Talk:Paranormal/Archive 1

message: I am looking for information about when the word paranormal was first used and who may have coined the term for inclusion in the article. If anyone can find that and add it here or in the article, please do so. Thanks. --Nealparr 04:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Coined the Term Paranormal

message: In my personal opinion, I think it would render this article somewhat useless if it degraded into a debate between science and the paranormal like many of the paranormal articles on wikipedia. In an effort to remain neutral, other articles have tried to present both views, which tends to make for a long article full of redundancy, bickering, unsubstantiated information, passionate opinions, etc. The result is typically a waste of time for all involved. I propose a different method to remaining neutral on this article. Present no view whatsoever. Since the paranormal is just a term to describe other terms, it doesn't need to be a long article presenting everything there is to present about the paranormal. What is undisputed is that there is a term called "Paranormal", and it has a definition. In fact, it's an adjective which means that it literally describes something else. I think we should define the term, refine the definition, and then leave it alone. Since the term describes several other things, it shouldn't be redirected to just one other term and requires its own article (a necessary article because its a popular term and deserves to be in wikipedia), but there really shouldn't be that much in the article. Basically, let's keep it clean. Debates about the paranormal can, of course, go in here. --Nealparr 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Editing Guidelines

message: Though I helped in getting this article up and running, I no longer have time to maintain it. So have fun folks! I may be back later.
--Nealparr 04:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Note

message: The word paranormal consists of two parts: para and normal. In most definitions of the word paranormal, it is described as anything that is beyond or contrary to what is deemed scientifically possible. Going off the two part word, it is implied that the scientific explanation of the world around us is the "normal" part of the definition and the "para" part makes up the beyond, contrary, or against part of the definition.
That's the strict definition.
Certainly things outside what would be considered "supernatural" meets that definition. Supernatural, for one thing, has an air of the religious or occult about it. Spontaneous time travel, which would be a paranormal phenomenon, might have nothing to do with religion or the occult and therefore the label of supernatural would be misapplied.
Likewise, spontaneous time travel, something considered "beyond scientifically possible" is not parapsychological as well. Parapsychology is limited (by parapsychologists) to studying psi (mental phenomena) and survival studies (reincarnation, etc.)
So there you have it. Not all paranormal phenomena falls under the terms supernatural or parapsychological. Spontaneous time travel is just an example. Many other paranormal phenomena meets the definition of "anything that is beyond or contrary to what is deemed scientifically possible" as well without necessarily fitting other similar terms. As another example, UFO phenomena -- even just the reported habits of making a 90 degree turns at extraordinary speeds -- fits the definition of paranormal and has nothing to do with parapsychology and might not have anything to do with the supernatural.
--Nealparr 00:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paranormal Is Not Necessarily Supernatural Or Parapsychological

message: The link to the term "Magick" is not directly related to the term paranormal and should not be listed on the page. It was possibly added for the purposes of promotion.
:I agree. I think I'll remove it for now and if there's strong objection it can be put back later.--Nealparr 13:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magick

message: I have three more approaches (beyond the current edit) that I hope to add to the article soon. Bare with me as my time is limited. But I feel that they are necessary additions to give the full range of how the paranormal is approached, or at least the predominent ways.--Nealparr 04:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Approaches

message: This book Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology edited by J. Gordon Melton, Gale Research has been cited on the article but no page numbers included. Any help with this please appreciated, or this source will have to be replaced. PunkRockerTom (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Page numbers needed

message: There is a section "Participant-observer approach" but it appears to be based entirely on original research. One source cited is "Logical Investigations Husserl, E. 1970 Humanities Press", no page numbers are given and from a quick look this book does not even mention the paranormal. I think this section should be removed. PunkRockerTom (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Participant-observer approaches to the paranormal

message: There's a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paranormal#Category:Paranormal about whether :Category:Paranormal should be categorized under :Category:Pseudoscience or its parent :Category:Fringe theory. We could use some more opinions so please join in. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Paranormal 

message: Know alot of Paranormal events. Can be explained by natrual however perhaps unknown natural effects> And it seems that several Paranprmal are hasppebing at the same time.i.e. sightenings of big Foot monsters UFO activity even ghost sightenings!Has this been said in article? Cant locate it! Thanks!Stabbingdagger (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source saying that people who believe in paranormal stuff also believe in this, we can include it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wondering if paranorma andlcommon natural events  linked? 

message: Can we add Cryptozoology and/or Cryptids to the list of main articles? The Paranormal article lists Cryptids  RobP (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptozoology 

message: The paranormal criterion should be added, because paranormal phenomena are very real and are not only brain-dependent and psychologically predisposed. Many people have encountered ghosts and unexplained things, including UFOs, poltergeist and moving objects, door slamming, human magnetism - according to Randi, it's just sticky skin; Seriously is it scientific? The paranormal phenomenon is primarily a phenomenon unexplained by science, not a nonsense. Alex&Trevex 20:53, 24 July 2017 (CEST)
:
*no original research
*use reliable sources
*sources must be verifiable
: Edaham (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal activity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Paranormal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204041009/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/access/c8/c8s5.htm to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/access/c8/c8s5.htm
*Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20150818162958/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the United States, the possibility of proving that paranormal phenomena exist has captured the imaginations and intrigue of the country. Paranormal; investigative, reality television shows, have given the general public a rudimentary approach on how to go about collecting scientific evidence to substantiate anomalous activity.
A paranormal investigation usually has a process; " Fieldwork with multiple groups centered on ‘hunting’ ghosts reveals several notable themes, including rhetorical appeals to both science and religion, magical rites, the extensive use of technology to mediate evidence and experiences of ghosts, and the narrative construction of hauntings” (Baker, Bader, 2014).Baker, J. O., & Bader, C. D. (2014). A social anthropology of ghosts in twenty-first-century America. Social Compass, 61(4), 569-593.
:== Open-minded Skeptics ==
Popular paranormal investigative groups, on occasion, fall into the group of being open-minded skeptics, “What open-minded skepticism really means to them is that one is open to the paranormal conclusion as the correct conclusion” (Hill, 2012).Hill, S. (2012). Amateur paranormal research and investigation groups doing “Sciencey” things. Skeptical Inquirer, 36(2).
:== The Correct Mentality of a Skeptic ==
For the definition of skepticism, I have to quote Hess (1993), because he says it best, “In the United States, “skepticism” is often a positive trait; it suggests an empirical, pragmatic, independent, self-reliant, and anti-authoritarian approach to the world” (p.15).Hess, D. J. (1993). Science in the new age: The paranormal, its defenders and debunkers, and American culture. Univ of Wisconsin Press. Skeptics get confronted all the time from paranormal investigative groups. Mostly, to accuse the skeptic on being fallacious, but most skeptics like Shermer (2011), says “I’m a skeptic not because I do not want to believe, but because I want to know” (p.2).Shermer, M. (2011). The believing brain: From ghosts and gods to politics and conspiracies---How we construct beliefs and reinforce them as truths. Macmillan.
--C York 23:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good research and sources, but a personal opinion piece using WP:SYNTHESIS isn't appropriate for WP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Paranormal Investigative Perspective 

message: The article fails to account for these 2 paranormal facts:
1. White and black money (banking industry) as determined by OR gate testing, quantum computing, Question of Truth. Most people react psychologically to having black money on their bank accounts and as such black money represents parapsychology.
2. Haunted, "rotten" buildings (insurance industry) as determined by people and special type of OR gate testing. People react to haunted, "rotten" buildings by not being able to enter a seemingly open building and being struck with terror and fear upon entering others, thus also a parapsychological phenomenon or just paranormal. Care to investigate and update the article?
81.191.206.177 (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Content must be referenced to what others say in reliable sources. We don't investigate things ourselves. That would be original research, and unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand. It's merely to go through the databases and what they say. I do not have access to the most comprehensive databases on the issues. An investigation into existing literature, in other words. 81.191.206.177 (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Update: the faces of people who turn utterly crazy are known to take on entirely different characteristics, say Megyn Kelly turning black face on live television. That's a 3rd issue to amend the article with. Thanks. 81.191.206.177 (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you misunderstand. Wikipedia is created entirely by volunteers, who seek out and add well sourced content to articles that interest them. It's not the job of any editor here to search for sources to support content you want added to the encyclopaedia. That's your job. Or someone else's if you can talk them into it, but that would seem unlikely in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two More Issues