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 22:00, Wednesday, May 8, 2024 (UTC). The previous collaboration was Electronic voice phenomenon.

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)

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 We at WP:CHICAGO are looking for a replacement since he is no longer active.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)

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 [1] . 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 [2]? 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)

This is no secret, but SA seems to be well known in wiki[3]. He is Joshua Schroeder, a past JC science instructor and now graduate student in astronomy at Columbia University [4].

SA can be seen in this video [5] in a talk about his “Wikipedia Pseudoscience” zeal. The paper is here [6].

I am amazed at the fear he instills in admin, they just cannot deal with him. And those who try, become victims (application of shoot the messenger) [7] & [8].Vufors (talk) 02:48, 2 July 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)

Mad Wannabe Scientist Plots Wiki Domination

The particular attribution guideline here [9] is about to be used all over Wiki in this way [10]. It may be of interest to members of this project. We are about to see every claim ever made by Robert Carroll or James Randi elevated to the status of fact and inserted everywhere without attribution as if it were indeed fact. Well done Neal 74.208.16.55 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)