Talk:Ghost/Archive 2

message: The opening paragraph claims that every culture in the world has stories of ghosts, but this is not the case. There is very little that can be said to apply every culture.
In a somewhat famous essay  an athropologist attempts to tell the story of Hamlet to the Tiv of Africa, and among other things they do not understand the concept of a ghost. Pantocyclus 01:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not every culture has ghosts

message: Contrary to the impression given in this article, there ARE serious researchers doing scientific work on ghosts. It is quite obvious from such research that people DO experience SOMETHING that they interpret as a ghost. The point is, what do they experience? In many cases there are mundane explanations but sometimes there aren't. That is not to imply that there is a paranormal explanation, merely that no natural explanation has been found yet. The subject is complex. It is clear that 'seeing ghosts' involves a complex interplay of perception, cultural background and the local environment. 
The skeptic/believer 'analyses' of ghosts are pointless. People have been 'investigating' using such 'models' for over a century without meaningful result. With the paranormal, you find what you want. Believers go out with mediums and, unsurprisingly, 'find' spirits. Skeptics, generally go as far as the need to find the first 'natural cause' (frequently wrong!) they come across. It is time to dump such fruitless approaches and follow an unbiased, scientific way forward, which a few are doing. This article COULD be encouraging such an enlightened approach. 
I think the whole entry, down to 'Notable Ghosts' could be rewritten from scratch. Much of it is incredibly vague and lacking in detail and just maintains the whole sterile believer / skeptic 'debate'. It needs to be neutral, detailed and informative with citations throughout. Ghost79 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Wikipedia is no place for neither original research nor wild speculations, we'll have to stick to the facts and reliable sources we have. For the record, I have investigated a haunted location (a well documented one at that), but my findings are totally irrelevant for this article, since it is original research. /M.O (u) (t) 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I linked the phrase about speculation to the policy page about verifiability, I suggest you read it. /M.O (u) (t) 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Have the authors even investigated a haunting?

message: I think this book by Douglas Adams should be mentioned in the 'ghost fiction' section, since it has a somewhat unusual treatment of ghosts (which are central to the plot). CarrerCrytharis 23:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost Fiction: Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency 

message: This article is not fair and balenced. This article leans too much on the skeptic point of view, this article DOES NOT offer both points of view.
This article is designed to benefit the self-appointed editor's cronies - try providing a new external link and see how swiftly it is taken down (you'll be banned too). It is NOT a public resource because input and viewpoints from others are simply deleted. I have asked for explanations - but the editor is too gutless to do anything but delete contributions and ban IP numbers. Wikipedia is anti-British and in the hands of small-minded people who can only impose their beliefs through force and not through logical discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.12.187 (talk • contribs) 
:You're only p****d because the link you've been trying try to add over and over again keeps getting removed. And guess what? It will be removed the next time you add it as well. Either you start playing by the rules and accept that the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia applies to you as well as anyone else, or just go away. First of all, you could start by getting yourself an account, and by signing your posts on this page(using four tildes, ~~~~), so that the rest of us can see who you are and what you've written. That might earn you some credability. But if you prefer to be treated like some anonymous spammer, you could keep on with what you're doing now. Ie adding links to nonencyclopedic resources, as well as following those post up with plain bogus to hide your tracks. /M.O (u) (t) 18:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you persist in your efforts to add this link - and I assure you that it will not stay for long - despite the fact that it is against the policies and guidelines, as well as totally unencyclopedic, I have proposed it for blacklisting om meta-wiki. /M.O (u) (t) 22:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One Sided

message: An unregistered user changed the spelling of "sceptic" to "skeptic." I have no preference for either spelling, but I believe a given article shouldn't see-saw back and and forth between American and British spelling. Therefore, I reverted it to the 'c' spelling in order to be consistent with other instances of British spelling in the article, e.g., 'colour'. Rivertorch 05:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the user probably just assumed that it was a mispelling, rather than a deliberate attempt to convert the article from International English to American English, so I would continue to stick with the former. - 81.178.102.118 17:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's take a vote on it so we'll have a consensual discussion to refer back to if anyone has a problem. V-Man737 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British and American spellings 

message: I tagged that section, as it contained quite a few "likely"s and "probably"s.  It should really be cleaned up. 199.126.137.209 03:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words in Notable Ghosts

message: This article has expanded and people have put in a lot of work.  So perhaps it is time to start editing with a view toward having acceptable sourcing.  I'll be looking at that in the next few days, possibly deleting  what is not sourced.  If there are objections to this, let me know here.
Martinphi 06:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I was reading these two sections and noticed the horrible punctuation, spelling and syntax of the paragraphs.  I attempted to edit the sections, but they show up as blank pages.  It's like they are not there.  Like they are "ghost" sections.  Weird.
141.106.17.71 09:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hudini [sic] and "haunting versus publication of ghosts" sections. 

message: Is it just me, or does this article seem a LOT shorter? I visited a while ago, and found it rather interesting. Now there is barely more than a presentation and a conclusion, with the "skeptical analysis" section being nothing more than a barely-relevant paragraph. Was somebody offended? Where has all the article gone? V-Man737 21:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look a few sections up; User:Martinphi decided to enforce Wikipedia's rule on sources by removing every unsourced statement (I'm not saying that's a bad thing; just stating a fact).  If you click on the history tab you can see previous versions.  I expanded it a little yesterday; but am currently concentrating on some other articles. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources, any article about the paranormal would be a mere paragraph. ;_; "Facts" in this area are in this area because they are not checkable - they are paranormal. Of course a news reporting agency is not going to make a report on the nature of ghosts! There should be an exception here to allow for what paranormal might be out there but isn't published. There is so much in this area that permeates our culture, but who would think to make an entry for it in the JAMA? V-Man737 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not exactly true.  Take a look at Spring Heeled Jack, which is a featured article about a parnormal topic.  It's more than a paragraph. There is a Journal of Parapsychology, which can serve as a source for paranormal articles, just like JAMA serves as a source for medical articles.  I'm currently working on List of haunted locations, trying to add sources to it.  It's no where near done, but look at some of the sources I've added to it, especially the ones for the Sunnyvale, CA haunted Toys-R-Us.  There are a couple newspaper articles serving as sources for that.  I don't know where you live or what t.v. channels you get, but where I am we have a travel channel that is always doing documentaries on haunted places and those documentaries can be cited as sources if you can mange to catch the relevant information from the credits (I've found the credits scroll too fast unless I tape the program and by the time I think "dang, I could use that in Wikipedia" it's too late to tape the program).  Ghosts have a long history of appearing in the mythology of various cultures; and I'd love to see a fleshed-out ghots in mythology section in this article; for that published versions of myths and fairy tales make perfectly acceptable sources, as do commentaries on the myths.  The key is to state where you got your information, because you had to get it from someplace.  Wikipedia:Citation templates has a lot of handy fill-in-the-blank type things that make citing sources easier; but there's no requirement to use that format, just a requirement to cite sources somehow.  Make sense? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Length 

message: As I mentioned above, I'd like to see this section improved; it is rather small for the balance necessary for an NPOV article. A few minutes ago someone added this diff, and I was thrilled to see something new in that section, but the wording was strange and I didn't quite understand what was being pointed out. If someone does understand it, it would be a good idea to put the point in, along with links and concise definitions of what is being discussed (I always figured a personality is basically the same as a soul, for example). V-Man737 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some material based on an article by Ben Radford. --- LuckyLouie 06:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Skeptical Analysis

message: I renamed "History" to "Historical background" because I wanted to cover the basic concept of ghosts from an anthropological viewpoint. What was there didn't go back far enough I felt. What I added is neutral and the main ideas presented are sourced.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 09:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Background

message: This page has been vandalised numerous times. Please consider protecting it. --Orthologist 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I've reverted the vandalism that says that "Ghosts kiss" or somethingg like that. Kamope · talk · contributions 15:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I've restored the header and one link, that of EastGhost.com; I realize the other link removed probably does constitute spam, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. This article is ready for some external links, and I see nothing wrong with this one. If there is something I'm missing about it that does constitute as WP:SPAM, let me know. V-Man737 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Looks like consensus is shifting, and British spelling is being replaced by American spelling. Personally, I am fine either way at this point, but I really want to be clear on which convention this article will use.
*Abstain provided a clear choice is made. V-Man737 03:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British and American spellings Round 2

message: Waynesville is said to be "the most haunted town in Ohio" the "village" of Waynesville is where I live and become a g.g.f. otherwise known as a great ghost finatic.The ghosts of Waynesville haven't shown Themselves to me but I know they're here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.115.170 (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghosts of Waynesville 

message: you can't take a picture of a ghost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.235.10 (talk • contribs) 
:Tell that to the ghosts in ghost pictures. V-Man737 03:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because they confuse the autofocus. Try using the special "Ghost" setting. Xanthoxyl 03:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Watch out for the orbs!  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Achoo! OMIGOSH THOUSANDS OF THEM V-Man737 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, if they aren't doctored, there is a scientific explanation. The "glass ripple or ghost" photo in the article is an excellent example of that (hm, we should probably make sure to keep that one in if only for that). Also, in some cases there may be no explanation that can be FOUND, but that doesn't mean there's no natural laws in effect ;) or that it can't be a hoax like those fairy pictures... Runa27 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny how scientific explanation apparently cancels out the idea of an innate energy, whether to be called spiritual or by some other name, within living sentient beings that cannot die, at least in the physical sense that we refer to as death. I need to see that article that "proves" that there are no such things as spirits, should provide quite a chuckle. --Chr.K. 12:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get right on that, when you prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist. Viper168 20:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: fraudulent photographs

message: I have heard many storys of dangerest ghost and they say there harmless! I have planed to bring that wigiboard in to the house play around with it and destroy it untill something happens! Will that work?--Mr.Taka 16:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First - it's spelled Ouija board. Second - I doubt anything will happen. Except you might scare yourself. :P Runa27 22:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Destroy that thing. George Noory had played with one and had a bad experience with a spirit parasite. 65.173.105.71 06:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  demonic 

message: There is something wrong with the "Prison Window" picture.  It is extremely blurry when you try to see the larger image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.37.160.25 (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture resolution

message: Look at the first sentence of History or whatever it is called. Now who's the genius who put that unfunny stuff? Vandalism? I think SO. Jay B. 14:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can edit it yourself, you know... --ざくら木 10:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the HELL?!? 

message: It would be nice if someone could add this skeptical explanation of Ghost sightings to this article.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2002/11/06/ecfwitch06.xml
:Already covered by Pareidolia. LuckyLouie 18:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for 'Skeptical analysis' 

message: On YouTube, some people have videos that just show you something that totally freaks you out in the last few seconds. C'mon, YouTubers, there might be people out there that could get a heart attack! 
what is it like a screaming face or something i have seen loads before i got scared i had to turn the screen around 
So anyway, what's up with the scary videos? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm..."what's up" with this apparently completely unconnected-to-the-article comment?? --Chr.K. 12:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeez...

message: This could be a really great section, or independent article, going back to ancient cultures and including Shakesphere and other great writers and artists.  As it is however it focuses on video games. I would like to remove the whole thing and start over. Steve Dufour 03:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it for now, but type up a working section like what you are describing and post it here, letting a consensus be made as to whether it belongs in the section. V-Man - T/C 03:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're considering drafting a new section, I would suggest a close look through WP:IPC. Mighty Antar 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular culture

message: If you think about it, ghosts probably do exist. This article mentions nothing of the hauntings that no one has figured out an answer besides ghosts. They should say more about the theories of what ghosts are. They don't mention anything about the proof of ghosts that remains unexplained. This article has bias on the people who don't believe in ghosts. 1 third of the people do! Many cultures have ghosts in their roots. There is much more to ghosts, than people just criticizing them!!!
No, it has a reasonable, correct bias towards rationality and logic. There is no 'proof of ghosts' as you claim and that is why the article probably seems biased to you Andyroo g 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost Do exist! 

message: Can ghosts give you bad dreams? --  PNiddy  Go!  0 04:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um... 

message: Insert formula here
I agree with the viewpoint that this article leans toward the "skeptic" opinion, for the most part, and there is no evidence to the contrary.  I understand that ghosts are a controversial topic, and no one has sufficiently proven one way or the other.  However, there are many websites out there that discuss the topic of ghosts and hauntings in a rational manner (as far as I can tell.)
::What do you mean by "skeptic opinion"? The skeptic approach is precisely one that does not rely on simple opinions but in proofs or rational thinking. So you could almost say that a NPOV is essentially a skeptical point of view (but, of course, skeptical people are humans and may have biases). And do not expect a "proof" that ghosts do not exist. If I say that I can communicate directly with God and he is telling me to write this, could you prove that it's not true? Of course not. But that does not mean that it is a controversial issue where we the possibility of it being true or false is 50-50. As Carl Sagan once said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The burden of proof is on the one that makes an extraordinary claim. Calin99 19:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet to be Debunked Ghost Phenomena 

message: I don't quite see the point of having the "prison window" picture here - I can't see anything even vaguely like a human face in the picture at all, so even as an illustration of pareidolia it's a particularly poor example.
Also, the description of the photograph, provided by the copyright holder, quite clearly states "ripples in the old glass create the illusion of a face of a woman looking left". The phrase "many claim it shows a ghost" is therefore completely bogus; even the person who took the photograph doesn't believe it shows one!
Unless this is a particularly famous or notorious photo (which I doubt), I think it should be removed. 217.155.20.163 12:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "prison window" photograph