Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive 4

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

No matches found at Booksinprint.com, either. Zagalejo 01:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Most definatly. I've got some other ideas too, but I'll discuss those shortly. --InShaneee 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [1]. Zagalejo 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just to be sure, this is "Unexplained!: Strange Sightings, Incredible Occurrences & Puzzling Physical Phenomena, ISBN: 1578590701"?

perfectblue 08:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Show is Sci-Fi Investigates, premires Oct. 11. Martial Law 03:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Website is Sci Fi Investigates www.scifi.com/SciFi Investigates Martial Law 04:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Link is www.scifi.com/Sci Fi Investigates. This corrects a unusual glitch. Martial Law 07:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is it possible the organization was set up as a publicity stunt for the show? --InShaneee 18:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's possible, I suppose. Zagalejo 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:RS

Does this pass WP:RS for a contentious topic [2]?

perfectblue 11:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, although this has been a source of debate at the Skeptic's Dictionary talk page. Zagalejo 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'll take care of it. What's the title of the second one? --InShaneee 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Great stuff! Thanks! --Tascio 15:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

One part of this documentary has mentioned "JANAP - 146". Martial Law 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

The show aired @ 11 pm EST/EDT on 10-2-06. Martial Law 03:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)