This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Perfectblue97 (talk | contribs) at 09:24, 10 November 2007 (→(Important) Note about Arbcom proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:24, 10 November 2007 by Perfectblue97 (talk | contribs) (→(Important) Note about Arbcom proposal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 |
This page is not for reporting the paranormal, it is for discussing Misplaced Pages articles related to the paranormal. |  |
 Archives |
Template:WikiProject Paranormal navigation
WikiProject Paranormal
| ||||||||||||||||||||
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/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/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard
Very surprised indeed.
It was created by User:Moreschi Contributions. ——Martin (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)
Recently Created
The article Chair of Death has now been created by me. Please list any other recently created articles here, as to avoid confusion. BRiCKDuDE102692 06:49, 1 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)
Gurdon Light
Need a paranormal tag on that article. Thanks. 65.163.112.214 03:16, 17 October 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 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)
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)
- And Cryptozoology and Parapsychology...is there a tag for WikiProject Paranormal? brickdude 05:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Paranormal Image deletion: have your say
, 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)
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.
(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 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 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 ☎ 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
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 ☎ 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)
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)
Categories: