Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive 5

message: ;This is an archive from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal created on 11/30/06.  
::Please do not edit this page, leave any new replies on the above page. ---J.S  (T/C) 19:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

message: 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)
replies: text: This isn't a place for general paranormal discussion, just issues related to editing and article content. --InShaneee 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Witness testimonials can and do lead to hard evidence, as any police detective will often state. Martial Law 20:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: True, this is against Wikipedia policy. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No...that's linkspam. --InShaneee 20:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The text in the notice is displaying as black on a black background for me. --InShaneee 17:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhmm... You using firefox? wtf my sig. is not working --Mahogany 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better? --Mahogany 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfecto! :) --InShaneee 17:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  The above comment is mine. Sorry.  I wasn't logged in. Lisapollison 17:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I saw a ghost... 

message: ...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)
thread_title: Urban legends

message: 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)
thread_title: Shadow people

message: 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)
replies: text: Got the inline down! Very classy! Looking good, and quite well cited. --InShaneee 04:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jerry D. Coleman]]

message: Is there any way to seach Wikipedia for Paranormal articles needing sources, cleanups, or NPOV checks?
perfectblue 13:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not directly. There's a way to see what articles on Wikipedia in general need those things, and I'm working on a way to see what Paranormal articles need expansion, but that's it for that. However, this is one of the primary uses of the Assessment Department. It's a safe bet that most of our stub class and start class articles are in need of expansion and sources, and most of our B class articles are in great need of NPOV and cleanup. That help any? --InShaneee 15:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. At present, we do have a category for cryptozoology stubs. --InShaneee 16:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Searching

message: Should the forthcoming book by Richard Morris really get a mention on both the Gef the talking mongoose and Harry Price pages? It hasn't even been published yet, so is it really relevant? Any guidance appreciated.--Tascio 14:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definatly no, especially since anything written about them will be difficult to verify. --InShaneee 15:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising?

message: I've reworded and expanded this article, it now needs rating, and some advice on any shortcommings. I've tried to cite everything thoughouly without resorting to 'fan sites' but I could do with some help locating other WP:RS sources.
perfectblue 11:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: perfectblue you're just an editing demon these days!  Hats off to you!  I'm very pleased to see you putting your positive energy into other articles besides the cattle mutitation thing.  It's unfortunate that the CM article has a resident troll who will never let you make an edit without controversy and argument.  You've made so many postive contriutions to this project lately. We're lucky to have you. Three cheers for perfectblue!  Lisapollison 12:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are, indeed, a beast! I've bumped the article up to a tentative "B" class, because although it needs work in a few places, it does essentially fill out all aspects of the incident, and is well sourced. Couple things I would suggest: First, I'd move the bullet points in the opening to the 'invesigation' section, and convert them to prose. Secondly, that last sentence in 'civilian reports' could use a citation. Other than that, I think it's looking really great! Oh, and don't forget that you can always request a re-rating on the Assessment page, and the Peer Review page is a great place to ask what else needs to be done to an article. Again, really great job on all the article edit! You're a true tribute to collaborative spirit! --InShaneee 15:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article shows some things that need to be begun by WPP:
#A template, on one margin or the other (right is better, I believe), to categorize UFO sightings according to something resembling the scientific analytical processes espoused by Hynek and others.  Duration, Multiple Locations and Multiple Witnesses are particularly useful, though the latter two should probably be adjusted to Location or locations of sighting and Known witnesses.
#The detail aspect of it is simply incorrect, as there are a larger number of reports than generally believed involving occupants having been visible inside the craft; information pertaining this is available in the work UFOs and the National Security State, Volume One by Richard M. Dolan.  That said, it IS classifiable as one of Hynek's class three close encounters.
#The detail of the case needs to be expanded in the article; quotes from any personnel present during the event would be very effective, al la a given police or military report.  Do any sites exist that could be investigated, as to where they received their information?
These three come to mind, especially the first one.  Further thoughts whenever they arise. --Chr.K. 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1976 Canary Island UFO Sighting

message: It gives me great pleasure to announce that our very first Collaboration of the Month is the Roswell UFO incident! Now, let me just say from my experience in work with other wikiprojects that, with a focused community effort, it is not all that difficult to bring a B class article up to Good Article status, or even Featured! Can you imagine, Roswell on the front page of Wikipedia? So, good luck to us all! In the meantime, the old nominations have been archived. Since it met the three-vote threshold, Electronic voice phenomenon has been automatically renominated. Otherwise, we're now open for nominations for next month's collab. --InShaneee 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a nudge that we should try not to be too heavyhanded with flying into this one, I think.  Roswell obviously inspires some strong feelings and a lot of hobbyist/researcher interest. I haven't been involved with this particular article, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some people who felt a bit of ownership over the article who might not appreciate a horde of jangly mops and brooms descending on their corner of Wikipedia unannounced. :) — ripley\talk 17:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that tends to be the problem with most Collaborations of this nature. However, that shouldn't stop us from putting our collective backs into improving it; raising article quality is the primary goal of editors on wikipedia, period. Of course, each editor who does this should take the time to gloss over the talk page and archives first, just to make sure we're not reinventing any wheels or stepping on any toes. For anyone who is interested in starting on this, btw, a great first step is to create a 'todo' list on the talk page so we can all coordinate our efforts. --InShaneee 17:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. I never suggested we not improve the article, just that we be sensitive to the fact that it's a controversial topic and that there are probably people active there who've been working on it for some time.  It's always better to establish a feeling of collaboration first than to come in with sharp elbows and simply start rewriting and criticizing without a word. To that end, I posted a nice intro note on the article's talk page. — ripley\talk 17:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea. However, I still want to stress that being too cautious here would be folly. Of course, we don't want to run over any consensus that has been reached on the talk page previously. But on the other side of things, we don't want to be walking on eggshells and looking for permission for our actions. This is a great opportunity for some radical editing, and one that should not be ignored. I do understand where you're coming from, and you have a good point, but we do have to take this time to do what needs doing. --InShaneee 17:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I've never suggested backing off from making what edits are appropriate. What I've said is that it's better to try to foster an atmosphere of collaboration *before* inevitable disputes happen, that way we're seen as helpful collaborators, and not a mongol horde to be battled with. — ripley\talk 17:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, alright. I do see what you're getting at now (finally! :) ). You're absolutely correct. We definatley can't go in assuming that the article is our playground, either. Really, working with the existing editors can only speed this process up! (hence things like the todo list, which is really open to anyone). --InShaneee 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Lol, oh, I've been looking forward to that. Of course, there's a lot more than that that needs to be done here. The main thing is editing for relevance and making the text more concise on the whole. --InShaneee 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration of the Month now live!

message: Does anyone know if we already have an article on entombed animals (ie, living frogs, toads, salamanders, etc that are found encased in a piece of rock or wood)? We obviously don't have an article with that exact title, but perhaps these anomalies are known by another name.  Thanks, Zagalejo 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If not, I'll stick it into the article requests section.  This should be a little easier to research than road trolls. :) Zagalejo 02:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember reading about this in the fortean times, I think that there is a special name for it. Also, try Snopes.com for urban legends. I read a couple there about large frogs being found in cola cans because they had crawled in there as little frogs, and grown.
perfectblue 07:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this discussion at snopes which refers to them as "stoned animals," but I'm not sure that's the best article title... :). Zagalejo 14:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  It's best to avoid any content found on a message board unless it leads to a WP:RS source.
perfectblue 15:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'm just throwing the link out there to give people something to think about. Zagalejo 16:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Entombed animals

message: I've substantially revamped and expanded the Fouke Monster, if anybody wants to give it the once over.
If anybody want to point me towards the page with the instructions for the correct procedures for making these requests, it would also be most appreciated .
perfectblue 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on the Peer Review page. The instructions for formatting it are the "requesting a peer review section" (sorry if the title is misleading, you're not 'requesting' to be granted a peer review, just requesting that other come check it out). --InShaneee 15:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fouke Monster

message: I added the town of Pluckely to the UK section of theList of haunted locations. I plan expand the actual Pluckely article once I've sourced all the information, but it shouldn't be too hard as I['m quite familiar with the Pluckley Ghosts. I'm also planning on adding a section to the Glamis Castle section dealing with it's paranormal activity. Since Pluckley is reputed to be the most haunted village in Britain and Glamis Castle is reputed to be the most haunted castle in Britain, I definitly believe the articles should have more detail than they do. Anyone else want to help me out? (I can't do the work for at least another few hours due to my works internet filter blocking all sites except Wiki!) The Kinslayer 10:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Pluckley might be worth a few of us investing some effort on. It was in the Guiness Book of Records in 1998 as 'Most haunted village in England.' This site is a good starting point. Got information on all the ghosts, along with some counter-information to make it rational. It's very balanced, and I think this worth spending some time on. Any volunteers to help? The Kinslayer 21:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've also found some good info on Glamis Castle here. The Kinslayer 21:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem pretty interesting. When I have time to sit down for a couple of hours, I'll see if I can do anything to improve them.  Zagalejo 22:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely interesting, but don't forget our current collaboration of the month, Roswell UFO incident. — ripley\talk 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Your right,It wont cause any harm to wait  a while before doing some serious work on Pluckely. Not like it's going anywhere or something! The Kinslayer 10:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have a subscribers-only service that gives access to an audio archive of their old shows, but I think that may be it. --InShaneee 13:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pluckley]] and [[Glamis Castle]] 

message: The History Channel, others will be featuring paranormal matters this Halloween and all week shortly. Even A&E has got into the act. Criss Angel, who is the star on Mindfreak will be in a haunted hotel. The guy is some kind of (appearant) mystic. Shows already featured on the History Channel is UFO Files:Greys' Agenda and UFO Files:USOs so far. The radio show Coast To Coast AM will feature the annual "Ghost To Ghost AM" show. Art Bell is interested in "Entity Attacks" in which entities, such as demons and evil spirits have attacked people. The radio show is for those who have insomnia, work nights in the US, are located on a different place on the planet and can access the website. Martial Law 23:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta love Coast to Coast... Some of the interviews could be consitered reliable primary sources or perhapse secondary sources. ---J.S (t|c) 20:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentary Channels, Radio show

message: I have also decluttered Greys so it needs a going over from the wider community too.
perfectblue 15:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, there's a good one. That page must have been a mess. --InShaneee 15:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greys

message: The show is, as of this timepoint, is holding "Open Lines", and it is "Fright Night Friday". On Tuesday, Halloween NIGHT, the radio show will hold its annual "Ghost To Ghost AM" show. Go to the website for more info. Art Bell is interested in "Entity Attacks", in which hostile ghosts, demons, The Devil, other evil, malevolent entities have attacked, even killed people. Martial Law 06:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedians interested should be careful. It airs @ 11pm MST/MDT, 1 am EST/EDT. Great show for insomniacs, those who work at night in the U.S. , are located on a different part of the planet. The Halloween show, related shows will be scary. Martial Law 06:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with the project? Martial, I thought we discussed that Wikipedia can't be used as a general topic messageboard. --InShaneee 13:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This can lead to more paranormal information, such as the Chupacabra, or that a new cryptid has been found, like one I'm following, such as a alleged "Man-Spider" called the "La-Arana". This thing looks humanoid, only that it is a spider. Also seen it on the X-Files as well. I hope I'm incorrect. Martial Law 20:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allegedly this thing is in Latin America, spins a HUGE web, and eats large animals, people that get caught in it. One guy allegedly escaped the thing, but it ate his buddies. Other entities that get reported are hostile aliens, such as the Greys, The Devil, demons, ghosts, that sort of thing. Martial Law 20:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have something about a specific cryptid that might be useful to a specific article, you have to bring it up on that article's talk page. This page isn't for paranormal discussion or research. --InShaneee 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Will do. Martial Law 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coast To Coast AM's....

message: I've got a user going by the name of  Thorstejnn adding really inappropriate content to Shadow people (basicly sarcastic banter along the lines of 'because it can't account for everything it can't account for anything'). Could somebody else please put a watch on this article so that I'm not the next person to delete whatever they write (I've already done it twice).
I've looked at their edit list and while they're not a pure vandel, they have a habit being sarcastic and inapropriatly behaved.
perfectblue 15:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to explain to him what's wrong with what he's doing; in the future, that's what should be done first. --InShaneee 15:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep an eye out

message: The following has been added to a prominent position in the Institute of Noetic Sciences article:
The skeptical organization Quackwatch lists IONS as a voluntary organization it views with "considerable distrust."  I have started a discussion on the talk page on whether this group and their views are relevant enough to warrant such a position with the aim of gaining some level of consensus. I should also note that Quackwatch have not made a direct statement to do with IONS they have simply included them in a list with over 500+ other organisations. - Solar 10:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote that sentence a bit to make it a little more objective. --InShaneee 14:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking pretty good now I think. — e. ripley\talk 16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Institute of Noetic Sciences and Quackwatch 

message: Greetings, carbon-based bipeds!
I've just started an article about the above beastie. I am a beginner at WP and know nothing about formatting. You are invited to jazz up, add and remove, and do whhat you will to it. Photographs would be great, and perhaps something on the role of 'Doc' Shiels. Is there an article about him? Totnesmartin 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Doc Shiels... We don't have an article on him at the moment, but I think he'd be an interesting topic! Zagalejo 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Morgawr (cryptid)]] 

message: I've added a new section to the mainproject page where members can add the names of any article that has been significantly expaned or updated.
If you do anything to significantly update, expand, or clean up an article, you can put it there to  people about it.
perfectblue 13:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Mad Gasser of Mattoon should come off the list. that big flurry of edits is over. Totnesmartin 11:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not had the time myself to write a basic article on Gloria Ruiz AKA "the Toxic Lady" but I feel such an article using the open source by an R.N. I mentioned in the section on Flaps and Hysteria would help make the Mad Gasser article more complete.  Why?  Well, it's a modern example of another "Gassing Event" which could e referred to in the Mad Gasser article.  The events are not entirely similar but the accusation of mass hysteria and the language "experts" used to explain away what happened are very similar.  I was hoping Perfect Blue might take it on since she's so much etter with inline citations.  I just screw them up whenever I try to do them the approved way. (sorry!)Lisapollison 18:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Same here re citations! A link to Gloria Ruiz would be good if there was an actual article. Someone can purt that inlater but that's a minor thing. Is there anything else there that needs doing? Totnesmartin 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently revised articles

message: Just created an article about this region, the home of many newly-discovered species. feel free to expand, and put something in those nice red links...! Totnesmartin 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I'll give it a look latter. ---J.S (t|c) 15:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Help me out... how does it fall under this project? ---J.S (t|c) 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that Totnesmartin is implying that many of the animals in this region should be considered cryptids because they exist in local culture, existance has not yet been cataloged by science, yes?
perfectblue 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was about to say that! Yes, this is the "new kind of deer" end of cryptozoology, rather than the Mothman end. Totnesmartin 15:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ummm ok. I guess I can see that. :) ---J.S (t|c) 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I agree. I'm not sure the Vu Quang ox really counts as a cryptid, either.  Cryptozoologists didn't pay much attention to it until after it was discovered; it was declared a victory for cryptozoology after the fact.  Vu Quang is a good idea for an article, but  I think it's a stretch to be included here. Zagalejo 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vu Quang is good for supporting the argument for cryptozoology ("see? there are new large species! This is what we're on about!"). True, the VQ ox caught everyone out, but there are still many creatures awaiting discovery. It's also useful to discuss what the limits of cryptozoology are. Some would ignore 'regular' new species as not being CZ, while others look precisely there, ignoring 'spooky' things from Illinois and suchlike. Totnesmartin 09:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article should perhaps be renamed Vu Quang Preserve since that more accurately descries what it is - a nature preserve and not merely a species of deer.  There have been Cryptid hominid sightings there among other myserious animals as well as the mysterious five toed dog whose name escapes me.  it's some ancient ancestor to modern dog where the dew claw is still a toe.  X Files even did an episode about it.  This cryptid dog is allegedly one of the singing dogs like those in New Guinnea.  Some folks elieve it to be a trickster spirit of the forest, others, a real relict ancient dog. Lisapollison 13:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't fit the definition of Cryptozoology, though. By definition, it is no longer 'unknown'. --InShaneee 14:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Vu quang ox (AKA Saola) is now known, but there are other creatures there awaiting discovery (mental image of queue of animals outside scientist's tent...). Feel free to add your knowledge of hominids and five clawed dogs to the article. I'd rename it to Vu Quang National Park if I knew how to rename articles. I'm new here. Totnesmartin 20:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at the tabs at the top of the page (discussion, edit this page, history, etc).  You'll find the page move tool there, as well, and all you have to do is click it and follow the instructions. It's pretty easy.  I do get more Google hits for "Vu Quang Nature Reserve" than "Vu Quang National Park". Is one more "official" than the other? Zagalejo 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vu Quang Nature Reserve is the most commonly cited name.  The project article Batutut refers to a cryptid hominid believed to reside there.  I'll look around for that weird cryptid dog thing. Lisapollison 13:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vu Quang]] 

message: I've just read | this, and I can tell you that as far as the wider wikipedia comunity goes, it appears to be much worse than the article says.
I think that we should make bit of an extra effort this month to keep our house clean. In the last few weeks alone come across a number of passages in paranormal articles that I believe are copies from books like "Unexplained", and there are probably a lot more out there that I haven't come across.
perfectblue 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerome Clark's "Unexplained", I take it? I use it as a source, try to remember to give credit, and check stuff elsewhere so it's not just wikiclarkia. The Mad Gasser entry was pretty awful for plagiarism, though. Totnesmartin 20:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Totnesmartin 15:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeping Our House Clean