Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InShaneee (talk | contribs) at 04:16, 9 October 2006 (→[[Jerry D. Coleman]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Attention
Attention
>This page is not for reporting the paranormal, it is for discussing Wikipedia articles related to the paranormal.
The current Paranormal Collaboration of the Month is (not yet decided).
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 11 October 2006 UTC
will become the next Collaboration of the Month.
The current time is 12:47, Monday, June 2, 2025 (UTC).
The previous collaboration was (none yet).

Archives for the old project

Supernatural Archives

Archives for March 31- April 17

The Archives

Archives for April 18- May 8

The Archives


Roll Call

Need to know how active you are with the project and what you're currently working on. Note to those signing here: Please don't forget to add your name to our participants page, as well!

:) - Andrew Homer 19:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back to working on the project after getting side-tracked by gender articles and lesbian history, a side-interest of mine as anthropologist (not as an activist). I was concentrating on expanding cryptozoology stubs. I'll go back to that unless anyone would like me to work on something else. Please leave me notes on my talk page with requests for articles or areas of the project you would like help with. I'm a better editor now and much better at citing sources! Lisapollison 09:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Good luck. I just took a good luck at that article, it's talk page and it's history and have concluded you are a very brave editor! That article is a cesspit of controversy. I wish you every success in cleaning it up and having your edits not reverted for political reasons. Lisapollison 14:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

greetings!

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

Request for NPOV check and proof reading

I've heavily updated the page on cattle mutilation, added a lot more information, sources and sections, and need somebody to check it before I go much further.

Could somebody please check what I have done for POV and weasle words so that I can take the Neutrality tag off, and make sure that I'm taking the article in the right direction.

perfectblue 10:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it this weekend. Thanks for helping with this project. Reporting your progress and what you're working on here is helpful to me and others so we can support your work with additional edits and the proof-reading you have requested. Similarly, if anyone wishes to look over my work of the past 6 months, please feel free to do so. I'd be grateful for the feedback. This Project is gathering steam which is nice to see. I'm not the one who started it nor even a major member but I hope my own work and comments have motivated others to continue their good work. Thanks again Perfectblue97! Articles such as the one you are working on are in great need of NPOV editing. You've chosen a good article to work on. Lisapollison 17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
perfectblue, I've left some of my comments and concerns on the talk page for the article. In addition, I'm concerned about the section comparing Horse-rippers to Cattle mutilation. In order for spme of the accusations in that section to stay (such as horses tending to get slashed on Tuesdays by Mars worshippers) I believe more than one source citation is necessary. The guy making the allegation that tuesday is a bad day for horses seems a few quarters shy of a buck. In a google search, I was unable to find any other authority alleging that fertility rites, tuesdays and horse-rippers are linked. This is not a criticism of you. Rather; it is a suggestion that in order to achieve NPOV, we may want to avoid citing extremist views. Beefing up the Horse-ripper article might be in order here. Finally, I want to commend you for taking on a very difficult subject. It's not an easy article to edit and your efforts as part of this project are greatly appreciated. Further, your request for review indicates you value the input of others and are open to any needed edits. That's unusual when dealing with controversial subjects. Lisapollison 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I've never actually heard an RSPCA oficer called an extremist before. Just to clarify, they're actually Britain's largest and most respected animal welfare charity (they look after animals rather than throw red paint at displays of fur coats). Their rural branches are particularly well respected and they have a long history of involvement with horse welfare (I've deleted the section anyway, so this is pretty much moot).
perfectblue 16:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptozoology stubs

I am working on expanding some of the Cryptid and Cryptozoology stubs. Today I expanded the stub on the Queensland Tiger into a brief article with appropriate links. if you have any others besides Bigfoot that you'd like me to look at, please list them here or on my Talk Page. Thanks.Lisapollison 23:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today I wrote a brief article for Animal X (Show), which had an enrty but no article. Lisapollison 19:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article on the Animal X (Show) and created one for the Beast of Funen which was on the list of Cryptids but which did not have its own article. I have also written a brief article for The Veo which was cited but needed an article. Added a very brief article on The Batutut and made some small addtions to the WaheelaLisapollison 22:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief article on the Pizzly Bear, added some detail to the Hoop snake and did some minor editing of some other cryptid articles, mailing adding links to other wikipedia articles. Lisapollison 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your doing great! keep up the good work! I'll take a look at the articles and see if I can add anything. ---J.S (t|c) 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks so much for the feedback. It's always encouraging to know that your work is appreciated. I slacked off this week, but I'll get back to the Cryptids later today. Everyone feel free to leave requests for articles, expansions cleanups etc. here or on my talk pageLisapollison 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone deleted the brief entry I wrote on the Beast of Funen without comment. I was careful not steal any direct quotes and I feel I summarised the story succinctly. I can see now that I must keep copies of all my edits since things have a way of disappearing. I'd like to know why it was deleted so that if I did in fact do something wrong, I can be certain not to do it again.I only wrote the entry because it is listed on the Cryptid list and contains an innaporpriate link to a very non-neutral source. If a more experienced member of the project can help me with this I'd appreciate it. Since all the sources for the story link back to that one article, I can see where some wikipedian flying by might have considred it not worth an entry but it is. It is worthy of note because it documents a series of sighting of "Alien Big Cats" in Denmark. Most ABC sightings are in Australia or the UK. thanks Lisapollison
Looks like it was deleted as per the discussion here, which summed up says that the article was unsourced. --InShaneee 00:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much InShanee. Much appreciated. So, should I try and put it back up WITH the source? Or just forget about it? It was not a hoax. I don't have a dog in the fight over whether ABCs are real so I really don't care. I was merely trying to flesh out the Cryptids that needed articles. There are thousands of unsourced articles here on wikipedia and usually they get tagged as needing a source and then left up for repair. The speed with which people delete some things while leaving up so much else is bewildering. Very discouraging. Lisapollison 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So long as you do have a source for it, I'd give it a try. --InShaneee 00:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am working now including citations in the articles I have worked on. Thanks to those who tagged where they were needed. If anyone has the time and feels like reviewing my recent work and inserting citation tags, I'd be much obliged. I am getting better at doing the citations properly, so it shouldn't take me long to fix everything. Lisapollison 02:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remeber though that makes the criterea for speedy deletion, so an admin. can still delete it easily Mahogany
Thanks for the warning! Perhaps instead of tagging the article, if a citation is need, people can note it on the discussion page for me. I've made great progress with citations (or at least I believe I have!) on the following two articles, both of which have been extensively revised:
Thanks again everyone for helping me get up to speed.Lisapollison 03:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a basic stub for Crawfordsville monster which was on the list of articles to be written. I'll finish it later tonight or tomorrow. it's an old case from 1891 about a sighting of a sky monster. Anyone wanting to add to it, please feel freeLisapollison 03:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paranormal Watchers up for renaming

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

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

Possibly dead...

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

It's been quiet, but we're still here. I think some new organization of the project page might stir things up, myself. --InShaneee 15:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to spark more life into the group. What can we do? Dreadlocke 00:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Couple things. For starters, we can make sure that Paranormal-related articles have the {{Wikiproject Paranormal}} tag on their talk pages, to ensure that the project is getting as much exposure as possible. Secondly, we can take a few cues from other wikiprojects and start a Pending Tasks list (for issues that affect the project as a whole) and a Collaboration of the Week/Month (to identify good or needy articles that the project wants to see improved, and encourage us all to help out with it). --InShaneee 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I added the tag to Talk:Natasha Demkina and Talk: Champ (legend). Let me know if those are proper projects for the group. The Natasha Demkina article is currently under dispute. Dreadlocke 18:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems appropriate, Great Job --Mulder talk 18:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mulder! Dreadlocke 04:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Project Member...

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

This is really supposed to be a page for discussion about articles, not the topic of ufo's and the paranormal itself. --InShaneee 20:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought it was interesting --Mulder talk 18:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but this isn't a general message board. --InShaneee 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

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

O.k. Mr. Law answer this, you wake up and you have a gun beside you and two grey beings approach you, two choices
  1. Let them take you from your house
  2. Blow them to Hell

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

Most witnesses report that they are somehow paralysed by the aliens. People I have ran into will shoot ET and the like. I'm in E. Texas. Here is a report that will prove interesting, go to this link In this, Guardsmen shoot at a hovering UFO. Martial Law 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
As for me, I'd probably would have no choice in the matter, since the greys are rumored to be telepathic and/or empathic. I've seen a report in which someone pulled a gun on a grey, only to end up paralysed. Martial Law 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I kinda of thought that you would know I knew that I was just being sarcastic but hell does anyone know how to fight greys? --Mahogany 20:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (what's up with the sig.?)[reply]
As explained below, wikipedia is not for general discussion of topics such as this one, only article content and other editing concerns. --InShaneee 20:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually not one to be rude but could you please stop with this crap I created the Wikiproject and I say that you can add paranormal chat here --Mahogany 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, do not make personal attacks, as they are not allowed. Secondly, all of wikipedia is open to anyone, therefore the creator of a wikiproject has no more say in its operation than any other editor. Thirdly, this wikiproject still must follow all rules of wikipedia, including that that wikipedia is not a place for general discussion. --InShaneee 20:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're in the right I did get a bit intense there and I'm sorry, also you're right again and I'll just make a branch to this talk page so people can talk about Paranormal evidence. --Mahogany 20:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I think you misunderstood me. Wikipedia policy covering all content on any page here forbids that sort of general discussion. Creating a new page doesn't get around that. --InShaneee 20:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is only allowed on user pages? --Mahogany 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)(once again I'm sorry for snapping)[reply]
Well I'm outta here and I'll talk about this tommorow --Mahogany 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Essentially, yes. You have far more leeway what you choose to do in your own namespace (including any subpages of that you choose to create), but talk pages in the article and wikipedia namespace are only supposed to be used for article and editing related concerns. Sorry for the confusion. --InShaneee 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a ghost...

In my old Junior High building. It scared the shit out of me. Anything else you want to know?Cameron Nedland 15:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a place for general paranormal discussion, just issues related to editing and article content. --InShaneee 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When me and Martial Law created this Wikiproject we intended that as one of the other uses so please stop saying they can't --Mahogany 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Witness testimonials can and do lead to hard evidence, as any police detective will often state. Martial Law 20:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not the type of thing you can do anywhere on wikipedia, as it is against policy. If you wish this evidence to be known, you will simply need to find a BBS or something similar to post it on. --InShaneee 20:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, this is against Wikipedia policy. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show links to forums for discussion of paranormal phenomena, such as Fantastic Forum and the like, and then persuade people to go to such sites instead of discussing them on the encyclopedia. --Chr.K. 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No...that's linkspam. --InShaneee 20:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a notice so instead of contacting this page you can click one of our members to talk about paranormal stuff --Mahogany 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the notice is displaying as black on a black background for me. --InShaneee 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhmm... You using firefox? wtf my sig. is not working --Mahogany 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better? --Mahogany 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perfecto! :) --InShaneee 17:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the "NOT" is in dark purple that doesn't read well so to some people it looks as if that atg is saying that this IS the place to report that kind of thing. Can you change it to a lighter color? 14:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The above comment is mine. Sorry. I wasn't logged in. Lisapollison 17:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:UFO Websites

Do a Google Search:UFO. You'll have more UFO websites and data sites than you'll know what to do with. Also go to www.mysteries-megasite.com as well. Martial Law 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up goals section

I cleaned up some of the goals section which fail various Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:OR and WP:V. As far as I'm concerned, the link at the top of this webpage works well for redirecting personal discussions, but we should try to make it clear that Wikipedia is for writing an encyclopedia, not for beginning another message board or usenet group. There are plenty of other places people can go to report their paranormal interactions. --ScienceApologist 20:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the goal of "patrol frequently vandalized pages", which is both valid and important. --InShaneee 00:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That was deleted mistakenly. --ScienceApologist 02:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shocking UFO Matter

This UFO link has a lot of UFO incident reports, primary links are also lested as well. Among matters discussed are military related UFO cases, some shocking abductions. Something in the Satellite Internet services is causing my sig to foul up, and is causing other Wikipedians to have problems intermittently. Maybe a meteoroid had taken out some of the onboard equipment in the satellite. A little armor plate and/or some compressed Kevlar can keep these things out of future satellite equipment. Can the material in this link be used anywhere ? Martial Law 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

John Lambe

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

From a quick glance, it looks EXTREMELY well sourced. Good job! --InShaneee 17:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I'm impressed! --C.Black 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Zagalejo 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

So many of the templates on the main page either need a cleanup or need to be deleted. Anyone willing to tackle that? --C.Black 13:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merged Template:User Paranormal2 (barely used) into Template:User Paranormal1

Template:WikiProject Paranormal user can be merged into the now simplified Template:WikiProject Paranormal1

Template:SOWN could be merged into Template:SCW

Template:Demon-stub Template:Ghost-stub Template:Monster-stub Template:Myth-stub Template:Supernatural-stub Template:Witch-stub Template:Para-stub could be merged into a single universal paranortmal stub.

Side note, I accidently placed the Template:Para-stub on some paranormal articles that are not parapsychology while adding the missing Paranormal category. --Ollj 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there probably shouldn't be so many stub types and that one Paranormal one would do. Perhaps someone should suggest it at WikiProject Stub sorting (as I think is the proper procedure for that). Also, if a Paranormal stub type is created, it would be helpful to have a corresponding category page to collect all the articles tagged as paranormal stubs. That way they'll be easier to find and expand. --Helfaery 06:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category sorting and definition problems

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

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

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

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

Too many fire inspectors have seen evidence that can be explained no other way. Are the psuedo-Christians up to censorship, again? Andrew Homer 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Christian Fundamentalists would LOVE this case, since it demonstrates "The Fires of Hell" as far as they're concerned. It may have been the "psuedo-Skeptics" who wanted it removed. I'm in what they call The Bible Belt. Martial Law 19:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Possession

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

Requests

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

An image would be a nice start for this article --Mulder talk 17:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also try to find a more solid source so no more reverting can be done. --Mahogany 17:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's good advice. But the article already includes information from the only known reputable sources. It seems that the only sources for the dubious information Dreadlocke wants to include in the Natasha Demkina article are sleazy newspaper tabloids and other non-reputable sources, such as Demkina's own web site where she's promoting her paranormal "medical diagnostic" services.Askolnick 13:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


Wizard article

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

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

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

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

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

To get away from fantasy scripts & wizards, you may want to bone up on shamans and the real world of the oldest spiritual religion (from Siberia - 25,000 years old). Andrew Homer 01:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that is what? What evidence is there for such a religion? That's nearly 20,000 years before humans began leaving written records. No doubt, humans had religious beliefs back then, but what do we know of them? Just curious. Askolnick 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In your first day in Cultural Antropology class, your professor will inform you about oral traditions. Andrew Homer 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oral traditions spanning 25,000 years is not believed to give an accurate idea of a religion by anthropology today. Drawings, tools and the few pieces of art are all we go by there - though one can speculate, of course. I am curious, however, regarding what the source of these litarary traditions is; is there a book written which have gathered these old stories or is it people you or someone else has talked to? And how do you know that a given story or idea originated 25,000 years ago and not 15,000? Lundse 18:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or 3000 years ago, when a record of the traditions may have first been written down? As for oral traditions, anyone who ever played the game of telephone should know how quickly stories are altered when passed from person to person. Beliefs recorded 3000 years ago are likely to be quite different from beliefs held a thousand years before, let alone 22,000 years. Askolnick 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L/L Research

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


Papers and References

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why should Randi give away his money to people who conduct shoddy research? Randi has spent an enormous amount of money on research that has and will stand up to scientific scrutiny for a long time to come. His investigations of Rev. Peter Popoff; his "Project Alpha," which showed how abysmally incompentent the researchers at Washington University's McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research were;[5] his investigation of career criminal and psychic James Hydrick, to name a few, are already classics in the field of paranormal research. Despite his advanced age, he continues to be the child telling us all that the emperor has no clothes. That's why the psychic conmen of the world and their accomplices hate his guts. Askolnick 13:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just had to add that Randi is not into investing in scientific (or other) research, nor has he ever claim to be. He is, however, legally bound to pay out 1,000,000$ (which can be proven to exist with a phone call or letter) to eg. Olga Worrall if she can just show that there is any special energy emanating from her hands.
Another thing is that research is not verifiable, but that a few hundred years back people believed that scientific theories could be (now the standard is more or less falsifiability). Did you mean that the research's results is verifiable (meaning repeatable?)? If so, please link to the results, reports, conclusions, etc. of the reasearch, it would be most interesting. Lundse 11:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic or Purported Psychic?

I would like to encourage members of Wikiproject Paranormal to comment on the proposal to change the name of Category:Psychic to Category:Purported psychic or claimed psychic. This seems a little petty to me, especially as the category states it is a list of "purported psychics" already. We are trying to reach a consenous on this so please leave a comment at Category talk:Psychics. Best wishes - Solar 13:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar, thanks for letting us know about this important discussion. I believe such a name change would amount to Skeptical Activism and as such, is a bad idea. Funny thing is, I'm a Skeptic myself so you'd think I'd agree with the name change. Please read my comments at the above link you provided. If people wish to agree or disagree with my comments, feel free, but do so at that link. I don't want to get our project page further bogged down. However, I do believe our project members should be involved in this debate becuase if the change is made, it could have wider implications for many of the areas we write about. The tag of PURPORTED could wind up on everything skeptics wish to discredit. Thanks again. Lisapollison 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a source....

I've found a Kids TV show that can lead to several seperate article placements. The show is called ROSWELL CONSPIRACIES: ALIENS, MYTHS & LEGENDS. The show is about a World/UN group of Special agents, some who are aliens themselves, fight evil aliens bent on taking Earth for themselves. Website access to the show is www.digiviewus.com Episodes include, The Bait - Part I, The Bait - Part II, Mountain Retreat, Troubled Past, Peacemaker, Chupacabra. I have two DVDs of the show myself. I think I have found a source for seperate edits for Wikipedia. Martial Law 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The show is under BKN New Media , INC., Seen on the FOX KIDS NETWORK. Martial Law 17:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call for references: Invisible Master

The article Invisible Master has been deleted before on account of a lack of any external verification, but has recently been recreated with the addition of "Emerson, C.X. "Investigations into the Paranormal: The Invisible Master phenomenon" (Paradigm Publishing)" as a source. I can't find any external verification that this source itself exists, however. Does anyone here know of this book or where to find verification of it? I'm still quite dubious that this article isn't original research. Bryan 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Amazon.com and the Library of Congress catalog, but I didn't get any results for the title or the author. There is a (very cheesy) Fortean writer who goes by the pseudonym "Commander X", but none of his titles even vaguely resemble this one. My guess would be OR. Zagalejo 01:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No matches found at Booksinprint.com, either. Zagalejo 01:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained Disappearances

There should be a category dedicated to this, and/or affiliation with the project. The stuff that happened in Bennington, Vermont up to 1950, and the region's history, would qualify, for example. --Chr.K. 15:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do have Category:Disappeared people, although none of the Bennigton people have their own articles. I'm not sure if unexplained disappearances are a specific focus of this project, but some of the weirder cases might be. Zagalejo 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see you've already made a category. That's cool. Category:Disappeared people could become a subcategory of that one. One point of advice, though: the title of the category should probably be "Unexplained disappearances" (with a lower case "d") rather than "Unexplained Disappearances". I'm sure there's a rule about titles here. Zagalejo 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd change it back to lowercasing the second word if I could, unfortunately. As for the category classificiation, the unexplained aspect of the disappearances put them within the project; NC16002 (written above on this page as well) is classifiable as both a aircraft disappearance, and those of people; the individuals in Bennington would be people alone, et al. --Chr.K. 13:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do think the Bennington mystery and the Bermuda triangle stuff are relevant to this topic. I was thinking about things like Jimmy Hoffa's disapperance, which has no perceived connection with the paranormal. As for the category name, I'm not sure how to change it myself, but it's not a pressing issue, so we can worry about it later. Zagalejo 14:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relevence is in consideration of the unexplained, which to me is the definition of paranormal. Hoffa's death has a likely and reasonable explanation: a Mafia wack. The ones referenced here do not have such. --Chr.K. 04:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further project improvement

I'm preparing to do some further cleanup and improvement to the Project page, starting with removing Paranormal News (since it has no relation to the improvement of articles) and References (which I can't make heads or tails of, anyway). I'm also eyeing the Links section as a linkfarm. If anyone has any comments or, more importantly, needs any of that info, get it now. --InShaneee 22:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As semi-referenced to just above, there should be a summary of the major topics currently covered by the project, and likely subtopics to those as well. --Chr.K. 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most definatly. I've got some other ideas too, but I'll discuss those shortly. --InShaneee 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've cleaned the bejeebus out of the project page and condensed a lot of the stuff there into the nifty "to do" list now at the top of page, complete with criteria to keep everything running smoothly (borrowed somewhat from Wikiproject Comics). Let me know what you think! --InShaneee 17:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to include the Kecksburg UFO Incident in articles that need expansion, and a classification system to the prioritization proceedure. For starters, I would classify EVP as a priority one, considering the amount of interest in the subject. --Chr.K. 04:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Phantom kangaroo could use some expanision, too, although I'm not sure how to tackle it. Is there any good evidence to suggest they are something more than escaped pets/zoo animals? Zagalejo 15:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I have een wanting to exapnd that article, Phantom kangaroo, for some time! When I was in highschool in the late 70s, there was a periodic outreak of Phantom kangaroo sightings in a Northern NJ town called Ho Ho Kus! It made the newspapers many times but I have yet to find a source to quote. These thinsg are almost never animal escpaes ut are often cited as such in news reports. other typical explanations include an circus train derailment neary to the sightings. Those are parts of the legend/rumor that pop up whenever people start seeing kangaroos in the yards! Lisapollison 04:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit about kangaroos in Ho Ho Kus here. About ten years before I was born, there was a major flap in my hometown (Chicago). They later parodied it on the show ER, which blew my mind. :) Zagalejo 14:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, my next priority is to set up a "collaboration of the month" (which should be up and running within the week), in which we vote on an article that needs a lot of TLC, then encourage all members to put in some work on it. I think that should take care of that issue. --InShaneee 17:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! I've had a productive day!

  1. The Paranormal Collaboration of the Month is up and running! Please feel free to begin nominations and voting immediatly!
  2. I created a category to keep track of all articles tagged as being part of our project (putting the project template on the talk page will automatically list it here).

Additionally, if no one has any objections, I'd like to replace all instances of {{Template:Wikiproject Paranormal}}, replace them with the more standardized {{Template:Wikiproject Paranormal1}}, rename the latter to the former, and delete the former. This would bring us more in line to the banners of the other wikiprojects. Any thoughts/objections? --InShaneee 20:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for all your hard work! I like where this project is going. Do whatever you think should be done with the templates. Zagalejo 22:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding rumors that Loren Coleman is now working with us at WPP...

There is something wrong with the file indexing of his site. I say this here in the hope that someone could inform him, so that I could in turn contact him concerning his research on the subjects of phantom trains, and unidentified submerged objects. --Chr.K. 03:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he hasn't edited here since May 22. There were some disputes about the content of his biography, which I won't discuss here. If you want to e-mail him, though, all of his contact info is available on the web. See [6]. Zagalejo 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been brought to my attention that the pentacle (currently used in the Wikiproject templates), as the symbol of the Wiccan faith, probably isn't the best thing to use to represent ourselves. Any objections to switching it to the UFO/alien graphic from the userbox? --InShaneee 01:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, you should go ahead and do that. Zagalejo 14:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something that is a bit more neutral? I personally find the UFO logo a bit misleading, as many of the articles here are more related to the non-physical. Also the pentagram is not specific to Wicca, in fact the Wiccan tradition borrowed it from the Hermetic and older traditions, so it is more of a general occult symbol representing the elements among other things rather than a symbol of Wicca. - Solar 16:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This I do understand (the UFO icon says nothing of ghosts, or loch ness), but I do think we need something a little more blanket/representational. I'm not really sure what, though. If anyone has any artistic ability, they can always try making one. --InShaneee 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... how about an exotic-looking question mark? Or a picture of Charles Fort? I think the first might be too vague, and the second might be too obscure, but it's gonna be hard to find something that's representative of all paranormal topics. Zagalejo 17:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the stylized "?" idea. Perhaps that, or a stylized "X" ? --InShaneee 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image of the hand over the dark blue radar scope that was on the X-Files opening credits was always outright weird enough to be symbolic of The Unexplained...that or the image of the hand with the unidentified red mark on it. --Chr.K. 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's start comparing these empirically. A Charles Fort logo would appear something like this:

Not too bad, but not immediatly recognizable. --InShaneee 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a copyright violation, I vote for a variation on the X-Files X logo.
perfectblue 17:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we can get someone to create it themselves and release it under the GDFL, we can do that. Can anyone help there? --InShaneee 17:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I recomend one of these, they are both stylized X-files Xs. I don't know how original something has to be to be released under GPL though, as they were both based on a larger image that was cropped and recolored a bit.

perfectblue 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minixfile.png
File:Minixfile2.png

Those actual base image is still the x-files logo, so we can't use them, unfortunatly. It's got to be ENTIRELY original for our uses. --InShaneee 18:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I draw up a big P (For Paranormal) in the style of the X-File logo, would that be acceptable? Or would it still breach regs?
perfectblue 07:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Paranormallogo.JPG
Would this be more acceptable? It's not the X-files. But is in the spirit of the X-files logo.
perfectblue 11:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
HA! I like that! You might want to ask some of the other active members first (MartialLaw, Lisapollison, Chr.K., Zagalejo, ect) (assuming they don't see this thread in the next day or so) since this will be such a large, sweeping change (approximately 325 pages!), but I don't think I'd be opposed to that! Two things though: First, you can't really specify how an image may be used under GNU or CC, you just have to sorta let it be. Secondly, could you make it bigger? The wiki software can automatically shrink images to whatever size is needed, so we tend to prefer bigger images, as they're more versitile. --InShaneee 13:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cute. :) Works for me. Zagalejo 16:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rubbish with shading. I've made a bigger version, but I can't get the P to be the same shade as the ring, my software is limited to a basic gradient fill and an airbrush, and I'm not particularly good at using them.
Here's a bigger version, and bigger and you'll see my brushstrokes.
perfectblue 17:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could make the text a little bolder? It'll be more readable shrunk down that way. --InShaneee 17:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bolder? Do you mean making the grey bits more white?

perfectblue 18:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just mean thicker, so they don't get swallowed up by the black. --InShaneee 18:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New member - and a question

Hi all, just threw my hat into the ring. I do have one comment at the outset -- I think that black tag at the top of the page that suggests people who want to chat about paranormal experiences contact a member of the project is a little much. At the risk of sounding uptight, I don't particularly want random people leaving messages on my talk page about the weird lights they saw in the forest last night. I think it's best really to just leave it at ... "This isn't for discussing the paranormal."

On another topic, is anyone interested in setting up a more formal mechanism to decide what project should be the current collaboration? I'd nominate Winchester Mystery House myself, which is how I found out about this wikiproject. Admittedly I'm a bit biased since I've already been working on it.  :) — ripley/talk 17:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. That second sentence should probably come out of there. As for a 'formal mechinism', one's already in place, right here, so feel free to make that nomination. Welcome to the project! :) --InShaneee 18:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone raised a section on "I saw a ghost." The tag was placed like that after people had already shown their willingness to not know what they're doing. In favor of it's remaining: it's big and colorful, which catches the eye. --Chr.K. 01:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the tag in general and I think it's a good thing to remind people that this page isn't for just discussing the paranormal. What I objected to (and have since removed) is the open invitation to use members' talk pages to chat about the weird noises they heard in their grandmother's house last Christmas.  :) — ripley\talk 16:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't for discussing things not relating to the site as a whole, anyway. --InShaneee 16:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section for categories/discussion

Again, if anyone has a way to change Category:Unexplained Disappearances into Category:Unexplained disappearances, by all means do so. Invite comment on what kind of category name known, documented UFO sightings should be given, and whether the word documented is in fact going to be needed, to keep people from just throwing in something they may have seen five minutes ago, and encouraging only verifiable reports. --Chr.K. 01:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. As for UFO sightings, would we be limiting this to Close encounters of the first kind, or would this include all types? I don't think we need to worry about random articles, since non-verifiable reports would probably be deleted. Zagalejo 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Sources

I'm looking for WP:V and WP:RS sources for information on cattle mutilation, particularly any involving the hypothisis that cults are behind it, or attempting to debunk it.

There aren't many pier reviewed sources that will even touch this topic, and I'm having a tough time getting anything past another user whose taken ownership of the page and is very fussy about sources.

perfectblue 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most newspaper reports about cattle mutilation will mention the cult hypothesis, but few go into any detail. This is the best thing I could find (via Factiva). It's from a July 30, 1988 Houston Chronicle article by Al Morch, titled "Satan expert has devil of a time exposing myths".
"Unfortunately, sensationalized stories die hard once planted in the public mind; and the media often ignore reporting the `final' truth. Few follow-up stories ever appeared after the news wires in 1975 reported a rash of cattle killings involving mutilation in several western states.
The stories, given widespread play in all the media, said the mutilations were suspected to be the sacrificial handiwork of a network of satanic cults.
Later, this was proven false after federal and state animal pathologists autopsied the remains and determined that in almost every case the cause of death was natural. The mutilations, they concluded, were uniformly the work of animal and bird predators and scavengers. Their findings, however, failed to surface in the media, and the myth of the cattle mutilation epidemic still persists."
You might want to dig through some 70s-era newspaper archives to get more details. Zagalejo 14:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I checked out my copy of Jerome Clark's Unexplained!, and he cites some evidence in favor of the cult hypothesis. Namely,
"Police agencies in Alberta, Idaho, Montana, and Iowa found a few cases in which circumstantial evidence tied Satanist groups to cattle mutilations. Laboratory analysis confirmed that a small number of animals had been killed after being drugged. In Idaho a police informant infiltrated a group that claimed to have mutilated cattle, though he himself did not personally witness such an act. Some reliable sightings of black-hooded figures, presumably cultists in ritual garb, were recorded, though any connection between these and animal's deaths could only be speculative. Officers, farmers, and ranchers occassionally stumbled upon what they believed to be evidence of ritual activity, such as stone altars and the bodies of small animals" (140-1).
Jerome Clark is one of the most intelligent and discerning paranormal writers out there - miles ahead of anyone else, except maybe William Corliss - and he certainly qualifies as a reliable source. Zagalejo 01:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most appreciated, my library is a little short in this subject.
Do you have any more information on the drugged animals. I have some data from the FBI tat says that anti-coagulants were found in a couple of cattle, but it's pretty vague and it only speculates on the use of sedatives.
perfectblue 08:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any other info immediately available, but I'll see if I can find some of the sources Clark uses in his bibliography. Zagalejo 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be sure, this is "Unexplained!: Strange Sightings, Incredible Occurrences & Puzzling Physical Phenomena, ISBN: 1578590701"?
perfectblue 08:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this one. I haven't run into anything else you might be able use, but if I find something good, I'll let you know. Zagalejo 16:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-Fi....

The Sci Fi channel has unveiled a investigative detail. Go to www.scifi.com for more info. They're investigating all paranormal matters, such as ghosts, Bigfoot, UFOs, the Chupacabra, related matters. Martial Law 22:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...number one, I can't find what you've mentioned. Two, SciFi has NEVER been a reliable source for the paranormal in the past (remember Scifi Happens?). --InShaneee 22:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show is Sci-Fi Investigates, premires Oct. 11. Martial Law 03:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Website is Sci Fi Investigates www.scifi.com/SciFi Investigates Martial Law 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link is www.scifi.com/Sci Fi Investigates. This corrects a unusual glitch. Martial Law 07:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HUGE announcements!

Alright! After a week of working like a dog, I've got some HUGE additions to the project to announce!

  • Article assessement! - This is a means by which we can rate articles, according to an objective criteria, as far as how close they are to Featured Article status. This not only allows us to see the status of the project as a whole, but is also a big step towords getting paranormal articles included in WP:1.0; more info on that page.
  • Peer review! - a mechanism to gather opinions from other members of the project on what needs to be done to improve an article. Great for articles not quite ready for Collaboration, or just articles you'd like to work on yourself, but need some more ideas on where to go. More info on that page, as well.
  • A new and improved project banner! - Now has the built-in functionality to show an article's rating, if it is or has been the Collab of the Month, and whether it has had a peer review before. But don't worry, simply tagging {{WikiProject Paranormal}} still works just fine. More info on how to use the new features on the template page.
  • A navigation template! - To help keep track of all this! Already posted on the main project page.
  • Improved categorization! - Now, all articles tagged with our project banner will show up here in nice, neat alphabetical order for easy browsing.
  • A shortcut! - The link [[WP:PARA]] is now an easy-to-type shortcut straight to the project page!

Goodness am I tired. Anyway, all of that is live as of now, so go ahead and feel free to start making use of them immediatly! The only big tasks left to do now are to keep tagging paranormal articles with {{WikiProject Paranormal}} on the talk page, and to ask frequent editors of paranormal articles if they'd like to join in (no better time to join than now!). Please add the Peer Review and Assessment pages to your watchlist so that you know when another member needs something. Hope you guys enjoy, and if you have any questions at all, ask away! Oh, and a HUGE thanks to User:Kirill Lokshin, a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council who helped with a lot of the enormous roadblocks (such as coding the new banner) to creating all of this. Alright, let's get started! --InShaneee 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OSIR

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Chacon, does anyone know if the Office of Scientific Investigation and Research (OSIR) ever actually existed? Lots of people are saying that it's purely fictional - perhaps invented for the tv show Psi Factor - but one of my old books (The Very Scary Almanac) suggests that it really existed in the early 1990s, and even provides an address. So, what's the deal here? Zagalejo 04:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Search reveals a Russian language set up: Google: Psi-Factor:OSIR reveals this. It may have been a fictional govt. agency. Martial Law 07:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at some newspaper archives, it seems that something called the OSIR did exist at one point, although I suspect that the tv show must have exaggerated its scope/power. Anyone else have information? :) Zagalejo 17:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible the organization was set up as a publicity stunt for the show? --InShaneee 18:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible, I suppose. Zagalejo 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I've found suggests that something called OSIR was operating in the early 90s, and doing legitimate research; they were even mentioned on Eye to Eye with Connie Chung :). However, I haven't found any references to OSIR from 1990 or earlier, so perhaps they were just running for a few years to help legitimate the tv show. Seems like a more reasonable explanation than any of the conspiracy theories that are out there, anyway. Zagalejo 03:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to ask yourself, "do they pay taxes?" If they have real employees or recieve fees/donations, then they must A) have registered as a company B) have filled tax returns. Find them, and you've found the company, find a tax record with a TV studio's name on it, and you've found a publicity stunt.
perfectblue 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons Why

Does anybody know some good WP:V WP:RS sources that I could use to explain the phychological or sociological reasons behind people's belief in cattle mutilation, and the reasons why this belief has fluctuated over time (for example, was it a responce to the secularization of society, paranoia over Russian, or the age old 'fear of the unknown')?

Failing that, are there any good sources that apply to this area of the paranormal in general, eg crop circles, alien abductions and UFOs, that I could generalize around without slipping into WP:OR territory.

I'd like to show that people are the product of the society that they live in and their beliefs/fears reflect this, and that they aren't simply irrational kooks for believing in these things.

perfectblue 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These might prove helpful, although I haven't read any of them myself: Why People Believe Weird Things, How We Know What Isn't So, Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. Zagalejo 20:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

Does this pass WP:RS for a contentious topic [7]?

perfectblue 11:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, although this has been a source of debate at the Skeptic's Dictionary talk page. Zagalejo 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have another user citing this as a WP:RS source of information on 'the effects of burrowing insects on animal carcasses', and the 'feeding habits of scavangers on animal carcasses' It is being used as the primary source for a contentious argument attempting to debunk an alledged paranormal event (and is not backed up by any secondary sources). Given that the writter isn't an animal doctor, isn't citing an animal doctor, and isn't citing any laboratory reports to back up their suppositions, I have extreme doubts as to whether this source should appear in the article that I'm working on.
Unfortunately, the user who is citing it and I are currently disagreeing over a lot of things relating to WP:RS, so I'm seeking a second opinion or two before precceeding any further.
perfectblue 10:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gef the talking mongoose

There are currently two pages about Gef the talking mongoose, a cryptid/ghost investigated by Harry Price. Does anybody know how to merge the pages or get rid of one of them?--Tascio 19:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it. What's the title of the second one? --InShaneee 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gef_the_Talking_Mongoose but it seems to have vanished now?!--Tascio 19:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to have been into a redirect in late June, which is in fact what needs to be done after a merge. :) --InShaneee 20:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Ok, I guess I got the wrong end of the stick on this one! Thanks for your help!--Tascio 20:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding stuff to "New articles" on the project page?

Can I do that, or is it an admin only thing?--Tascio 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free! However, I did add some 'hidden' directions there to help organize the section. You'll see 'em when you're editing the section, though. --InShaneee 14:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff! Thanks! --Tascio 15:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the History channel....

Go to the History Channel RIGHT NOW. It is currently featuring UFO material, as of this timepoint. Martial Law 03:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One part of this documentary has mentioned "JANAP - 146". Martial Law 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Documentary on here is UFOs: When UFOs Arrive. Appearantly, this is about what may happen should it be known that "we(this planet)" have made contact with aliens, especially if they come here. Martial Law 03:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The show aired @ 11 pm EST/EDT on 10-2-06. Martial Law 03:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Major question was this: IF there were alien contact, what will happen ? Will there be a planetary rebellion (some will revolt for religious reasons, some, out of revenge, due to the Robertson Panel protocol) Martial Law 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Work Done in The Project

Please use this section to update us on your work.

I have recently added some paragraphs to Phantom kangaroo and some facts and detial to EBay Haunted Painting. I made a minor edit to Electronic voice phenomenon. I also just added a basic stub for Road troll but think it might be better titled as road trolls (plural). I'll be back at the Cryptozoology subjects later today. if you'd like me to work on something, please leave me a message here or on my talk page.Lisapollison 10:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note: As per the manual of style, Road Troll (singular) is indeed the correct title, though a redirect with the plural spelling isn't out of the question. As for expansion of that article, have you considered adding a Folklore section? (not having read the book, I'm not sure if it would be appropriate, but the name for me evokes the whole 'billy goats gruff' troll-under-the-bridge image). I'm also leaving a message on your talk page about references. Happy editing! --InShaneee 13:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the title issue. I believe that if we include anything on folklore it should be very brief. Road trolls are the name given to an anomalous humanoid creature that the witnesses believe to be very real and not mthical or legendary creature. That's what makes them different from trolls in general. They are, therefore, cryptozoological in nature. Certainly awareness of folklore and culture may influence sightings and how they are reported. In any discussion of the folklore of trolls, we can keep it simple and then provide links to the other relevant articles on wikipedia.Lisapollison 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Road troll being propose for deletion

Hi fellow memebers, a quick on the draw editor has proposed this article for deletion claiming it is a neologism. The article was requested of us and I did my best to describe it and find supporting evidence. So far, the only citable sources I found was Jerry D. Coleman's books. Please conisder opposing deletion on the talk page or helping me flesh out the stub so it won't be deleted.Lisapollison 03:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - the article is safe for the time being, the editor who wanted it deleted has taken the tag off for now. I DO need help however, fleshing this out. Whomever prosoed this article, please assist me.Lisapollison 04:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited this article, added a couple of catagories in and divided the it up into sub sections so that it looks a bit better. I've also tiedied up the reference a bit too. Hope that this helps add to its credibility as an article.
perfectblue 16:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, perfectblue! You're really getting good at that whole reference and organizational stuff, eh? hehe. My biggest problem in trying to flesh out this article is trying to find sources beyong Jerry D. Coleman. The use of the word Troll is SO very common with regard to Internet bullies that any Google search with the word TROLL turns up hundreds of pages of garbage. Even searching within a search is hard. I have tried srearhing on these terms:
  • Road troll
  • Road troll sightings
  • Troll Sightings
  • Troll encounters
  • Gnome sightings
  • road gnome
  • Gnome troll sightings... and various permutations of that
  • rock troll
  • roadside troll sightings
  • roadside gnome
I get lots of references to garden gnomes and people with troll statue or doll collections visible from roads but little else. I'll try getting ahold of his books and see what references he lists. Can anyone help me out?Lisapollison 17:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm the one requested this article, but I'm having second thoughts whether there is enough meat here. I think it could be an article in the future, once more books have incorporated Coleman's research, but right now, it might be best to merge it with Jerry D. Coleman. I've been meaning to update and cleanup that article anyway, and it seems like most of the additional discussion about Road trolls is limited to internet forums and yahoo groups.
For the record, the road troll is supposed to be something like a "peg-legged bigfoot," rather than an actual troll. I happen to have both of Coleman's books – no one needs to go out and buy them – so I'm familiar with some of the specific sightings. Zagalejo 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say leave it for now as its own article. IF you can add any more detail based on the sightings in the books, please do. Does he reference any particular newspaper accounts? I'd assume he must have. That's where I expect to find such sightings. The thing is, people who have been seeing wizened creatures by sides of roads call them by different names. I saw one sighting where a person called what they saw a Muncheechee but it was a typical road troll sighting. The problem is that Road troll is just catching on in cryptozoological circles. My guess is that in a few years it will be more common. Lisapollison 11:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found one newspaper reference to a road-troll type creature here. I'll look through the books this weekend to see how much more I can add. I seem to recall that Coleman listed about a dozen or so sightings, although I'm not sure offhand how many were gleaned from newspaper reports and how many were based on his personal interviews. Just wondering, where did you find this Muncheechee sighting? Zagalejo 14:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the books. All of the sightings Coleman describes are from his "personal files" and were not published anywhere else. Now I'm worried this'll lead to WP:RS issues. Though Coleman's research itself is well-respected in cryptozoology circles, his books are rather hastily put together and have a lot of spelling/grammar issues. The casual reader might not consider him very authoritative because of the way he has presented his research. Zagalejo 00:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to clarify)I'm not necessarily saying Coleman's books do fail WP:RS. My point is it would be hard to convince most Wikipedians they are reliable sources, and I think this article will become a real headache if we rely primarily on those books. A redirect to the author's bio page (which I intend to revise this weekend, with some third-party citations) is probably the best option. There, we can briefly mention that Coleman has described sightings of these creatures (which is an indisputable fact) and just leave it at that.
In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have added this article to the request list. I was just barnstorming ideas for new articles and "Road troll" popped into my head. I didn't do a Google search or anything beforehand to see if there was enough useable information; I wrongly assumed that there would be. It is very cool to see that people have actually tried to tackle this topic, and I really respect your dilligence. You people rock. But I think I've set you all off on a wild-goose chase. Zagalejo 04:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping you mean Merge and Redirect. And if nothing else, all of this has reaffirmed my faith in our community spirit. :) --InShaneee 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll merge what I can. Zagalejo 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a better idea be to merge this page with a page about a similar phenomona, kind of like a 'see also' or a 'related phenomena' deal?
perfectblue 15:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd recommend that; it could be pushing Original Research to compare it to something else where no comparison previously existed. What pages in specific were you thinking of? --InShaneee 15:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Muncheechee, it's Monchhichi. It's a fuzzy monkey-thing toy/cartoon character made by the same people who made Hello Kitty, Here's a link to a picture of one http://www.cleavelin.net/monchichi.jpg, they even have their own wikipedia page Monchhichis
perfectblue 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
perfectblue, when referring to sightings, it is appropriate to use the spelling that the was used in the report and not the spelling of the trademarked toy the witnesses is obviously referring to. They said they saw a Muncheechee and NOT a Monchhichi. Had I changed the spelling, nobody could do a google search and potentially find the report to which I was referring. Zagalejo, the Muncheechee road troll sighting is in a file I have of printouts of humanoid sightings in New York State from the 1970s through 1980's. That's the spelling in the report. it took place either near Poughkeepsie or Wappingers Falls, I forget which just now and I don't have it in front of me. I've seen the report online with various spellings of Muncheechee/monchichi just to make our job more difficult. He calls the thing a rock Ape as well as a Muncheechee/monchichi but it fits the bill of a road troll. BTW, I feel the Road troll article should stay a separate article because the term is catching on and will likely soon be a catch phrase. I've got inquiries out with some other researchers for more references. Wikipedians can be waaaay to fast on the draw when making decisions about articles being deleted or merged. Patience is the better practice in my view. Who does it hurt to have Road troll on it's own? Nobody. Lisapollison 17:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy dictates that we make articles on things that HAVE caught on, not things that might, so if evidence can't be found in a week or so that it has much usage outside of that author, it should be merged. --InShaneee 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to keep it as a separate article, but I'm not confident it would survive an AfD discussion. We can let it stay for a while to see if anything else pops up; hopefully, one of those researchers will find something that's usable. Zagalejo 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One way to get more attention for Road troll and perhaps have other editors add to the article would be to add it to the List of cryptids. However, the format was changed recently to one that I just don't dare mess with. Can someone add it for me as well as the other new cryptid articles? Frankly I think that format with the boxes is too complicated and that it was easier to work with when it was a list separated into categories of cryptid. If anyone concurrs and cares to revert it, please do so. Lisapollison 05:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the road troll. Really, the format is quite simple, you just have six lines for each creature, each line can either be left blank, or can contain a particular fact about the creature in question. Here's the file for the 43rd President of the United States of American.

Not sure whether this is a cryptid though, or an urban myth.

|---- (Start of a new row) | (Name of Cryptid) George W Bush | (AKA) George Dubbya | (Status) Altogether too real | (Description) Hominid | (Location) Texas, Washington, Local 27/7 Mart

perfectblue 08:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crawfordsville monster

I've revised expanded and updated this page. Could somebody please check it to make sure that my edits are acceptable.

perfectblue 11:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good. Just to be safe, you might want to include some citations in the "appearance" section. Zagalejo 01:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd say that's the part that requires citations the most, though I suspect some of the existing citations may cover it. --InShaneee 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By and large, everything comes from the same sources, they're just not individually cited. I think that most of it is covered by Clark.
perfectblue 07:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban legends

...Is it just me, or is the newly added "urban legends" template on the project page an exact copy of the Black Project template? What's your thoughts: rewrite, or move to delete as unneccisary? --InShaneee 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow people

I've started to clean up the page on Shadow people as it was very messy and had little in the way of credible sources. I've

  • Completely re-written the and witnesses sections to remove the mass of duplicate information and blather
  • Prunned the ghosts bit down to a single paragraph (it was mostly irrelevant)
  • Drastically prunned the list of books TV shows and game links, because people appeared to be adding any and all 'shadow like' entities into it. Regardless of their relationship to Shadow People
  • Rewritten all of the external links to make them neater and more descriptive (plus prunned a few)
  • Completely reworded the non parnormol explanations section using some very solid sources (Nature, The British Journal of Psychiatry) and removed a lot of the unencyclobedic content.

I have not

  • Done anything with the paranormal explanations section, which needs a big overhaul.

perfectblue 12:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I'm thinking about putting in a standard infobox template for paranormal creatures/cryptids. To start with I'm just going to trial it as a table added to individual pages Crawfordsville monster, if you think that it's worthwhile, could somebody plese give me a hand to translate it into a gobbal wiki template/infobox as I'm not sure that I understand the entire proccess of doing so.

perfectblue 07:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and thou shalt recieve! I've set up one in my sandbox, with an example of its implimentation on its talk page. I didn't want to make it 'live' just yet, as I think there should be some discussion among the Cryptozoology regulars about precisely what the parameters should be (for example, do we really need to state that it's a cryptid in a cryptobox?). --InShaneee 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's mainly for Cryptids, I though that we could add some extra fields in and use it for paranormal creatures (things that aren't exactly cryptids, or are disputed). I'll update the code once I've worked out thing a little more.

perfectblue 15:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Do we really need "Group" and "Sub-Group"? I'm not sure we should be imposing a classification scheme on things which may not exist. I personally prefer "Description" (along the lines of what they use at List of cryptids). Zagalejo 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a clasification scheme, you just copy whatever the page already says. For example, Bigfoot would be a cryptid and of the subgroup hominid, whereas Bob the X-files martian would be an Alien of the sub catagory fictional creature. It basicly gives you an opportunity to link to any list or catagory of 'similar creatures'.
I kind of wrote it so that it could be applied to non cryptids too, things like ghosts or urban legend creatures.
perfectblue 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, a lot of these entities aren't so easy to define; Mothman, for example, could be considered an alien, a cryptid, or even a ghost, depending on who you ask. I understand what you're trying to do, but it might be tough to implement. Just my 2 cents. Zagalejo 02:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry D. Coleman

I expanded/added sources to the Jerry D. Coleman article, if anyone wants to take a look. Thanks. Zagalejo 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got the inline down! Very classy! Looking good, and quite well cited. --InShaneee 04:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paranormal&oldid=80355246"