Talk:Poltergeist

message: you sure?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathsofnaftaline (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALL European nations? 

message: In one place it says 'poltergeists have traditionally been described in folklore as troublesome spirits or ghosts which haunt a particular person, hence the name', yet elsewhere it says the word is derived from 'making noise' and 'ghost'.  So how does haunting a particular person relate to the name?Ed Addis (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The name and the association you mentioned have no relation to each other. Poltergeists are named as such simply because their primary behavior is creating disorder (like noise). Historically, they often do their business in the presence of a particular person, but it doesn't mean they should be called "stalkergeists" or something. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I've pulled "hence the name", since it doesn't make sense. If someone feels that strongly about it they can revert me with an explanation. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm confused 

message: The term Poltergeists is wrong.The correct plural of Geist is Geister. --> Poltergeister  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.62.0 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong plural 

message: I am not sure where to place works of Physicists Pierro Brovetto and Vera Maxia. 
While it is well sourced (on arxiv) and they are respectable scientists, their idea is maybe a little bit excentric since they suggest that "poltergeist have for origin a reduction in strength of molecular bonds due to an enhancement in polarization of vacuum which decreases the actual electron charge" and that the cause are trnasformation in the brain of young womans. So maybe if someone else suggest I will move it in the paranormal section because it is to far from more down to earth view of Persinger and Turner where the origin of poltergeist are seismic activity, geomagnetism and ball lightning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundergodz (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you think science or paranormal? 

message: What about a separate section from paranormal, for spiritualist view and religious view?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundergodz (talk • contribs) 01:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section 

message: Persinger's parapsychological research on poltergeists has never been replicated by the scientific community, his views are considered fringe if not pseudoscience by critics. Thundergodz keeps adding mention of Persinger but the sources are fringe i.e. Persinger, M. A.; Cameron, R. A. (1986). "Are earth faults at fault in some poltergeist-like episodes?". JASPR 80: 49–73. The JASPR is the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, this is not a science journal. Goblin Face (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: the sources being used for insertion of this stuff: the JASPR is definitely not a reliable source of scientific views, the Tony Jinks book clearly argues a sympathetic view of parapsychology, and James Houran is a well known parapsychology advocate whose book, although academic in nature, presents parapsychology and mainstream science on an equal footing. While some of this may be suitable for the "paranormal" section of the article, it doesn't belong in the "science" section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Re: Here also "Discovery of Electromagnetic Anomalies at Two Reputedly Haunted Castles in Scandinavia" http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-60054205/discovery-of-electromagnetic-anomalies-at-two-reputedly + they tried to build a haunted room but apparently negative results (but it shows us that Persinger's theory is taken seriously) http://www.wired.com/2009/10/scientifically-haunted-house  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundergodz (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Persinger

message: I am german and know the language VERY well. And I know, that "poltern" is not just "making noises", that would be "Geräusche machen". It actually is - as I tried to edit - making loud, maybe annoying sounds like rumbling, rocks that fall on the ground or woodplanks that are thrown around. Despite defining "poltern" more clear, it also fits to what ghosts usually enjoy to do. So it would be fitting, if you let me (or someone else) do that edit.
Thank you
84.131.189.161 (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "poltern" meaning 

message: What is ignored in this article and what a even a cursory search revealed is that most cases of poltergeism involve young girls at puberty that have excess energy and unable to control it or properly channel it. The excessive energy and frustration is then used to create psychic and telekinetic havoc in their environment. 
See for example   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054842/Enfield-Poltergeist-The-amazing-story-11-year-old-North-London-girl-levitated-bed.html
This would predict cessation of poltergeist activity by temporarily taking the girl away from the house during which time activity should cease. The suggested remedies would be to channel the girl into strong physical activities, soccer playing, dance classes, swimming competitions, learning piano with training exercises,  whatever  her preferences are, and  getting home she would be too tired to spook. 76.171.150.240 (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already refers to that hypothesis: "Parapsychologists such as Nandor Fodor and William Roll wrote that poltergeist activity can be explained by psychokinesis." It is not as detailed as you described it though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article not properly researched and does not mention all the possibilities. 

message: The "quantum poltergeist" theory by Brovetto and Maxia presently in the Poltergeist#Unverified_natural_phenomena section may have been an April Fool's Day article by New Scientist -- or in the least, so deliberately offbeat as to be of dubious value . - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I always wanted to remove it, in fact I did but I was reverted by another user who added it. I don't have a problem with the New Scientist as a source. It's just their explanation is just too fringe like and just sounds like a joke. There is no evidence of a follow-up piece etc. I am not sure what to make of it. I would recommend for it to be removed. Goblin Face (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a circa 2008 paper that never got any traction except in parapsychology bibliographies (including this one). Obviously a tiny minority view, so it doesn't belong here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brovetto and Maxia 

message: I have removed insertion of a link to an article in a fringe journal (the American Society for Psychical Research) which states that "rapping sounds" made in seances are both "unexplained" and attempts by spirits to "communicate". WP:ELNO requires us to omit links to factually misleading information. The biography of the author, Dr Barrie G. Colvin, is (for Wikipedia's purposes) irrelevant. What matters is the source he was published in, i.e. a journal that Wikipedia widely considers unreliable because it represents a tiny WP:FRINGE view that has no impact outside the fringe bubble. Compare for example the Impact factor of the American Society for Psychical Research and a mainstream journal such as the Journal of Immunology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Society for Psychical Research, is not considered an academic or science journal, is not a reliable source to be citing on Wikipedia. Unless there is notable coverage in reliable secondary sources that discuss the said article piece, then that journal is not usually cited on Wikipedia. JuliaHunter (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parapsychology journal link added to EL? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Poltergeist. 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/20080608034151/http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=14726&sec=39&con=52 to http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=14726&sec=39&con=52
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) 22:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I modified the introductory paragraph by adding more details about what exactly a poltergeist is. I feel like originally there was quite a good bit of information being left out and it didn't accurately depict just how much a poltergeist can entail.
I also added two subsections to the famous cases section by giving brief descriptions of two of the cases listed. This will make it easier for readers to quickly get information without having to be redirected to different articles and read a lot more informaiton.
Another section I added was about Ed and Lorraine Warren, since they are two widely known experts in the field I thought it was vital to give information and background on them as well.
Feel free to let me know your thoughts on my revisions and if you think they need to be edited again or not!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldvegan123 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi and thanks for your contributions. Regarding these edits: , , , , you may not have been familiar with part of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, namely WP:FRINGE, which dictates that we give less, if any, weight to ideas and concepts at odds with mainstream/majority scientific thought. That is the reason this article (and all our other articles) lean heavily toward debunking and skepticism and away from superstition and the supernatural. (Regarding Ed and Lorraine Warren, they do not represent mainstream scientific thought, they are considered self-proclaimed "experts" and not independent reliable sources of fact) So claims that spirits of the dead and/or demonic entities exist, did something or can do something, etc. can only be treated as claims and not fact, and descriptions should not be written credulously. Depending on the source, we'd use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, for example, "According to John Smith, poltergeists are spirits...", or "In 2013, John Smith claimed a demon threw him down the stairs...", etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Added information to article