Talk:Time slip

message: The full text of Moberly and Jourdain's An Adventure was available somewhere on the net last year but (spookily) I can't find it now. If anyone does come across it, could they add a link to the article please?
Many thanks
Ghughesarch 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

message: In his biography of the aristocratic and decadent French poet Robert de Montesquiou, Philippe Jullian says that at the time of Moberly and Jourdain's excursion to Versailles Montesquiou lived nearby and frequently gave parties in the grounds where his friends dressed up in period costume. Moberly and Jourdain might have inadvertently barged in on a gay fancy dress party where Edwardian spinsters may not have been all that welcome. No ghosts at all!  Xxanthippe 23:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that I understand that that possibility was looked into in the course of the Society for Psychical Research's (or a later) investigation, and the dates didn't fit. Ghughesarch 08:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the two women returned to Versailles a year or two later and reported hearing violin music coming from an unknown source. She asked the grounds staff about it, they said no musicians were scheduled. --67.171.164.195 (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

text: - I appreciate that's only a blog but it does match my recollection - that the de Montesquiou party had happened some years before the events of "An Adventure". This site:  also covers the controversy, without coming down on one side or the other. Certainly Moberly and Jourdain also claimed significant physical differences in the landscape round the Petit Trianon, which would not be explained as being down to a fancy-dress party, however decadent.Ghughesarch 11:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It is fine to say that Jullian put forward de Montesquiou’s parties as an explanation for the events described in “An Adventure”, however, to leave the Wikipedia reader with the impression that Jullian’s suggestion satisfactorily explains Moberly and Jourdain’s experience is quite wrong. It is a self-evident matter of fact, rather than a non-neutral piece of editorialising, that Jullian’s “explanation” has flaws, particularly in respect of the changes to the landscape which Moberly and Jourdain reported.Ghughesarch 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Versailles incident a costume party?

message: QUOTE: 
"this phenomenon is widely held to be fictional"
The fact that your specific environment (of which the readership knows nothing) presumably holds them to be fictional does not, by any means, justify the adjective "widely", my dear. ;)
There is no evidence for such a "widely" held (dis)belief.
On the other hand, there IS firm evidence that there are environments in which such events are widely held to be indisputable.
So, which evidence are we going to believe - and why?
Or why not?
There may be no evidence cited here on whether or not the skepticism of such an event is widely held, but why claim that these occurrences are indisputable facts merely based on where they were reported from? Why jump to that conclusion and claim it to be sensible when it's even more extraordinary than the simple claim that you're questioning? Julianrocksit (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Widely"...? 

message: One thing that bothers me about the Simpson/Gisby incident is this: why did they not notice there were no toilets? 
I am guessing that in France, around the late 1890s, there would not be regular toilets in a rural inn. However, I do not know when toilets were installed regularly so I am looking into that in the toilet section of Wikipedia.
Does anyone have a thought on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.255.155 ([[User 
talk:75.6.255.155|talk]]) 08:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know if that TV special is viewable online? How big was the hotel they described? --RThompson82 (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire episode of Strange but True (the Vanishing Hotel case is the second one examined, with interviews with the witnesses) is on youtube and is directly linked from the article, however part 1 is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdWXMD4rOGQ part 2 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqQV_UzVQks Ghughesarch (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpsons/Gisbys Was That a Hoax?

message: Would a time slip look like for an external observer always like an unexplainded disappearance?
May all unexplained disappearances be time slips?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.204.25 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[list of people who disappeared mysteriously|Unexplained disappearances]] versus time slip 

message: One time walking through the City Park in the Centre of York England, I was past by a Squad of authentically dressed Roman Soldiers. If I was impressionable I may have thought this a 'Timeslip', in fact they simply models walking to an exhibition of Roman Culture in the City. The incident in Versailles is explained by some observers as a similar misunderstanding by the two English Ladies stumbling onto a Festival of some kind. The incidents in Bold Street Liverpool, which have only be reported by a handful of people also could have a similar explination. One witness was a Police Officer who said he found himself in Bold Street with cars from the 1950s. This can easily be explained by a group of Vintage Car owners calling in to a Cafe, dressed in the clothes of the day.Johnwrd (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To put it generally, the fact that a phenomenon is unexplained does not mean the next plausible explanation offered is correct.Bmcln1 (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused or misunderstood Observations

message: I have recently disputed the content of the beginning of this article in regards to the statement "As with all paranormal phenomena, the objective reality of such experiences is disputed". This statement appears to be somewhat inaccurate, as, when one looks back at the corresponding paranormal article, you will notice that the respective article does not promote the idea of the reality of this phenomena, as much as this article. The bottom line is that the statement is inconsistent with the "superior" article. The other article [paranormal] is not only more realistic, but is also more well-backed by reliable references. In fact, if you look at other serious study, you will see the same thing – no evidence of the existence of this phenomena. The evidence is at best weak. There is no debate regarding this subject among serious researchers. This does not mean, however, that it is never researched, such as by skeptic organizations, given the off-chance that something unusual is discovered in the future. If I explain that scientific evidence is currently contrary to this, then I am accused of pushing a "view". The problem with that way of thinking, is that it is misguided. Science is not a "view", per se. Science is based on facts and evidence, and cannot be categorized as such. All in all, considering that (as the other [paranormal] article states) these beliefs are contrary to existing knowledge, they are virtually disproved, however, due to the scientific norms, that you cannot prove a negative, we [Wikipedians, in this context] need to end with saying that it is "unlikely", which is what the other, better referenced article states (in different words). A couple of other editors (see ) for some reason refuse to buy it. I've initiated a discussion and I hope to see that someone can assist me in the process of sending my point across. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For the benefit of any reader of this article who wishes to see the "backstory" to the above post, and contribute to this discussion, I attach what has been going on on my talk page over the last 36 hours (for what it's worth, I tend to take the view that Wikipedia is not here to push "Science's" view of matters). If it wasn't disputed, it wouldn't be paranormal; if it wasn't paranormal, it wouldn't be disputed. The suggestion implicit in the above post, that only skeptical ("scientific") investigations are worthwhile, beggars belief. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With that comment, you are criticizing the other article. The other article explains as I did, and this article is inconsistent with the other. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 00:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck with imposing consistency on Wikipedia.Ghughesarch (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I suspect you may be confusing what you consider to be "reliable sources" (the term you used in your description of your most recent edit to the article, and which I take to mean your interpretation of scientifically reliable) with what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source, as explained at WP:RS Ghughesarch (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be opposed to instating consistency, but it is critical. One article cannot (even partially) contradict another. I have looked back at the reference used in the "superior" article, which was placed for a reason. The statement that it is "unlikely" [in different words] was backed by a reliable reference. The statement that it is "debated" may have been a decent remark, but was unreferenced. -- IRP ☎ 00:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

text: "Disputed" is far more accurate and succinct than the lengthy variation you have added, which goes out of its way to push a particular (skeptical) view. If you can come up with "strong evidence" against these phenomena (i.e., stronger than "science says it can't happen, therefore it doesn't"), then I suggest you provide it. A link to one loosely US government science site which  expresses scientists' concerns about belief in the paranormal (however justified they may be, but without referring to Time Slips in particular), is not enough to justify the edit you made. I suggest (and I'm not deliberately being offensive here, merely trying to point out the extent to which one world view may collide with another in matters such as this) making the same edit to ghosts or god first, as both are, after all, alleged paranormal phenomena with a rather larger following than time slips. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Take no offense, but what you appear not to be acknowledging though, is the material which was already written on the paranormal article (in fact, that particular reference is cited there). That article explains that science essentially disproves this concept, primarily due to the fact that it is probably physically impossible for these alleged phenomena to occur. Regarding God, you also apparently misunderstood the concept. We did not say that science disproves God. For the most part, that is a separate discipline (some scientists may argue for or against his existence, however, there is no significant [dis]proof), as that is indeed debated. However, paranormal phenomena "in this world", if you will, is categorized as pseudoscience. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 01:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing in the article you cited relating to time slips in particular. So it may be relevant to the paranormal article, but not to this one, "alleged", "disputed", plus the link to paranormal is quite sufficient. But I note you say "We did not say that science disproves God" - who are "We" in this context - who do you claim to represent? And note that I also asked for some consistency here (and also used god, not God, there is a difference) - what have you to say about the ghosts article, or, for that matter, reincarnation, or the Loch Ness Monster? And why are you not editing those articles too? Ghughesarch (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text: PS - '"probably" physically impossible for these alleged phenomena to occur' is not remotely the same as 'science essentially disproves this concept'.Ghughesarch (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article references back to the other article, paranormal, by stating "As with all paranormal phenomena"... This means that the same idea applies to all paranormal subjects. In regards to your other comment, "we" includes myself, and anybody else whom researches the respective subject. I was emphasizing that none of us have said that science disproves God. Back to what I was saying. Serious study refutes these beliefs. The only actual "debate" is occurring in the lower levels of research (pseudoscience). Again, serious, properly-done study indicates these beliefs to be essentially impossible. There is no good reason to "debate", as the conclusion has virtually been reached. No intention for derogatory language, however, the individuals debating this are arguing out  of ignorance – simply making arguments out of a lack of information. Skeptics will simply remain in the non-belief state until these claims are proven at least beyond reasonable doubt. This is for good reason, as the evidence is at best weak, and highly prone to error.
Regarding your second comment, yes, they are very close if not the same. Essentially, meaning, for the most part and probably, meaning most likely. Hope this is clear. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 01:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But nothing you have said justifies singling out that particular article for the edit you made. For the moment, the article (with its caveats and links) is quite clear about the extent to which credence should be attached to the anecdotal evidence (I note that paranormal, while pointing out that much evidence is anecdotal and thus irreconcilable with scientific method, does not go on to dismiss out of hand all such claims, a more balanced view of "probably" and "essentially" than the one you seem to be espousing). It is, I believe, not Wikipedia's purpose to go further than that, and require that every article on matters not accepted as possible by science should be tagged in the lead paragraph with some sort of disquisition on its scientific impossibility - that is pushing one particular view - that of the scientific community as it stands at present - at the expense of all others. The qualifiers "probably" and "essentially" make such a tag invalid, anyway Ghughesarch (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What type of evidence do you have for the existence of these phenomena? Do you have anything to tip the scale against the refutation? If not, then it is virtually completely on the negative side. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 02:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I forgot to mention that if you research the concepts of science, you will notice that it is designed to be irrefutable, which is why it is the best way to approach these extraordinary claims. -- IRP ☎ 02:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I think this is the sort of discussion that really belongs on the talk page of the particular article.Ghughesarch (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right. Please see the respective talk page where I have initiated a discussion. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Content dispute

message: Someone should add Journeyman to the list on pop culture. 98.167.222.100 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journeyman? 

message: I tried adding this to the main article but it was removed. Perhaps here?
* http://paranormal.about.com/od/timeanddimensiontravel/a/time-travelers.htm 
* http://paranormal.about.com/od/timeanddimensiontravel/a/time-travelers_2.htm 
* http://paranormal.about.com/cs/timetravel/a/aa052603_2.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.30.154 (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other incidents 

message: Does anyone else think this ought to be mentioned in the article? Here are some pages describing it. I've also read about it in two different books. 
* http://www.prairieghosts.com/wesleyan.html
* http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/NEBRHeritage/1998-10/0908524401
--RThompson82 (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 1963 Wesleyan University (Lincoln, Nebraska) incident

message: Per FRINGE, this is grossly inappropriate as written, where the in-world viewpoint is presented in Wikipedia's voice.
Who are these "skeptics" mentioned in the lede, and what sources support the statement? --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The word 'skeptic' is, as usual, flimflammery added as a pretence at neutrality, actually aimed at marginalising the opinions of anyone but the chronically credulous. I think the word needs to be added to our weasel menagerie AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed - NPOV, FRINGE

message: If that is the case, the article should reflect it. I've removed the external links section completely as the entries were too removed from the topic and appeared chosen specifically for their fringe viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Topic appears to be the plot device

message: This is the version of the article that was nominated for deletion.  It mostly referred to the term as a paranormal phenomenon and consisted largely of original research. The consensus of the deletion discussion was to delete and redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation). After that  asked for it to be restored and userfied at User:Valoem/Time slip.  Valoem rewrote the article to be about the fictional plot device.  He then took it to Deletion review.  The result there was to restore the rewritten, refocused article to mainspace.  ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I did not see this discussion before my reversion to the disambig. page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion and new version of article.