Talk:Ghost/Archive 1

Theological questions
I'm not sure that the notion of limbo was ever a "view . . . held by the Catholic Church." Certainly some Catholic theologians taught it, but that doesn't make it official doctrine. Additionally, the concept of limbo generally refers in Catholic thought to "limbus infantium," a place for infants gulty of no actual sin. Finally, I think that it's too sweeping to say that mainline Protestants and Evangelicals don't believe in ghosts. Do the doctrinal teachings of all of these denominations hold as such? if so, do all members of those traditions agree with those doctrines?

--Kbgeek 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't know about Catholic doctrine, but having grown up attending a variety of Evangelical churches and having read a lot of Protestant writings about the "spirit world", I've never heard of any mainstream Protestant or Evangelical denomination's doctrine that stated that ghosts are anything but "demonic". There are of course many members of such denominations that disagree with parts of the denomination's stated doctrine, as with any religious organization. However, the "demonic" nature of ghostly activity is universally agreed upon by every Protestant doctrine I've ever heard of. The conventional doctrine that I always encountered was that when people die they go to heaven or hell, and nowhere else; therefore ghosts are demons pretending to be dead people, in order to try to deceive the living and somehow ensnare them. Limbo or purgatory were always described (in Protestant circles) as Catholic "false doctrine". Not that I subscribe to any of these views. I'd actually be very interested to hear about Protestant doctrine that varies from this.  -Fennel 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
My personal background in the social sciences has led me to a conclusion that the methods used by "Ghost Hunters(Psychics)" and "Skeptics(Scientists)" are flawed. First of all the biggest mistake that these two groups of people are doing is hypothesis bias. The one want's to prove that Ghosts exists, while the other want's to disprove it for the sake of Science. Both of these people have allready made up their mind, before they investigate sopposed haunted sights. A skeptic might argue with me about this statement, by telling me that they are using the scientific method. I will tell him/her that rationalsim and especially empiricism are the basis of Scientific knowledge. According to my knowledge Ghosts are alleged to appease all the human senses.(touch,smell,hear,see etc.)Therefore Ghosts can be studied Emperically and thus Scientifically, but I believe that it's very hard now a days to find a completlely unbiased researcher for alleged Ghosts. (Many Scientists have this stereotype that the word Ghost belongs to the world of Religion and immediatly discards it.) You might say that as a scientist you are trained to be unbiased, but I will say to you the fact that you chose Science and not Religion makes you biased. Both the Scientist and Spiritualist are searching for the truth, but their method for achieving it are keeping them apart. Maybe if a Ghost appears to you, use your own mind to verify if it is real or not.


 * Actually, your personal background is of little interest, since you are an anonymous user. I removed your comment in the article itself, since it violates the guidelines of Wikipedia - No original research allowed, and the information must be verifiable. This is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board for gossip and speculation. /Magore 16:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've spent enough time around real scientists. The reason that there is little unbiased research into ghosts is because it's difficult to keep your scientific credibility when you investigate such a controversial area, and also there isn't much of a basis to work from and there's little available funding.--RadioElectric 13:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted your earlier edits for the same reason that I will revert them this time - They violate the Wikipedia guideline NPOV, and to a lesser extent the NOR guideline. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it doesn't matter if the information is correct or not, as long as it can be backed up with external sources. Therefore we can't accept content that is based on speculation, original research or a certain user's personal opinion/point of view. /Magore 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I didn't notice you had replied here as well. I would like to point out that it is you who is supporting the article making a definite statement with no reference.--86.20.223.168 00:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Open Minded Analysis
'It seems possible that, sometimes, the telling of ghost stories might have been a way for secluded communities to scare off intruders. It is also conceivable that, when unsuccessful, this tactic could have been backed up by more or less elaborate setups with members of that community playing ghosts.' (sounds like Scooby Doo)

This is a neutral analysis?! Where is the logic, not to mention evidence, for this argument? A disgruntled scientist? For the meantime, parts of my original addition have been restored, but I agree, my original contribution was anything but neutral - but "neutral" is not an adequate descriptive word for the current state of this encylopedic entry. Both sides of the argument have to be equally represented, and currently this is not the case.

Further improvement is needed.

The fact is a majority of the infomation we "know" from science were themselves not the simpliest explantations. Occam's Razor is very flawed, as what is "simple" is a very subjective form of criteria. The current scientific theory of reality, is just that, a theory that in itself rarely depicts reality as simple. The existence of ghosts in my opinion is not all that conflicting with scientific theories, just conflicting with those who blindy accept all scientific orthodoxies and subjective dogma such as Occam's Razor and blindy rejects anything remotely challenging to the simplistic views of the universe.

Alasdair - Occam's Razor doesn't say "the simplest explanation", it says out of explanations that both describe the same phenomenon equally well, you take the explanation with the least unexplained phenomonena - IE the "simplest".

Ghost monk image
I removed part of the caption reading "Critics say the picture looks suspiciously like the slasher in Wes Craven's Scream trilogy of horror movies." This stuck me as implying the image had possibly been influenced by the films. As the image predates the films this is impossible. If the comment is instead somehow suggesting the 'slasher' was influenced by this image, then it is out of place in this article.

It is just an oberservation. It is suspicious because it may be a coincidence, but who knows.-jun19fan40@aol.com

Suggestions for a more appropriate caption?


 * I was just about to say this. It is more likely that the films were influenced by the picture. The caption is utter rubbish. Even if the photograph is a fake, how could it have been influenced by a series of films which weren't around until several decades later? 82.109.88.66 12:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The "Scream mask" used in the movies was inspired by/based on Edvard Munch's series of paintings depicting a character known colloquially as The Scream, which, having been made in 1893, predates this photograph. I am not altering the caption, but please be aware that although the movie obviously didn't influence this hoax, Munch's painting probably did. Russell 17:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Disputed
What is this crap? "The frequency of 18 hertz is known to cause the human eye to vibrate, which can make pale forms appear in the peripheral vision. High concentrations of electromagnetic fields, be it natural or man-made have also an affect on the human brain and perception, causing them to "see" hallucinations or have a errie feeling about a certain area. When removed from these areas, the presence goes away" Please cite a reference. The only references I found are from paranormal "researchers" that cite a NASA study (19770013810)

o http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/08/1062901994082.html?oneclick=true Says that ultrasound could provoke it but they doesn't name out a specific frequency

o http://ntrs.nasa.gov/ doesn't turn any document on that number o http://www.the-bureau.org/Conclusions.htm  &amp;lt;-- "researchers" that cite a NASA study

This kind of article contribute to wikipedia reputation as a dubious source... The only article that turns up is this: (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=search&amp;amp;limit=25&amp;amp;offset=0&amp;amp;mode=simple&amp;amp;order=DESC&amp;amp;keywords=infrasound+human%0D%0A)

1. Infrasound Pierce, F. G. NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) NASA, Washington Proc. of the Ann. Conf. of NASA Clinic Directors, Environ. Health Offic. and Med. Program Advisors date], p 100-107, 19710101; JAN 1, 1971 Infrasound, sound frequencies from 2 to 20 cpc, is defined and its effects on the human body are analyzed. Subjective symptoms of infrasound include fatigue, irritability, insomnia, headache, lack of ability to concentrate, and loss of equilibrium. No conclusive results were reported. Accession ID: 73N17085 Document ID: 19730008358

-- If you're gonna dispute an article at least have the balls to sign your disertation, so we know who the hell to argue with! 80.177.152.156

It does sound dubious. Poorly cited source...however, there may be a connection with binaural beats. -- 69.18.22.215 02:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks like this section's been removed anyways, so I went ahead and removed the dispute tag. If anyone still contests this go ahead and say so. byped 18:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral?
Isn't this article a bit one-sided? It explains superstitious belief in ghosts, then an analysis of skepticism towards ghosts, along with scientific evidence to disprove ghosts' existance. This is fine with me, but shouldn't there be some information about scientific research in favor of ghosts' existence. I've been doing a bit of reading here and there, and the evidence does exist. I don't have enough resources or information to write it myself, however I'd appreciate it if someone could look into it.


 * I believe there's a good enough degree of evidence for their existence as well, and after reviewing this article, it totally misses the in-between view that ghosts exist (with verified sightings) but there are those interested in the real science behind their existence. For example, ghosts of not only live beings have been seen, but also inanimate objects, which calls into question whether they are "spirits."  Secondly, ghosts always seem to have something to do with a presence of a peculiar magnetic field.  I theorize that ghosts are naturally "recorded" events that play back under certain circumstannces.  All the real ghosts I've heard about act like recordings--i.e., they don't interact.  They just play back the same every time, not unlike a broken record. &amp;amp;mdash; &amp;lt;span style="color:green"&amp;gt;Stevie is the man!&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Talk | Work&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 03:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * The article needs improvement, that's for sure. The first two sentences in the article are mostly redundant. The ghost monk picture is a highly controversial one, no source information or it's story at all in the article, and it's probably one of the most famous pictures ever taken. Other pictures should be added that aren't as controversial. But my main beef with the article, is that it's written under a visual-centric tone. I wasn't sure if I was reading the apparition article, or the ghost article..."Sometimes they do not manifest themselves." Sometimes? heh, so wrong. Visual manifestations are not the only way of experiencing ghosts, and probably not even the most common way, and a human-like figure is not always the case if and when they do manifest. Ghost experiences can be associated with the other senses, such as smell, sound, being touched, sensing their emotions, sensing their thoughts, or even just being aware of their presence. And Stevie, I doubt inanimate objects have spirits. It is most likely a spirit masquerading as an object, or perhaps people are seeing what some call "thoughtforms," but the latter is beyond the scope of this article. As for what you say about them seeming to be associated with magnetic fields, it's because they are; they're electromagnetic in nature when they manifest onto the physical. And I disagree with your opinion that ghosts are only recordings and don't interact. Yes, their primary behavior seems to be "recording-like", but that doesn't negate that they are Earth-bound spirits, and that they can and do interact. - FistOfFury 10:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed that there should be more evidence of ghosts' existence represented in the article. Will try and add a section on contemporary cases of ghost possession soon. --Knowledge for All 11:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Becket's ghost
Okay, so there's a link from here to there but there's no mention of his ghost on his page &amp;amp; no elucidation of it here. Could someone complete the cross-reference by supplying more detail either here or there? Please? I have no idea about it. --Duemellon 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The photo
OK, so where is the photo from? The image description page claims it's in the public domain and gives a link to a website, but that site either does not exist or was down. Is it supposedly PD from being old? When was it taken? Who took it, etc. etc. etc. DreamGuy 18:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that it should be deleted due to lack of "certification" about its orgin and methodology. Jclerman 18:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Welll... if it can;t be certified as to it's public domain status, yes... but somebody here must know where it came from... I suppose I can ask the uploader at some point. Somebody else might know too. DreamGuy 23:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The caption "reputed" reads better than the earlier one, but I still think that one has to know as much detail of the origin of the image as possible. Good luck in your search! Jclerman 23:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Becket's Ghost
I have come across a very old postcard with an image of a "ghost" on a pillar labeled "Beckets Ghost 156." Just wondering if this is what you are talking about as I have no history to this particular postcard adn am very interested in finding out more about it. If you know anything please post here 28 November 2005 Beth

Pseudoscience category removal
I think this tag should be removed. Ghosts is not a science, and has never been portrayed as a science, so the tag in inappropriate. Individuals may have claimed the existance of ghosts through unscientific and fraudulent means, but the at does not make "ghosts" a science or pseudoscience, only the person.

The only possible application of the tag is to smear people who believe in ghosts.

I do not "believe" in ghosts myself, so have no agenda here. --Iantresman 16:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "Ghosts is not a science, and has never been portrayed as a science" This is false. Ghost studies have been poprtrayed as scientific endeavors by any number of people. Spiritualist mediums, ectoplasm, etc. DreamGuy 19:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So 'Ghost studies' are not ghosts. And 'any number of people' are people, not ghosts. --Iantresman 10:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh? You aren't making sense. "Ghost studies" are not ghosts, but they study ghosts... I mean, come on, duh. People try to study ghosts, have theories about ghosts, chase after ghosts with scientific equipment... Give me a break. So if I had an article about, say, reading palms, it shouldn't be put in the pseudoscience category because it's an article about reading palms and not about studying the reading of palms?  DreamGuy 15:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Ghost studies" and "Palm reading" may well attract a pseudoscience tag. But "Ghosts" and "Palms" can not. Likewise, UFOlogy might attract a pseudoscience tags, but UFOs also can not. To overgeneralise that everything to do with ghosts and UFOs is pseudoscience is quite unscientific. --Iantresman 16:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the Pseudoscience tag again on the grounds of: --Iantresman 18:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No reply to my previous comment
 * Ghosts, per se, are not pseudoscientific in themselves.
 * While the study of ghosts may be pseudoscientific, a study may also be scientific, and depends on a researcher, not on a ghost
 * In general, there are no claims that suggest anything inappropriately scientific about ghosts, beyond a general "belief".


 * I've restored it, because it was already well explained. Ghosts are per se pseudoscientific in themselves, just like UFOs and so forth. Studies of other things can be scientific, but studying ghosts is psuedoscientific. DreamGuy 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC: Request for Comments: Removal of Pseudoscience tag
Wikipedia Request_for_comments page

I propose (user:iantresman) that the article on Ghosts (and UFOs) should not carry the Pseudoscience tag, and am soliciting comments. I should mention that I do not "believe" in ghosts, nor subscribe to the UFOs/little green men camp. However:


 * According to the Pseudoscience article, the definition is "any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific". ie. It does NOT apply to a noun.
 * Consquently, ghosts or UFOs per se, are not pseudoscientific in themselves. They are merely symantic designations which carry no judgement, nor improper claims.
 * If we presume that ghosts and UFOs are intrinsically pseudoscientific, it implies that they can not be genuinely scientitifically studied. That would mean that to even consider their study would make someone a pseudoscientist, and that does not make sense.
 * I accept that some people do study ghosts and UFOs and make unfounded claims; but this would imply that the study may be pseudoscientific, as long as the claim is made according to the original "pseudoscience" definition.
 * I believe that the designation of ghosts and UFOs as pseudoscience comes across as pseudoskepticism, and, that it may appear as a perjorative tag designed merely to rubbish people who "believe" in ghosts and UFOs/little green men. Belief in itself is not grounds for pseudoscience.

Please Support or Oppose, together with a comment, and sign and date by either adding " --~ " (if you have an account), or your name and date if you don't.

Support - For reasons given above, --Iantresman 09:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Support - Ghosts is already tagged with Paranormal phenomena. That's a more specific term than Pseudoscience. By DreamGuy's argument, everything in Paranormal phenomena should also be tagged Pseudoscience. What if we just make Paranormal phenomena a subcategory of Pseudoscience? That should satisfy both parties. GRuban 20:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Category:Paranormal phenomena is a subcat of Category:Parapsychology, which is a subcat of Category:Pseudoscience, so Paranormal phenomena should not be made a subcategory of Pseudoscience. It is already in that chain.--Srleffler 00:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is ludicrous, the [|Koestler Parapsychology Unit] at the University of Edinburgh will be delighted to know that "Paranormal phenomena", and all "Parapsychology" is implicitly labelled Pseudoscience.  Again, that is pseudoskepticism at its worse. --Iantresman 08:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What, a pseudoscientist upset that he's been labeled as performing pseudoscience? Say it isn't so! DreamGuy 22:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Support - for the same reason as GRuban (or rather, for the reason Srleffler gave). Using Category:Pseudoscience for Ghost is like using Category:Animals for Fox (which already is in Category:Foxes, which is in Category:Canines, which is in Category:Carnivores, and so forth until Category:Animals is reached). --Hob Gadling 17:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose removal of pseudoscience tag, as it is being done out of misguided notions of what the words mean as well as clearly hoping to violate the NPOV policy. DreamGuy 22:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you provide more specific details? --Iantresman 22:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Support per taxonomic hierarchy reasons given by Srleffler. Also, while some aspects of ghosts and claims about ghosts touches on pseudoscience, ghosts are really more about superstition, folklore, psychology, and literature. To me, pseudoscience is more about things like bogus claims about science and technology -- perpetual motion, Lysenkoism, Scientology e-meters, stuff like that. Herostratus 07:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Support. It doesn't seem that ghosts area claimed to be science by anyone, so pseudoscience doesn't fit. "Paranormal phenomena" is much more appropriate. --jackohare 00:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

'Support', for taxonomic reasons given above by Srleffler, and because we're dealing with the noun, not the formal study of that noun. - Dharmabum420 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Result
The RfC has been running for nearly two weeks, with no comments for four full days. Bar DreamGuy, the comments are unanimous, and DreamGuy has not responded to the opportunity to detail his criticism, although he has been active on Wikipedia during this time.

Consequently I am removing the Pseudoscience tag for the reasons given. This is endorsed by 6-to-1 in favour, and represents a healthy consensus. --Iantresman 11:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, your reasons for wanting it removed were totally disputed. Further evidence showed that it's already in the category by virtue of being in a subcategory. Thus the consensus disputed your view that it should be removed for your reasons given. I did not feel the need to respond, though now that I see you made a statement at the bottom making deceptive comments about what the results were. Ghost is still listed under Pseudoscience, it just is in a specific subsection instead of being at the top. Thanks for playing though. DreamGuy 06:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I respect your right to disagree. But my reasons were not disputed, an alternative reason was given; they are not mutually exclusive. I also I disagree with the "sub-category" argument. Categories are "sets", and not hierarchical chains (although they can appear that way). By I digress. --Iantresman 10:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Infrasound
It looks like the sentences on infrasound are more defensible than they were before the changes referenced in the "Disputed" section above. Still, I think they could use a reference in the article itself. Anyone have a copy of the NASA article? Anyone know how to reference the National Physical Laboratory experiment that the first link in the "Disputed" section describes? --Allen 01:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ again, the reason I put the disputed tag in june 2005 is because I couldn't find any source for the statement that frequency under 20hz can produce hallucinations of ghosts. As I said back then as well I checked up those terms on google and came up with paranormal websites which were giving this as a reference: NASA study (19770013810).

o So I looked up google to find where they publish their researchs. And I found such site, it was http://ntrs.nasa.gov/. So I searched the number 19770013810 and it didn't return any results. So I decided to search for the keywords "infrasound AND human" and the search returned this: " 1. Infrasound Pierce, F. G. NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) NASA, Washington Proc. of the Ann. Conf. of NASA Clinic Directors, Environ. Health Offic. and Med. Program Advisors date], p 100-107, 19710101; JAN 1, 1971 Infrasound, sound frequencies from 2 to 20 cpc, is defined and its effects on the human body are analyzed. Subjective symptoms of infrasound include fatigue, irritability, insomnia, headache, lack of ability to concentrate, and loss of equilibrium. No conclusive results were reported. Accession ID: 73N17085 Document ID: 19730008358 " If you read the last paragraph it says "no conclusive results were reported". So the statement is still disputed for me. There is a requirement to cite sources on wikipedia, so I did the work... I tried to find sources which said that, and said sources were referencing a NASA study which doesn't exist. So I plan to delete that statement just like I did long ago for lack of sources. Actually if someone could format my paragraphs I would appreciate it, especially the reference part... I don't know how to format... QBorg 19:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain my position a bit better. I personally don't believe in ghosts. But I don't think it's ok to tell peoples who believe in ghost that ghost sightings are caused by some low-frequency sound and cite a vague NASA study to back up that claim. Especially when said NASA study doesn't exist and that one with the same keywords say it didn't find any conclusive results. QBorg 19:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Since we don't know the citation for the study itself by Lord and Wiseman, I'll just cite the Sydney Morning Herald article. --Allen 02:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay I surrender ;) QBorg

Ghosts
All this crap about people trying to escape pergatory or unable to find their way to the afterlife.... etc..... although there is little scientific proof for any of these things i believe that most of these facts are correct. {unsigned, but by User:138.130.157.18)


 * Hi... these talk pages are for discussing how to make the articles better. They aren't just for personal thoughts on the topic. Might I suggest you look for some forum that discusses ghosts, or a blog of your own to post your thoughts on? DreamGuy 03:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Links
There is only one outbound external link to Obiwan's Paranormal Free Ghost Website. Why should his personal site be listed and no other sites with good information? All other external links to resources have been deleted. Some good links to external sources that provide evidence of ghosts should be included, as well as websites that provide evidence against ghosts. Might I suggest the addition of the following links for evidence in support of Ghosts as they provide over 1000 pages of information: Angels & Ghosts (http://www.angelsghosts.com) Int'l Ghost Hunters Society (http://www.ghostweb.com) (unsigned, but by User:LDuplatt)


 * We're looking for encyclopedic sites and ones that are not promotional. Obiwan's at least had a variety of info without being spammy. Frankly, pretty much all the links we've had here were just low quality sites. The two you listed don't seem all that good to me, and have been frequently spammed to this site (under the above name and anon accounts), so I don't think we should reward them for their spamming. DreamGuy 03:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because a link is placed, does not mean it is spammed or "spammy." Angels & Ghosts and International Ghost Hunters Society have some of the largest collections of evidence in the way of ghost pictures, videos, stories, evp, etc on the web. Both provide technical and spiritual insight to the topic, as well. Obiwan's front page is selling a t-shirt for God's sake, and is no better. If you list one, then list others; otherwise you are being biased and one can only assume you have affiliations with Obiwan's personal webpage. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by LDuplatt (talk &bull; contribs).

Do you have reliable sources to back what you said about these two sites, or it is just your opinion?? LDuplatt, please sign your comments with four tildes (~). --Perfecto 01:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * LDuplatt in comments elsewhere said he moved the website in question to a different server, so it's clear that he is putting the link there topromote his own website. Clear spam. DreamGuy 02:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me first address the comment that I moved a website to a different server: you must have mistaken me with someone else, for that claim by DreamGuy is in total error. I do own one of the websites in question, but have never moved it to a different server, nor have I claimed to do so. Perhaps, DreamGuy is thinking of another website...

Angels & Ghosts receives submissions monthly from all over the world of ghost pictures, stories video and evp. The website has well over 700 pages of documented information. While there is advertising, it is to help cover the costs of computers, hosting fees, bandwidth for the pictures, etc. This month alone, over 40 ghost pictures (most with a story behind it and comments from us) were posted; three new ghost stories; two evps, etc. I do not have time to count the sheer amount of evidence provided (and we have to sift through an awful lot each month), but if you have the time -- explore the website and come to your own conclusions. Currently, we receive over 20,000 page views per day.

Dr. Dave Oester's Ghostweb.com is truly scientific (although he too runs ads, sells products, etc.), as Dave is a full-time ghost hunter travelling the U.S. He provides a huge volume of books, pictures, stories, etc  and is considered to be one of the foremost experts on ghosthunting. He is the founder of International Ghost Hunters Society which has a huge membership, and seeks to instruct proper ghost hunting methodology. Simply, visit his site and see for yourself.

My point is that Obiwan's site, Oester's site and A & G all collect evidence of ghosts from viewers and provide their own research/ideas/conclusions for free. A & G is one of the few websites that has coupled biblical passages with ghosts, and therefore is unique in its perspective from a spiritual standpoint. Oester's site has some of the best scientific thought presented. While some websites allow users to view ghost pictures if they pay an annual fee (Ghost Study for example, who claims to have the largest free collection, yet charges a fee to see "more"), all content on Angels & Ghosts is free for all to explore and is ever-growing. If you include Obiwan's, then you should also include Oester's and A & G. LC Duplatt 13:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC) LC

It seems to me the recent additions of links this week are very low quality and rather spammy. One in particular (http://www.paranormalstorm.com/ redirects to http://209.150.104.196/horror/stormy/) 66.36.132.55 21:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

uh
uh what wiki-p-p-p-p-projcet this belongs to? E-Series 19:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

New Organization
Welcome to Paranormal Watchers. This is about Wikipedians who have had paranormal experiences, some who continue to have these experiences, and/or investigate these experiences. This is your invite Wikipedians. Martial Law 09:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC) :)

I removed this paragraph
''A hoax or con might also be getting played on the reporting person themselves. Again, the reasons could be popularity and income; but fear might also factor into the motive. '''For example, the telling of ghost stories might be a way for secluded communities to scare off intruders. It can also discourage new tenants from living in an apparently abandoned house. A society could have elaborate setups with members of that community playing ghosts.''' ''

Unless someone can give me an example of an *actual* society using elaborate "setups" with members of the community "playing ghosts" to scare off intruders/foreigners, this doesn't belong in the article. It sounds suspiciously like the plot of The Village. Roland Deschain

Ghost stories on television
I had inserted examples of television episodes featuring ghost stories, then another editor removed them as irrelevant. If that were the case, where would an appropriate place to explain this plot device go, other than IMDB? Briguy52748 20:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)]]


 * Maybe you should ask yourself if those examples really are of such importance that they should be included in an encyclopedia? Yes, there are many TV shows and movies with ghost themes. But I don't see a need to include that info here, it's common knowledge. Space is precious (ie articles shouldn't be too long, and should only include the most relevant information), let's not waste it. /Magore 20:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, I realize – just like many others on Wikipedia – that space is valuable and shouldn't be wasted. What I was thinking of was whether there was a space on here for portrayal of ghosts on television, even if it has to do with the paranormal (e.g., The X-Files) and in abbreviated form. I'll admit my recent entry was probably too much for some, but I think something can be done to include TV portrayals, at least in an abbreviated form, even if that means a line like "Many other TV shows have used paranormal/ghost stories themes in stories" (and then not list any examples other than The X-Files or other similarly successful shows with a paranormal core). In any event, the subsection "Other uses of ghosts in fiction" should be reorganized (e.g., a sub-sub section for comics, professional wrestling, TV/movies such as Ghostbusters and X-Files, etc.). Thanks! Briguy52748 20:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)]]

Mogwai
For anyone interested, there is an article on mogwai separated from Mogwai (band). Currently the article is focussed on the Western concept of the mogwai (ie. from the Gremlins movies), but I think the existence of the article would be better secured if it was also about the Chinese concept- mogwai, as I understand, is Chinese for ghost. The article can therefore go into depth on the Chinese conception of ghosts. I don't know if mogwai is their word for all ghosts or only a specific kind of ghost, so I won't copy and paste from what's here, but if anyone is interested it would be great to see that article expanded. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Gwai is ghost, Mo Gwai is devil. Gwai can be innocent and benign.  The Mo part makes it evil.  Kowloonese 21:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Magore's Revert
Hi, I changed the article to say this...

"While some accept ghosts as a reality, many others are skeptical of the existence of ghosts. For example, the vast majority of the scientific community would not support the claim that ghosts, as well as other supernatural and paranormal entities, exist without sufficient proof (how much proof is "sufficient" depends on the scientist)."

Under the skepticism section to better reflect a scientific view, however it was reverted back to the text which would be more fitting to another. I'm not sure whether it was because I wasn't logged in at the time and so my change might have been seen as vandalism. Please reply here before you do so if you feel like changing it again so we can work this out.

Thank you --RadioElectric 12:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Magore has now repeatedly declined my request to discuss the issue here, despite my reverting the article twice with a message for him to come and talk about the issue on this page.--RadioElectric 14:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (how strange, I gave MYSELF an edit conflict.)


 * Actually, it's not that much to discuss - What you have done is basicly to change the previous wording of the paragraph in question into one that consists of a few weasel words and a more outspoken POV (I don't claim that to be intentional on your part, or that you're even aware of it), but without actually adding more information. It also gives this paragraph a more ambigious meaning, since it implies that the existence of ghosts are a matter of opinion, which it can't be, either they exist or they don't, there is no middle way. Therefore I reverted back to the previous wording of this paragraph. /Magore 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To deal with the opinion issue, where "sufficient evidence" lies will always be a matter of opinion amongst scientists, indeed in many cases it is the main cause of disagreement. At the most basic level "significance levels" when testing a hypothesis can not be deduced but are instead selected by the scientist. In response to the rest of the comment, I only changed the paragraph to fit with a scientific view of the situation, in fact, if there is one thing that I will admit to being wrong with what I added it is that the text is too general so as to not be controversial in any way! It would be fair to say that it shows how the scientific community feels about all issues, whether that's gravity (yup, sufficient proof for them there) or ghosts (probably not). The original reason that I made the change was that I saw a reference to the scientific community "believing" something, which is of course, grossly inaccurate. Thank you, and I look forward to your reply. --RadioElectric 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is NOT the place to express personal opinions or information presented from a certain point of view, nor is it a website where people are allowed to do or present results from original research. These are policies and guidelines, and not open for discussion on this page. When editing, we have a choice. We either edit the articles in a way that are in line with the policies and guidelines, or we don't edit. What you wrote (how much proof is "sufficient" depends on the scientist) was worded in a way that violated the NPOV guidelines, which is one of the reasons that I removed it. It was also put in a vague and ambigious way, more or less asking the reader to do his own interpretation of the meaning. All this without actually adding anything to what was already written. And since the previous wording had the same meaning, but was less ambigious or POVed, I changed back to it. /Magore 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As is typical in such disputes, I believe that my edit brought it closer to NPV, also, you ignored the other points of inadequacy that I pointed out with the previous text. However to avoid a pointless back-and-forth, as you are clearly not willing to discuss this and are instead throwing in links to irrelevant rules, I shall leave it as-is for now until other wikipedians have expressed their opinion on the situation. I will however add that there was one glaring error in the original text that I hadn't noticed until you brought the "no original research" rule to the front of my mind; it contained a strong factual statement without a reference.--RadioElectric 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Added a bias tag until this can be further resolved. I will make some attempts to correct the statements to a more NPOV. Seicer 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't true that RadioElectric's edit adds nothing to the meaning - actually it changes it completely. The original sentence says that modern science mostly denies the existence of ghosts - which is true, AFAIK. RadioElectric's edit basically kills that statement and says instead that "scientists may believe or not believe in ghosts, but they usually want to have some proof before believing in ghosts" (as if non-scientists were inclined to believe in ghosts without having something they regard as "a proof"). Of course, while the original statement sounds very likely, I suppose that a request for sources is legitimate. --194.145.161.227 20:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I disagree as well. I originally reverted the edits made by RadioElectric for reasons that you list here. I considered them an to be an attempt to use weasel words to change the meaning into a more POVed one, although it would technically still look as if the meaning was the same, only rephrased a bit. It also made that particular sentence a bit more ambigious, opening up for personal interpretations and conclusions of its exact meaning. And that will simply not do in an encyclopedia, so I reverted back to the previous version, and the more matter-of-fact statement: For example, the vast majority of the scientific community believes that ghosts, as well as other supernatural and paranormal entities, do not exist. In my opinion, it couldn't be more clear than that, so why change it? /Magore 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure it's clear; the problem is that people might be right to request a source for that. Looking at data here shows that 60% of scientists (and 90% of leading scientists) don't believe in deities; however, that isn't the same as denying ghosts, let alone all forms of the paranormal. How likely is one to believe in ghosts, if one doesn't believe in deities? Not very likely, I'd guess, but I doubt that we are entitled to make such conclusions. Maybe it would be safe to say that the existence of ghosts is (by definition) neither proved nor explicable from the point of view of modern science? --194.145.161.227 21:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I still maintain that the scientific community can not "believe" anything.--86.20.223.168 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it can. Beliefs are common, and also known as theories. /Magore 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of [members] of the scientific community as individuals can believe something. One can also say that this or that view is the prevalent view within the scientific community. --194.145.161.227 21:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the beliefs of members of the scientific community are those they hold as people, not as scientists. If you must refer to the scientific community then the only valid way to do so would be to refer to where a large number of scientists have made a decision and voiced an opinion as a group, and then you still have the problem that the words "scientific community" are weasel words themselves.  When you refer to the "scientific community" do you refer to ALL people working in ALL fields classified as "science"; just the people working in areas where they would have a greater understanding than a non-scientist about the possibility of the existence of ghosts?  Which areas are these?  What significance does a consensus, if one even exists on this topic which I find unlikely, have?  Science isn't a democracy, the world doesn't change to match the views of "most scientists".  Groundbreaking new information about the world around us is ALWAYS initially known to the few scientists that discover it and is then slowly accepted by the rest of them. RadioElectric 13:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are making some valid points. But I still think that it is beyond question that the existence of ghosts has not been acknowledged as proven within mainstream science. Science does have some common mechanisms of establishing things as facts, and in no area of science does the majority consider reports of ghosts to have met the scientific criteria. Now, I disagree with your belief that majorities don't matter in science: while it is possible that the majority of experts are wrong, the fact that it is a majority does have some significance for any rational observer, and for Wikipedia. --194.145.161.227 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Template POV-check
Seicer, when you add the POV-check template, you should state what you consider to be biased on the talk page of the article in question, and also put a reference to that paragraph in the template tag. In this case there are two editors who don't agree on how a certain sentence should be phrased, and POV-check should not be used, it is not intended for disputes. Use templates POV or Disputed instead, if you see a reason for it. /Magore 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Thanks for the feedback on that. Seicer 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And also explain you reasons here on the talk page, don't forget that. Ie point out what you have found that you consider POV, and where in the article others can find it. Otherwise the POV template will get removed. /Magore 11:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on the discussion that was generated above, and the continual dispute over certain aspects of this article (as with similar articles), it should require it until all disputes and all corrections are remedied. Just by browsing the article casually, one can find several instances where the point-of-view is disputed... Seicer 14:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the POV-tag has been in place for more than ten days, and no specific info have been added during that time, I'm removing the tag from the article page. "Several instances" is too vague to be considered helpful. /M.O (u) (t) 16:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)