Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal

This page is not for reporting the paranormal, it is for discussing Wikipedia articles related to the paranormal.

Archives Old Supernatural Project March 31 - April 17 April 18 - May 8 May 9 - August 26 August 27 - October 6 October 7 - November 9 November 9 - December 14 December 15 - Present

The current Paranormal Collaboration of the Month is Cottingley Fairies. Please improve the article any way you can. Every month a different Paranormal-related topic is picked. The candidate with the most support as of 31 March 2007 UTC will become the next Collaboration of the Month. The current time is 16:20, Sunday, August 18, 2024 (UTC). The previous collaboration was Electronic voice phenomenon.

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)

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)

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)