. A news conference will be held this Friday. This is a SPECIAL ALERT for all on this project. 65.163.117.250 (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Seen this. Can Wikipedians in California and Georgia watch the news conference due to take place REAL SHORTLY? 65.173.104.93 (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If Tom Biscardi is involved, it's probably a hoax. He doesn't have a very good track record... Zagalejo^^^ 02:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tonight on Coast To Coast AM

Tonight on this radio show Loren Coleman will be on the show during the FIRST HOUR ONLY. The rest of the show is "Open Lines", so watch the language guys. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Any night owls out there who want to keep a eye on this ?! 65.173.104.93 (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgian Bigfoot Body Is a HOAX

Evidence, so far, is:

• http://www.bfro.net/hoax.asp
• http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2008/08/15.html#recap - Show claims Hoax. 3rd paragraph says that hoax is a money making venture. IF so, according to rumor, these two hoaxers could be prosecuted for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud. Since HUMAN DNA was found, they're looking at possible murder charges. I heard these on the show last night.
• http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2693.html?theme=light - CNN interview says HOAX
• http://www.bumpinthenightproductions.com - Company that sold Bigfoot costume.

More evidence enroute ASAP. This is a developing story. I got rumors about criminal prosecution as well, incl. murder charges for the hoaxers, since human DNA was found.65.173.104.93 (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Loren Coleman said it was a hoax on Coast To Coast AM last night. Go to www.lorencoleman.com for more about this matter as well. 65.173.104.93 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology still active? There doesn't seem to be much happenng there except routine notifications etc. I prodded the talk page yesterday afternoon and nobody's responded yet. I'll propose a merge with this project unless anyone objects. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support: I think this would be a good idea. The creatures under the cryptozo-umbrella fit uniformly into either WP:paranormal or WP:animals/plants (if proven to exist). StevePrutz (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Some wikiprojects cover cryptids even while still unproven. WP:CATS, for example, covers Ennedi tiger. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• OpposeAn objection has been raised by myself for the merger of this and the Cryptozoology project. I propose carrying out an RfC for people to discuss this in a fuller manner. The objection is listed on the Cryptozoology talk page. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by member User:Otolemur crassicaudatus

In addition to his sweeping edits on the List of UFO organizations, he seems to have taken a personal vendetta against all paranormal articles I have submitted to this project. If you look at my talk page you'll see that he's nominated everything I've researched for you guys for deletion. Does anyone have advice on what to do about this troublesome member? Maybe arbitration? SeanFromIT (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've come here following links from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Young (Ufologist). My advice would be to fix the articles and ensure their notability (individuals) is referenced to reliable sources. I appreciate that this is a difficult field - but there are books published on the subject and also mentions in the mainstream media - build on those. What is never permitted is original research. I will happily rescue any deleted articles for you - but they must be brought up to a standard that is acceptable to wikipedia, otherwise someone will propose them for deletion again. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested in having your paranormal related articles taken seriously, including organizational history and original research, I've created an unofficial uncensored sister project at http://wiki.anomalyresponse.org. SeanFromIT (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Humanzee

People may want to express an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanzee.
Kww (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For those wondering, if case anybody was, the result was Keep and a very strong Keep. I was happy to see so much support for the fine work that Kww has done to keep that article in good order and well-referenced. good show!LiPollis (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Expertise Wanted

If you are familiar with the books of author John Michell (writer) please help to advance this article with a balanced neutral point of view on BLP. The article and talk page has received good faith input from skeptics and editors from the Fringe Sciences Noticeboard who may not be as familiar with this author's work or subject matter as those editors who work on WikiProject Paranormal. 216.240.101.40 (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sinking of California

Edgar Cayce mentions that "He may have been the source for the idea that California would fall into the Pacific ocean (though he never said exactly this)." I don't think that we already have an article on this idea (catastrophic subsidence of California), but I think that it's been mentioned enough times in pop culture -- by Cayce, by Madame Blavatsky and the Theosophists, in Curt Gentry's 1977 book Last Days of the Late, Great State of California -- to justify creating one. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea - it's a theme that occurs in occultism as you say, but also science fiction (eg the first Superman film), and there are probably some people who believe in it as a scientific possibility. that would make a nice little article that I'd be delighted to Stumble Upon. San Andreas fault might have some stuff too. I couldn't find much on the internet apart from this, surprisingly. btw if you start an account at Wikipedia you can create the article yourself (I can't as I don't have the material to hand). Have you asked at Wikiproject California? I bet somebody there would be able to help. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Paranormal

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal of werewolf and lycanthrope

Crossing genres a bit but posting this here anyway,

I was looking at Lycanthrope and werewolf, and figured I couldn't think of anything I would have in one article and not the other, and that the terms are synonymous. Please join in the discussion at Talk:Werewolf#Merger_proposal. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Rosewood Center

I came across this article while editing other things and saw it had a section on a purported haunting. I added our project tag, assessed it as a Stub and placed it on our To Do list for Expansion. Rosewood Center is a psychiatric hospital located on Rosewood Lane in Owings Mills, Maryland. Places like this are very popular with Legend trippers and therefore it might be good to see what documentation we can add to the article that helps establish the history of such sightings and more importantly, to establish the potential dangers of trespass since it is an old structure in a state of disrepair that very likely will be closed soon. Any help you can give is appreciated.LiPollis (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Humanzee

Warning notice: Editors and members of this project should be aware that Humanzee has been nominated for deletion. You may go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Humanzee if you wish to make your views known. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's gonna be a DYK Halloween

The gang at DYK has started a subproject to generate DYK to be posted during October 31, 2008. The subproject/task force is at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Halloween 2008 and twenty-four or so DYK articles (six per DYK Main page change) may fill up the four October 31, 2008 DYK Main Page posts. Paranormal plays a role at Halloween, so please feel free to contribute your talents to the efforts. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Xenu

Xenu 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.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ghost

I'm requesting input on the discussion here; primarily I'm wondering, does the bit about Berkeley and Newton belong in the intro, or in a later "Cultural references" section (to be renamed from "Popular culture")? Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion sorting for Paranormal articles

I've created the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Paranormal which is part of the WP:DELSORT effort to give better alerting about ongoing deletion discussions. Interested members should add this page to their watchlist. __meco (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

List of alleged UFO related entities article at AfD

The List of alleged UFO related entities article is being discussed as an Article for Deletion if anyone care to comment or change the article to address the concerns raised by other editors. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

United Nations General Assembly decision 33/426 (1978)

I think an article should be written on United Nations General Assembly decision 33/426 (1978) which was approved on December 18 of that year. This is a document which mandates the establishment of a UN organization to coordinate UFO and extraterrestrial information and research from member countries. An initiative has recently been made with the UN Secretary General to effect this decision which has laid dormant since 1978, and with the 30 years anniversary coming up, this would be an appropriate article to put up now. This can also been seen in context of the ongoing efforts to revive the deleted article on exopolitics (see Talk:Exopolitics). __meco (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect

There is a proposal to redirect Seth Material (an article within this Wikiproject's scope) to Jane Roberts. Please comment at Talk:Seth Material#Redirect to Jane Roberts. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

New list

Announcing a new list:

• List of alternative medicine subjects

-- Fyslee / talk 08:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Aix-en-Provence possessions

Hi guys, just clicked on random article and got Aix-en-Provence possessions. It looks like it comes under our umbrella, and it also needs sorting out - it seems to read as if the demonic possessions were real. Cheers. 81.159.254.71 (talk) (totnesmartin at work) 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

list of UFO sightings

I've been doing some work adding sources to the List of UFO sightings article and could use some help.Anarwan (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Bilocation

The article on Bilocation has been esentially plowed under to form a new article (previous version [[11]] here.) - which is, as it happens a perfectly fine article on Bilocation as a theological concept. However the previous article, which is almost entirely gone, was a perfectly fine article (as validated by it's recent AFD survival). It would be a lot of work, but I think it would be constructive to integrate the old content with the new. Alternatively they could form two seperate articles, but I think they would be weaker for it. Thoughts? Artw (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Black Eyed People article

Hey, I'm unsure if this is the right place to ask about this. If it's not, please inform me and I will move it to a more appropriate place. I've written the Black Eyed People article, but it still needs a lot of work. Does someone want to look over and edit it, see if they can make it more presentable? Thank you! Theloniuscrow (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be getting the necessary assistance on this article. It's main problem as I see it is its lack of mainstream references. This makes it an obvious candidate for a deletion nomination. __meco (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Can you define mainstream references, or point me to a wiki article where they are defined? Theloniuscrow (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the information you seek can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. __meco (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Theloniuscrow (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A similar article, Black Eyed Kids, was deleted in the past. Unfortunately, these types of articles are difficult to maintain, because people are always going to quibble with the sources. If you can find mainstream newspaper references, or, say, a Skeptical Inquirer article about the phenomenon, you should be OK. But otherwise, you'll probably have a tough fight ahead of you. Sorry, but that's just the way things go. The skeptics and deletionists around here are very aggressive.Zagalejo^^^ 17:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they are - I'm currently rescuing various AfD'd articles to another wiki, so the information is not lost - and yes, it is a GFDL wiki. It seems a shame that so much work and research is trashed in this way. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the main problems is that this is a relatively new phenomenon, so almost all references are eyewitness accounts, which aren't the most reliable. But I'll check around a bit. There should be some article about it, if not now, perhaps sometime in the future (in which case we could just rewrite it again). Theloniuscrow (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

Is there any point having that template up? it's been Cottingley fairies for nearly two years! There's no point having it if we don't keep it up. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that can probably go. Whatever happened to InShaneee? Zagalejo^^^ 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of letting one person alone change/update it, if there's only one who cares about it. 1-0, all others abstaining, is still a vote, and it brings certain pages to everyone's attention. My "vote" for here and now is the 1976 Tehran UFO incident, now that Richard M. Dolan's second volume of UFOs and the National Security State, concerning 1974-1991, is due out within the next two or three months, and the sighting is by far one of the most prominent known. --Chr.K. (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Exopolitics AfD

This article is nominated for deletion if anyone wants to see the newly created article or comment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

proposed merger of Apparitional experience to ghost

See Talk:Ghost#Merger_proposal Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What about "biggest number of spurious AfD's" for a milestone? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help

Hey there, I have a long standing interest in the paranormal, and would like to help with this Wikiproject. I have created two paranormal-related articles, Tony Stockwell and Gordon Smith (psychic). The main page said to enquire here, so I thought it would be more polite than to just add my name to the list. Thanks, Macromonkey (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fairy Investigation Society

I created the article Fairy Investigation Society on March 20, 2009. I believe it is in the scope of this Wiki Project, and thought you might want to include it. Duchess of Bathwick (talk · contribs) 20:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead section of ghost

I am opening this up here at Talk:Ghost#Consensus_on_size_and_contents_of_the_lead so we can get a consensus on what should be in the lede. Comment on other ideas and/or add yer own on what the most salient points are. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Voted for the points I think are most important and/or needed in a lead. Let me know if you need help writing the lead after you get a consensus for what is needed. Truly, Duchess of Bathwick (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How can I help? :)

Hi everyone! I was so excited to see that there is a paranormal project at wikipedia. I am a new user at wikipedia but I've been adopted and hopefully will be able to really help with this project because it is something that I really love and I know a lot about. If it's okay, I am adding my name to the members list. Please let me know! Thanks! Lyrical Israfel (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's great! One thing for you to do is keep an I on the deletion nominations related to this project when we get notifications of such and see if you can contribute either in the discussion to delete or improving the article in question. Cheers! __meco (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'm very excited. Hopefully I can help do some great works! Feel free to message me anytime I'm needed. Lyrical Israfel (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposed

Someone or other, a while back, put up some merge tags but did not initiate a merge discussion. At issue is whether to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptozoology into Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal. This sounds like an eminently sensible idea to me. Too many articles are tagged with both projects, and there are not enough active participants to keep both projects running well. Nor to keep in check pro-paranormal editors who might violate WP:V and other policies, I would suspect. At most, cryptozoology should be a task force of this project. To quote one of your own members (from this page's archives): "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... --InShaneee 22:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)".

Sounds like a strong in-house argument for a merge to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I second this. A cryptozoology work-group/task-force would look nice though, but this is not an area which I have particular interest in, so I won't assert my opinion stronger than that. __meco (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion (maybe it's been archived on on the crpto talk page) - as far as I remember it petered out into "no decision" - I still support merging. That's project's comatose. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to the merger. While the two subject fields may overlap in some areas, I think the two are separate fields with many separate interests. My participation in the cryptozoology project has more to do with my duel interests in zoology and mythology/folklore. And from judging by the members' self-described interests, there are several other members with these similar interests. I'm not interested in the paranormal, and if the cryptozoology project were to be swallowed by the paranormal group, I'd probably withdraw my membership. Kpstewart (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a definite mythological aspect to much of what is covered by WP Paranormal. That does not conflict with that segment also belonging to the paranormal category of phenomena. WikiProject Mythology and this WikiProject stand in a reciprocal relationship to each other in that respect. Now, since the cryptozoology project may be too small to be sustainable as an independent project, it could become as taskforce or work group within one or more other projects. Why not let both the paranormal and mythology WikiProjects have cryptozoology work-groups? The articles could be tagged with one or both of these as deemed appropriate. __meco (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me.Kpstewart (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox paranormal creature

Infobox paranormal creature has a POV problem. See talk page for details. —Fiziker ^t c 20:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Curse of the Colonel

I have done a GA Reassessment of Curse of the Colonel as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to no longer meet the GA Criteria and as such I have put it on hold for one week pending work. I am notifying all interested projects of this and the eventuality that if the article is not improved it may lose its GA status. Here is my GA Reassessment, feel free to contact me on my talk page should you have questions. H1nkles (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Witchcraft

Witchcraft has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Creation of a new Fortean Wiki

A new Fortean Wiki called Forteana has been created. It is not intended to mirror the Fortean pages on Wikipedia though inevitably there will be some usage of information from Wikipedia, at least in the early stages. It is hoped that Forteana will eventually become more extensive and detailed than the Fortean pages on Wikipedia and as the site will be dedicated solely to Forteana then it should make it easy to find information. It is also possible for authors to include material there which is copyright, and which cannot be edited by others, and I believe that this is not possible on Wikipedia.

The site is fairly small at present but grows day by day. Anyone is more than welcome to join and help with the site.

• Forteana: The Fortean Wiki

Cornovia (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

New Bélmez face image

I added this image in Bélmez face´s article

File:BélmezFaces.jpg

I hope it is useful.

Lightwarrior2 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mary Celeste in desperate need of citations

I know there must be a a ton of citations around for this subject. Unfortunately, few of them happen to appear in this article. I've posted a message in talk that large-scale trimming is coming without some citation work. Folk here might be up for just such a task. The article needs a lot of help. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

eSkeptics newsletter call to edit Wikipedia

[The following comment of mine appeared today on the PK Talk page.]

Michael Shermer's The Skeptics Society issued a call to skeptics yesterday to actively "fix" paranormal topics on Wikipedia. See: eSkeptic, July 22, 2009 article: "Fix Wikipedia." Sample of the advice given: ". . . just go to the Wikipedia article for your favorite paranormal topic and see what needs fixing!" I mention this here in case there is a sudden surge of edit wars, as I note the [Psychokinesis] article had the pseudoscience category added at the bottom today. I am not adverse to skeptical input, as I was a long-time member of a skeptics organization myself and have added much of it to the article. I just want to make sure there is balance in the article. We long time editors have had many discussions about this. I don't want to have to restart those if possible. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

United Nations General Assembly decision 33/426 (1978)

I have previously proposed the creation of an article on this document. I found a recent newspaper article that deals with this subject. __meco (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a multi-project manned working group to focus on Black Projects

At the suggestion of Binksternet (talk · contribs) I am leaving this message here as well.

I recently completed a sweep of the pages tagged with the black project template that fall within the scope of the military history project. In my report to milhist on the pages, their content, and the questionable material and sourcing in some articles I received a reply from the a contributor at WP:SPACE suggesting the milhist formally incorporate a working group to oversee these black project to better ensure that they stay free of original research and unreliable sources and ensure that the pages conform to the best of their ability with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The more I think about this suggestion, the more I am of the mind that it would be a good idea not only for WP:MILHIST, but for WP:SPACEFLIGHT and WP:AIR. The vast majority of the black projects covered break down into one of four distinct categories - space based recon satellites, advanced recon and fighter/bomber aircraft, military R&D programs, and signal/electronic intelligence programs - and each of our projects is best suited to cover one aspect of these black projects.

Working groups at milhist are considered to be a step below our task forces, so if your project members agree to participate we will not have to create a bunch of new pages for the working group, we can attach this working group to either the military technology and engineering task force or the Intelligence task force and use the existing task force as a base of operations.

For this reason and for the potential for better improvement and monitoring of our black project articles I am interested to know if there are any members of this project who would be interested in joining such a working group. As the working group must exist within the milhist project I would ask that all interest parties place their replies on the main milhist talk page, noting the project you are from (if you are coming from a project other than milhist). Please feel free to ask any questions or make any comments/suggestions, at this point this is very much in the planning stage, and any feedback/input would be welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review on Parapsychology

I have found evidence of original research and abuse of sources in this article, and have suggested it for featured article review here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1 Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 193 FCs served} 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Precognition

Multiple discussions have been ongoing in recent weeks about issues with the Precognition article, including whether it is a paranormal topic and how it is to be defined. There are only two editors involved, and we need additional contributions to work towards consensus. Thanks in advance for any contribution, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Walter John Kilner

Kilner's theories were not paranormal; they were based upon an idea common in science at the time but now generally thought obsolete; that of intercellular communication via ultra-violet radiation. Redheylin (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is active?

Is there very much interest for getting this project back on its feet? A lot of the paranormal articles could be cleaned up and the whole area really needs more interested people looking after it. I'd like to help out but I don't know so much about how the whole WikiProject thing works. K602 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I gave up because of the arguments. Not so much that I don't like arguments, but that the same points kept being raised - by the same people. I just thought "this is where I came in" and unwatched all the paranormal stuff. Back in 2006-7 though, this place was great. If we can get people to abide by the huge arbitration case from a year or two ago then this place could pick up. To get to the point, I know a bit of wikiproject stuff so I'll see what I can do. Like finding the arbitration case in question, for starters... Totnesmartin (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean this one? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal It looks like it was a pretty big deal at the time but the outcome seems to make sense to me. K602 (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Spectronomy

Has anyone heard of this term? Someone recently created the article spectronomy and I can't find any sources for it. Searching Google for "spectronomy" yields a lot of incorrect usage of spectrometry or spectroscopy. Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of it, can't find anything relevant on Google. Guess it's a neologism or something. K602 (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Egyptian Theatre (DeKalb, Illinois)

Egyptian Theatre (DeKalb, Illinois) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Chip Coffey

Interested parties might want to look at this AfD

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Move Token-object reading to Psychometry

There is a proposal to move Token-object reading which is only claimed by this project, so I've brought the matter here. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Token-object reading for continuity. - Steve3849 09:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts

Announcing an RfC at Talk:Ghost#RfC:_Context_of_NSF_statement_about_belief_in_ghosts. The questions being discussed are:

1. Whether the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs".

2. Whether their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus (in the USA) on that subject.

See you there! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Announcement of RfC at Talk:NPOV regarding use of Category:Pseudoscience wikilinks

Please weigh in there. This is just an announcement. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the Paranormal pseudoscience

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Is_the_paranormal_pseudoscience.3F. Unomi (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Automatic Thinking,

An article for automatic thinking is missing (by the way' Iwm not sure that this name is right also in English, but I know that this is its name in Hebrew like you can see it in the Hebrew Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.208.102 (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Paranormal to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Paranormal articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Paranormal articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Conduit (spiritualism)

The article Conduit (spiritualism) is in need of work, and probably needs to be renamed. Any thoughts? Conduit (paranormal) would be a possibility, but I'd rather trust to the expertise of this project in selecting a name.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Conduit (channeling), perhaps? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Michigan Dogman

Anyone skilled with articles on Cryptids? I think Michigan Dogman needs a little more substance but I'm not sure where to go since this isn't my forte. (Also, the cryptozoology Wikiproject is very, very, very dead.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Anything you can squeeze out of this? I used to work on cryptozoology/paranormal articles, but I rarely bother anymore, because you can never please anyone. Good luck. Zagalejo^^^ 03:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

With you there Zagalejo - if it's not "there's no such thing, delete the article" it's "let's make the article prove it exists." No wonder this wikiproject is barely alive. I'll have a go at the Michigan Dogman (which I must admit I've never heard of). Totnesmartin (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)