Talk:Energy being

message: What is an "energy being"? Would seem straight forward, but the third paragraph of the description says it all.
The Taelons are only partially energy, but mostly physical beings. The Drej from Titan AE are energy encased in a containment suit that disperses if the suit is destroyed, same with some energy super-heroes (who are not on the list: for that reason ZZaxx(sp) should also not be there as he is also an individual not a race. 
Elementals? Which are either etherial beings who manifest through specific elements or are creatures whose bodies are made of those elements. With these would electrical ones count as energy beings? (if so than alot more than the Megawats from Ben Ten would need to be added to this list, starting with a few creatures from Star Trek through the enemy from the movie "Virus")
and what of Bio-plasmic life forms? creatures whose bodies are composed of plasma (the highly charged state of matter) essentially not too different from electrical creatures. Such as Bio-plasmic nebular creatures from Star Trek and Pyron from Darkstalkers.
Between Electrical creatures and Bio-plasmic life forms there are the gas based life forms. Some of which tiptoe on that not so clear line into Energy beings such as some seen in the original Star Trek series, some Dr. Who, and Star Gate SG-1/Atlantis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.116.79 (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What qualifies as an energy being? 

message: "An energy being or astral being is a name given to a group of lifeforms sharing some aspects of their appearance or abilities attributed to the idea that they are composed of pure energy and not made of matter."
Does anyone else think this opening sentence could do with an adjective along the lines of "fictional" or "hypothetical" or "alleged"? As I read it, I for one got the impression of having stumbled upon an amazing, world-shaking fact I had somehow managed to remain completely ignorant of until now. It wasn't until the second sentence that I realised it wasn't (confirmed to be) real and got my hopes down again. - Fyrius (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somewhat misleading opening sentence 

message: * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=allintitle:+%22energy+being%22&hl=en
--58.38.41.238 (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI.... 

message: This is how the article started in 2006:
An energy being is a hypothetic lifeform that is made out of pure energy and not made of matter. Energy beings are often featured in science fiction.
It seems clear enough that the original editor intended to start an article on an element of fiction.
The current article is a list of such fictional elements; and an assertion that they are elements of paranormal fact.  If Vorlons or Organians are really "ufo-related" related elements, it immediately calls the credibility of the paranormal-related articles into question.  The article needs to take a stand and be within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal or Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction, not both.
If it is within the scope of paranormal-related articles then I'll remove all the fictional references since they aren't paranormal (unless maybe everything under the scope of "Hollywood and television fiction" is paranormal, which some may argue, but we have an awful lot of articles to fix if that is so).  As a WP:FICT editor, I do not need to watch this article any more.  Last I heard, science fiction was a pretty normal genre of fiction.  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article badly conflates the fictional and the factual 

message: The image added and self made is intended to provide the viewer with an illustration on what an energy being might be like and is one of a part of images from the  intended to give the reader an idea of size and shape. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really like a response to my post above:  If the article is about fictional energy beings, then your image is inappropriate, because it does not look like any Volron or Organian anyone has ever seen (we have pictures of Vorlons and Organians in the Babylon 5 and Star Trek articles, and can readily put one here if it furthers the readers' understanding of the subject, there is no need for an artists' conception because we already know what they look like; see :File:B5 kosh01b.jpg and :File:Organian council.jpg).  If, on the other hand, the article is about Ufology or other Paranormal subjects, then the fictional references need to be removed from the article because they are not, in any way, Paranormal, they are normal fiction.  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep removing the image? You seem to be focused on the energy being in a fictional sense. I am adding the image as an artistic interpretation which is part of the List of alleged alien beings. Please do not remove the image again. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please research the article edit history before making accusations using the term "you".  I have not removed the image even once.  I have merely objected to the image's inclusion on a different basis than the two other editors who have removed it.  They have not yet come here to the Talk page to better explain their edit summaries of the removal; nevertheless, I take the same position as they do, just for a different reason.  —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I removed your drawing because it's your artistic representation and does not seem to illustrate the description in the article. From WP:OI "Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". --NeilN talk to me 20:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy being image 

message: There is in no way any kind of scientific background to this fictional stuff. There is no reasonable way of describing such "life forms" in a way that fits our definition of life or even seems possible in the world that we perceive. Therefore energy beings are not a "hypothetical". There is no theoretical background. As long as no scientific source is provided, describing energy beings as "hypothetical", the only appropriate word is fictional. An example: the warp drive as is seen in Star Trek is a hypothetical drive, however the vulcans are not a hypothetical species. 88.78.199.227 (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm terribly sorry but we can't refer to spiritual beliefs/concepts as being "fictional", that's not what the word means. The lead sentence needs to be rewritten. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not hypothetical! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Energy being. 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/20070928031647/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2002/09/22/fea20.html to http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2002/09/22/fea20.html
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) 05:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)