Talk:Anomalous phenomenon

Recent changes

I added quite a bit to the article in a recent edit. Sorry if this bothers anyone. I felt the article was seriously lacking in any real information about anomalies and appeared to be more just a list of "See also". I feel the new version more accurately describes anomalous phenomena as the proverbial glitch in the matrix without it being "all about" the paranormal. Cheers. --Nealparr 08:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

These recent additions to content make a strong, positive difference in the quality of this article, which is much appreciated! Cynthia Sue Larson 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Since the authorship of wiki articles is collaborative, it's sometimes hard to find kudos. I appreciate the appreciation. --Nealparr 18:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Someone has suggested a merge with paranormal. Although there are differences I do wonder if they are enough to justify two entries so I am not bothered either way - I'll go with the majority decision. If this is kept separate then this section needs rewriting as per my suggestions above - I'm prepared to expad on it in my sandbox and then we can all edit it up into a form we are happy with. (Emperor 22:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

I've done a bit of consulation on this and have changed my vote from undecided to keep -anomalous phenomena is analgous to Forteana (and I wouldn't object to a move to that entry - we currently have Paranormal and a Forteana categories so this would clarify matters) and deals with the damned data. In most cases facts that don't comfortably fit in with the current worldview. So we can calss ice falls, ball lightning, etc., etc. in this category but ghosts under paranormal. If kept though it needs to be completely redone to make sure the focus of the entry is clear as I suspect it has suffered "creep" with more examples being dropped in which has made it appear to be similar to the Paranormal whereas there are worthy distinctions between them. As mentioned I'll be happy to start an example in my sandbox which we can kick around and agree upon first (Emperor 19:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

It used to be merged with paranormal (around a year ago) and it was an organizational mess. People looking for paranormal information had to wade through tons of non-paranormal stuff and vice versa. There was a reason they separated it. If things were merged again, it would just end up having to be un-merged at some point in the future, so why bother? If merged into paranormal, I would definitely like to see a lot of reduction in content. Especially in links and examples. Less is more.--Nealparr 13:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - anomalous phenomena includes strange finds (like out of place objects), fringe science and other unexplained events. The Paranormal might be one suggested solution to anomalous phenomena but equally it could be that it is down to fakery or things that have yet to be included within maintream science. So this definitely needs trimming down. I'd be happy to mock up something in my sandbox to help move things forward. (Emperor 17:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Paranormal and this article are not the same thing

Although Paranormal (used to) redirects to this article, the two are not the same thing. There can be a genuine anomalous phenomenon that isn't paranormal. And things deemed paranormal are not necessarily a phenomenon. Bubba73 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. Ball lightning, for instance, is very well attested, but not easy to explain. If it is really lightning, i.e., the movement of a large number of electrons from one charged body to another body with an different potential, then a ball of lightning would presumably be a large number of electrons that clump together, that cohere, and that persist in that state for seconds or minutes. However, electrons in all known circumstances repel each other rather than cohering, so one would expect that a "ball" of electrons would immediately disperse were it not held together by some external force.

Why isn't ball lightning mentioned in this article? P0M 07:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

---

This was my thought. Instead of listing inexplicable phenomena known to exist this article seems to only list phenomena whose existence is doubted.

There should be a discussion of some of the 'Black Boxes' in scientific theories. "Where is the dark matter?" "How can an animal evolve extra chromosomes?" "What use is gender?" "How can gravity move faster than light?" "How could altruism evolve?".

As well, the history of how some inexplicable phenomena were explained would be useful: Biologists couldn't explain how bumblebees could fly. Physicists couldn't explain how light moved through a vacuum. Chemists couldn't explain why elements could exist in a number of different weights.

A clarification of the history of scientific mysteries would be a lot more useful in looking at a difference between fringe science and pseudo-science than a list of non-verified paranormal claims.

David Cheater 07:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My first sorting attempt (pro merging argument) was argued by the inclusive definitions the definitions of the articles. It was like: "Paranormal includes all Pseudoscience includes all Anomalous phenomenon" (but thats wrong, generally speaking, and was based on ya too narrow definition for pseudoscience). The problem is that the articles lack in exclusive "what they are not" definitions and if those are valid. Discussion goes to Wikiproject_Paranormal sorting and definition --Ollj 11:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous commnets

You have out of body experiences and near death experiences listed seperately to mental phenomena, I can't see why, OBE's, if they existed, would clearly be mental phenomena in the sense of the category.

---

Perhaps anomalous phenomena is a misnomer. The advocates assert that natural explanations in terms of observer error, unusual optical reflections, etc. are inadmissable. In their stead, theories which run counter to conventional science are asserted with little evidence.

---

IMHO, the above is unclear, but could and should be re-moved to the main page after it's expanded. I can't tell whether it's a meta-comment (about the choice of the name of the article) or a comment about, e.g., parapsychologists. Who are the "advocates" here (what do they advocate for)? Also "theories" about what, and who is asserting them? In short, is this what you mean?--

Some skeptics hold that anomalous phenomena is a misnomer, because this implies that there are real phenomena under study. Those who believe there are real phenomena to study--parapsychologists, for example--are said to assert that natural explanations of alleged "paranormal" phenomena cannot be explained in terms of observer error, unusual optical reflections, etc. Instead of these natural explanations, the parapsychologists (and others) advance theories that, skeptics maintain, run counter to conventional science and are supported by little evidence.

If that's what you mean, there must be a simpler way to say it.  :-)

---

Was not Quantum Physics, and even The Chaos Theory, during initial postulation rejected by mainstream scientists as a sort of "pseudoscience?" It would seem to me that a discussion on Anomalous Phenomena and pseudoscience, any articles that expand upon these, might not be complete without inclusion of fields previously included in these categories, but is no longer labeled such. -Invictus

I wouldn't say so. Quantum physics met with a lot of resistance, but because the theory itself is unusual - the effects it explains were well-known at the time. Chaos theory is mathematics, so the question was whether the theory applied to the real world. In this case, it's not clear that there are effects or a theory to work with.

---

I'd say so, if what you say is true. What better person to make the change than you? --LS  :-)

---

Apparently, either there are phenomena, or there is merely coincidence. A large enough body of regularly observed coincidence (as the case of "Audie Murphy," or the family relative whom each of us has who can always tell you when the phone is about to ring) will be finally expressed by the casual observer as a discrete phenomenon. If we are to take the position that there are no anomalous phenomena, then we should replace the page with "coincincidences, misperceptions and frauds." Otherwise "phenomena" is as good a tag as anything.

I believe the reference should be to Bridey Murphy, and not Audie Murphy, the WWII hero. Eclecticology 06:40 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Let us take for example the practice of johrei, as practiced by the Johrei Fellowship, AKA Church of World Messianity. Here a practicioner, according to the tenets of the faith, wears a Chinese character in a pouch about his neck which serves to help attract a universal divine light. In an effort to alleviate the suffering of an afflicted person, he assumes a meditative mindset and holds his hand near the affected portion of that person's body, palm-facing, and "channels divine light" toward the area. Persons so ministered to frequently go through episodes of coughing or shivering, speak of warmth, tingling in the area, etc., and walk away (subjectively, at least) improved.

Skeptics will say "hogwash" or "placebo effect" or "fraud" (never mind that there is no financial incentive to perpetrate such a fraud) or whatever. But there will be a body of people who say - "This is a part of my life experience." That much, at least, I think qualifies the obervation as a "phenomenon." Certainly, there is no scientific physical explanation for what these people experience. That would probably qualify it as "anomalous." So, perhaps the page, category, or whatever is aptly named.

Shouldn't there be a page for the above? lysdexia 23:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

And there are, to be sure, any number of claimed experiences or observations for which there is no reliable evidence that they ever even happened. Do these rise to the level of "phenomena?" Perhaps not. To be on the safe side, our discussions of phenomena might do well to start out with things for which there is at least some credible corroboration that at least some event really occurred.

---

I agree that conspiracy theories are not themselves anomalous phenomena; the purported conspiracies would normally allege explanations that are consistent with mainstream science. The activities may be illegal or depend on irrational behaviour, but the entire chain of events is conceivable without any departure from accepted science. Nevertheless, such theories are often proposed as explanations for otherwise unexplainable phenomena. Eclecticology 06:40 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Science and anomalous phenomena

In the section "Definition," the following graf ...

There are also many cases in which no theory explains observations and no scientist can be found to make theories for them, since there is no proof of the observation in the first place. For instance, science has no interest in making theories where flying saucers come from, since there is no proof that these 'flying saucers' exist in the first place. The same is true for the paranormal. Until it is proven that paranormal effects truly exist, there is no need for an explanation of them.

... doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't fit as a definition, and it doesn't seem to add any meaning to the overall article. Besides, there are plenty of scientists who study the paranormal. For instance, understanding paranormal beliefs is a key area of study for cultural anthropologists. Unless someone strongly objects, I'm going to delete this paragraph.

Delete it again, since science doesn't deal with proof but with founding. lysdexia 23:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

paranormal investigator

I'm going to remove this note for the time being, since there are anomalies in other fields of study (such as physics and biology), and not just the paranormal. I'd like to move the reference to the 'paranormal' section of this article, but for the time being, I can't think of a way to state it without being horribly redundant ("Someone who investigates the paranormal is called a paranormal investigator"). --InShaneee 15:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Seeking expert eyes on Natasha Demkina

Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.

Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.

TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Any Wikipedians....

Any Wikipedians out there who has had paranormal experiences ?Martial Law 09:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Being convinced myself that they do not exist... no. --AK7 03:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

There was this weird thing once, ( I was very young ). I was lying in bed and I concerntrated on the globe next to it, I could have sworn it started spinning around, but I was pretty tired at the time ( with resultant effects on perception) and it didn't really look like it moved much, so I'd hardly consider it conclusive proof of telekensis. There's been a couple of times when I've suddenly thought "Oh, such and such celebrity has died", I look it up on the internet and... whata you know, it's happened about three times. However personally I'd be far more likely to believe that this can be explained by a combination of coincidence and half heard news report. Personally I am glad I don't have psychic powers, because images flash through my head of the building burning around me, of gravity doing weird things etc whenever I am stressed, If I really was telekentic ( to a large degree) and things happened when I imagined them I'd be responsible for millions of dollars in damaged property and worse, god knows how many deaths.

Please sign your statements. Martial Law 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've experienced "unexplained vanishing objects" more than once. The most recent one was upsetting: a wooden stir-stick disappeared while I was stirring morning coffee. The stick slipped under the opaque liquid... and then it wasn't there. I know it sounds silly... but imagine that this happened to *you*. :) Most "vanishing objects" reports can be attributed to perceptual faults, where you can't see a set of keys sitting on a cluttered table (yet a friend has no trouble seeing them.) But occasionally people will report genuine disappearances... often followed by mysterious re-appearances. --Wjbeaty 06:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm always losing pens, and I don't understand why my sock's don't all match.

Sometimes my pockets have lots of coins in them, other times they do not. Then, once again, I find lots of coins in my pockets. Believe it or not this has happened ever since I started carrying money in my pockets. Too weird. Mr Christopher 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

See Also

I think the See Also list of links needs to be either sorted or put in a separate category, as Wikipedia is Not a Repository of Links, and the article seems to be a repository with an intro and some text. Firestorm 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This entry needs special treatment

I do not agree with Firestrom. All the knowledge cannot be painted either black or white. Shades of gray need a different tretment. Charlie

I agree with Charlie. There is certainly value for some readers in having a list of objects that are tied together by some common characteristic -- the web is full of them. This page is the most logical nexus for a wide range of phenomenae which are relatively unique; certainly people interested in anomalies benefit from an index which will lead them to other examples. Twang 02:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Seeing what a few of you half-wits did to my article (based in decades of experience), I found this comment today. And I just had to share it with you. Because it just fits.

I used to lend a hand to editing a few articles on wikipedia, but it was such an exercise in futility and frustration that I had to quit. When I first came across wikipedia, it struck me as a great idea, but after having contributions that I knew to be factual repeatedly removed or edited, I have to say that the concept as a whole is ridiculously flawed and unworkable.

If you don't know, wikipedia is an online "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit. That's right, any knucklehead viewing an article can click a link and add, remove or change whatever they'd like. You're probably already laughing, wondering how anyone could possibly take such a thing seriously, and you're right. No one should.

There is a small army of wikipedia geeks who apparently park on the site for hours a day waiting to check changes and remove obvious defacements and vandalism. But there's no way they can possibly know whether something is a legitimate change or not when dealing with 875,000 different topics.

If you become involved with a certain article, you'll soon find yourself debating minutia with a bunch of humorless idiots, hell-bent on making every article read like the same clumsy, robot-drone horror show. I understand that an "encyclopedia" should have a neutral presentation. But there's neutral, and then there's mind-numbing.

Style issues aside, when there are errors continually introduced into a topic I know quite a bit about, it makes me doubt the validity of the articles that I might want to read to actually learn something. How can I have faith in a pool of information that I know for a fact is polluted? Yes, I know you could say that about the internet as a whole, not just wikipedia. But the internet doesn't tout itself as the fount of all human knowledge.

Syonara, Wikipedia. The mediocrities won. Just like they did at Everything. 3rd time's the charm. Go ahead and delete this, halfwits. See you in the history books.

Wouldn't it be better to stay and work on how to improve the article? (Emperor 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

Vandalism

Although there was a reversion there were actually two separate acts of vandalism (both related to "Dontay" and the reversion only fixed the more recent one. I've now turned things back to the version on the 13th [1] and I think I've managed to carry over the only extra bit of legitimate information that had been added - the link to the Czech version. Worth keeping an eye on this entry for further foolishness though. (Emperor 17:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

A Spring Clean?

I'm not really that happy with the entry - it seems slightly unfocused.

• I've added in some of the "classics" into the further reading but I suspect it would be a good idea to remove some of the other more specific ones (remote viewing and channeling books can go in their respetive entries).
• Equally the "See Also" need addressing. Personally I think it should contain entries which generally expand on the topic. Examples of specific phenomena can be grouped together and accessed via the Forteana category and the most relevant can be linked to from the examples section.
• Mainly I think the top part could be tightened up and probably bulleted (we could also move the Einstein quote to the start?). I was thinking we could go for:

Anomalous phenomena are those that lie at the fringes of acceptance. They can be:

• Fringe science topics which may eventually be rejected or absorbed within the general consensus. Meterotites once existed in this area and cold fusion still does.
• More paranormal topics like ghosts and UFOs. Some of these may straddle the divide between this and the above, for example cryptozoolgy.

There are numerous explanations for the latter:

• Deliberate human activity - hoaxing or pranks
• Physiolgical activity - temporal lobe epilepsy, general fatigue
• Errors - misidentifications, misunderstadnings, etc.
• As yet unidentfied natural phenomena - earthlights, etc.

The important thing in the study of anomalous phenomena is to be able to sift out the data that can be easily explained (as opposed to "explained away") to see if there is actually a case to answer.

We could put the explanations under the examples. Granted it needs a polish and kicking around a bit but I wanted to get the ball rolling. Anyone got any other ideas? (Emperor 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

Don't forget "Black ops". Martial Law 04:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Good point - we have to get a mention of Skunk works and Disinformation in there too (Emperor 16:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

Suitable "Further reading"

There is conflict about what books should be suggested for further reading. Is there any reason why the works of Charles Fort should not be listed? He is mentioned earlier. His very name is a synonym for Anomalous Phenomena, "Fortean". It seems bizarre not to list his books and the others that were there, as a service to the reader . --GangofOne 07:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite right - I have to say I am mystified how adding in those books to "Further Reading" can be classed as 'spam.' I have shelves of books on anomalous phenomena and if anyone wanted to get some further reading to get them into the topic then those are the very books I'd lend them (and possibly Karl Shuker's "The UneXplained" as well as the partwork of the same name). If you know of any other good general reference books on the area then add them in but 'spam'... I even made a note of what I'd done above - if people had an issue with it they could have easily dropped in here (or m talk page) and asked me to explain my actions which I'd be happy to do. (Emperor 16:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

Examples?

Is the prehistoric/'dinosaurs are extinct' thing good? There has been a prehistoric fish, the Selacamp (sp?), found ... 69.76.192.18 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph

Used to read: An anomalous phenomenon is an observed event which deviates from what is expected according to existing rules or scientific theory. Sometimes the anomalous phenomenon is expected, but the reason for the deviation is unclear (See section on anomalies in science). The study of spontaneous or hard-to-reproduce anomalies may be considered pseudoscience, partly because science needs phenomena to be reproducible. Someone seems to find that science have no need for reproducability, and someone else seems to find that the claim that, the study of non-reproducible phenomenon is pseudoscience, needs verification. Getting verification for these claims can't be that hard. Taemyr 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article was a violation of WP:SYNTH

This page tied together a number of disparate ideas in an attempt to make some sort of point about "anomalies". The way that the classic black swan falsification lesson of induction was lumped together with Forteanea, anomalistics, and paranormal beliefs made the article read like the essay of a more-highly-than-average-educated paranormal investigator trying to justify his craft than an encyclopedia article. We already have articles on the fallacy of induction, anomalistics, Forteanea, and paranormal beliefs of all stripes. They do not belong lumped together in such a fashion. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we actually leave the discussion open for a while before jamming in a redirect?

I agree this page needs work (I suggested a rewrite many moons ago - see above) but redirecting it to anomaly doesn't help anyone.

I have asked for further input on this so we can have a proper debate and thrash out a solution. (Emperor (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

No. We should not leave poor content on Wikipedia for any length of time. The redirect is a good move because the article is a violation of Wikipedia policy. There is no difference between an anomalous phenonomenon and an anomaly. There are no sources which indicate as such. Leaving it as a redirect will encourage people to work on the articles that actually need help. Further input is always welcome. I'm concerned that you have made no arguments as to why the article should be kept at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a process to such things - flagging concerns, rewrites and if you still have concerns then put it for AfD and let the community decide.

Now I agree this entry needs work - as you say it has lost its focus which is anomalous phenomena which is a different beast to paranormal phenomena as there need not be a paranormal explanation to this (and those are best dealt with in their own entry), just unexplained natural processes (the example of meteorites being the most commonly used). It equally needn't infringe WP:SYNTH as there are plenty of overviews of this - I suppose the most obvious recent work includes William R. Corliss's work which looks at the anomalies highlighted in scientific journals and Bob Rickard's Rough Guide to Unexplained Phenomena. (Emperor (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

You're still proposing synthesizing pseudoscience with reports on scientific journals. Unacceptable. Either we have an article on scientific anomalies or we have an article on paranormal anomalies. Combining the two is original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically I'm saying it is a valid area of study (and can offer examples) and you are saying it isn't - which is why I've suggested we need a discussion on this that involves the community. As I've said - there is a process and steps you take to resolve problems like this and you have taken none of them. The only real way to resolve this is to reverse the redirect and actually open this up for discussion - I can't see why this would be seen as a bad thing. (Emperor (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

There's a number of sources marrying "anomalous phenomena" with "paranormal phenomena".[2] It merits a discussion on that topic rather than redirecting to an article on scientific anomalies. As SA pointed out, they are two separate things, which is why a redirect to anomaly (an article on anomalies in science) is not necessarily appropriate when there's Google references that suggest usage in paranormal circles. What should have happened is that it should have been tagged "rewrite" and then let editors offer input. I'm not going to argue that it isn't synthesis since it is compiled from several existing Wikipedia articles. I know because I'm the one who added alot of it (particularly the falsification stuff) like years ago, lol. In my defense I was somewhat a newbie at the time. Rewrite, not redirect. Two separate topics, per SA. And, I would like to add (to SA), you did say about a year ago that you thought it was a well-written article about anomalies, so it's surprising that now you're saying it's rubbish. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Had I compiled the article recently I wouldn't have just copied and pasted from existing articles, like Falsifiability. I would have provided direct sources for the synthesis so that it's not considered original. It's not original, but SA is right, it's not sourced directly. I can probably provide sources if everyone waits a week or so. In the meantime, I don't oppose an entire rewrite either. There's no need for speedy action as in hours or even in days. I completely disagree with SA that "We should not leave poor content on Wikipedia for any length of time." Standard procedure is to tag and discuss. There's a process for speedily deletion. There's a process for redirection. There's a process for merging. In the least, a "merge" tag should have been introduced for "merging" the idea into anomaly, which I would have opposed of course because that's an article on scientific anomalies, not anomalous phenomena as paranormal terminology. But the only content that doesn't have a process for speedy deletion, but still involves speedy deletion, is WP:BLP. So discussing a rewrite is completely in order. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to listen, but right now I just can't get past the absurd contention that "anomalous phenomenon" refers only to paranormal events. Ridiculous. Redirecting! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You need consensus for this. Doesn't look like you have it. Agree with Nealparr about the process. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin, you are being disruptive in defiance of your arbcomm restrictions. You have presented no rationale for this redirect and appear to be playing an obstructionist game. Further actions like this will be reported to WP:AE. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I told you- I agree with Nealparr. You seem to be the only editor who has a problem with this article, while others do not. If others don't buy your arguments, that means you don't have consensus, not that others are disruptive. Rather, you are being disruptive by redirecting against consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not presenting any further explaantion of how an anomalous phenomenon is different than an anomaly. Please explain what sources you are using that disambiguate the two. Instead of crowing about consensus, try to respond with some sources and some thought-out argumentation. As it is, you are simply being disruptive. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No, procedural grounds per Nealparr and Emperor are quite valid. If it isn't improved in a few weeks, then we can redirect. But just off the top of my head, you're redirecting to Anomaly, which does not contain the information of this article. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

These links, among many, are enough to establish the notability of the term. [3][4][5][6] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are fairly poor quality sources. Jefffire (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is removing categories, references, further reading, links to international versions, etc. [7] helping the article? (Emperor (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Merge with anomaly

"Anomalous phenomenon" appears to be synonymous with anomaly. Since to date all that has been proposed to the contrary has been extremely poor quality references, none of which really define it as a separate subject it is proposed that this page be merged with anomaly. . Jefffire (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with merge. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but clean-up following the plan I outlined back in April 2006 above. I'd also suggest this edit [8] results in a gutted entry that can't possibly be used as a basis for consideration on the worth of this article. I'd suggest putting it back to my last version while the actual merge debate is ongoing, at the very least people might want to consider something like this version [9] as a better basis for judging this entry. Also anomaly is a disambiguation page - so this isn't actually a merge debate but a pseudo-AfD as none of the content from here would actually be merged there. (Emperor (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

• Keep for now, per Emperor. Here are some more sources. We aren't looking for good sources, just notability for the term.

[10]]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

The current deletion of most of the article needs to be reversed, so we can pare it down and build it up in a professional manner. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Two problems with this response, firstly I said that the term was synonymous with anomaly, not that it wasn't notable. For example Homeopathic medicine is notable, but there is no need for a seperate article from Homeopathy. Secondly, only the completely unverified and OR material was removed, that just happened to comprise the bulk of the article. Jefffire (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the bulk of the article is verbatim from the falsifiablility article, which is in part about anomalies. It can be made to be WP:V very easily just by copying the sources over as well. What that has to do with anything, probably very little since it doesn't really justify a need for this page. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anomaly is a disambig page. We could rename to Anomaly (paranormal). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Which would then definitely be a redirect to paranormal, so why bother? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm undecided. While anomalous phenomena is by definition synonymous with anomaly, it has a strong and notable usage among paranormal enthusiasts to describe Fortean anomalies. So I don't know if it should be directed to the anomaly article, or if there should be an article about the Forteana. I think the best solution is to redirect this article's name to Anomaly and create a new article called Anomaly (Forteana) which would be linked off the anomaly disambig page. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find decent references and content that's a worthy endevour. Jefffire (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Charles Fort lived almost a century ago and was a very prolific writer. In the present day there are whole societies, magazines, and books devoted to the type of anomalies he wrote about. There's the guy himself, which has a biography article, but also a "category" of folklore, legends, and whatnot collectively called "Forteana". I've always thought it a shame that the term just redirects to his bio since it's more than the man himself. Basically, there's plenty of references and content, most of it secondary sources, to write about Fortean anomalies. I can get it started as a stub this weekend if there's support for this solution. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, Neal, do write an article on Forteana. Please remember to include some skeptical commentary in there as well. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, if there are no objections, I'll create the article, Anomaly (Forteana) and transfer this full article (before recent blanking). Most of that material will probably go in the end, but it should be avaliable for possible sourcing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The stuff that's just blanket copied from the falsifiability article is still blatantly OR, but it may be possible to locate sources for the "paranormal" phenomenon. Jefffire (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically it's not orginal research, just unsourced material. All of the information about falsifiability and anomalies is correct, it just doesn't appear in the sources provided. Example: "Popper's falsifiability thesis arises in response to the general problem of anomaly in science."[20] But since the new article doesn't have to cover all things anomaly, and just Forteana, much of it is irrelevant and can go (probably all of it). Technically, in case people want to consider it when voting, this is a rewrite proposal instead of merge, focusing on Forteana instead of just anomalies in general. Honestly, I think somewhere down the line some of the existing material can be sourced and added to the Anomaly disambig page, because Popper's idea of falsifiability is directly related to anomalies. The objective of falsification is to identify an anomalous discovery that would falsify a statement. Example, the discovery of a black swan makes the statement "All swans are white" false. A discovery of a living dinosaur is an anomaly, or an exception to the rule that dinosaurs are extinct. But I'm satisfied working on a Forteana article. Fort went looking for anomalies like living dinosaurs. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK looks like a new article seems the way forward, which is fine by me. Could I make a couple of suggestions:

• Shouldn't we just go for Forteana?
• I'd rather we start from scratch. It was already bad back in 2006 when I suggested a major re-write and it only went downhill since then. A clean slate could just be what is needed.

Just a couple of thoughts. (Emperor (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

It's fine by me either way. But the general use of "Anomalous phenomenon" is paranormal. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are more anomalous phenomena than just "Forteana"

Therefore, I redirected the page to anomaly. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

However, I agree with Martinphi that the redirct should point to the newly started Anomaly (Forteana). Whether or not all anomalous phenomena are Forteana we also have to deal with how that link is used here and nearly all the incoming links are using the term as the equivalent of it [21]. The best bet would be to find the few that aren't and change the into a link to anomaly - which as a disambiguation page doesn't tell anyone following the anomalous phenomena link anything. (Emperor (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

The answer is to fix the incoming links. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The redirect to the new page was per this talk page. If you can source that the phrase is used more often conventionally, then something should perhaps be done. But if the usual use is paranormal, then this is correct. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an ambiguous phrase, it is inappropriate to redirect it to a specific instance of it per the Principle of Least Astonishment. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Or we could do what other articles do, and go directly to the most common use -paranormal- while mentioning "for other uses see the disambig page." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that indicate that this is the most common use for anomalous phenomena? The term is used frequently to mean things other than Forteana. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Google. We should follow the Principle of Least Astonishment and go directly to the article most searchers will be looking for. We go to the usual usage, and make sure people can find the disambig page. If you have any source which says this common sense should not be followed here, you should tell us. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So the answer is, no, you don't have any sources. Thanks for letting us know. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the incoming links are using this as the equivalent to Forteana (as can clearly be seen on the Charles Fort entry for one) pretty much demonstrates the link - so following the PoLA it should go to Anomaly (Forteana). If you are concerned we can hatnote it to [Anomaly]] (as seems sensible anyway) and I'll double check the incoming links. (Emperor (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Agree. And it's nice of you to do the grunt work (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't be a big task - I have checked them and they do nearly all refer to Forteana. However, it will need checking but I'm sure it won't be "grunt work" ;). (Emperor (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

I have mentioned before that this is all that needs to happen. I'm glad it got through finally. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But you've now gone through the incoming links and removed them [22] because they now point to a disambiguation page, effectively making the job of checking the links awfully difficult. If you were going to go through the incoming links then why not change them so they point to Anomaly (Forteana)? (Emperor (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

So often against consensus or non-consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)