Talk:Poltergeist/Archive 2

Article flagged for neutrality
There are several instances in this article which are written with the implicit assumption that poltergeists exist. For example "some poltergeists have had the ability to articulate themselves and to have distinct personalities". This is a statement of fact, and given that there is little tangeable evidence to support this assumption and the fact it runs contrary to the consensus of hundreds of years of scientific endeavor, I have flagged the article for neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.247.11 (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but all of those sections are under the heading of hypotheses. There are also hypotheses explaining the so-called phenomena as fraud. Thus, it only makes sense that in the hypotheses in which it's implicit that poltergeists are genuine that the language would reflect this. I don't believe there's an issue here. Dhov (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there is an issue there, though I think that specific instance can easily be fixed by rewording the sentence to say "Some reports have had poltergeists manifest the ability to speak and exhibit apparently distinct personalities." The issue I see is that no clear definition is given as to what a poltergeist actually is. The article goes straight from word origin in the German to hypothesis section. I linked here from "Gef the Talking Mongoose," and if I didn't already know about poltergeists I would have no idea what you people are talking about. Yes, I am aware that we don't actually know what a poltergeist is, or whether they even exist, but that doesn't mean you can't explain what you mean when you say the word. It'd be a good start to describe what a poltergeist is according to myth or folklore. For instance, according to the legendary definition, are they always distinct supernatural beings unto themselves, or can they be manifestations of something else? Is any ghost, spirit or demonic being that throws things a poltergeist? Does "poltergeist" refer to the entire entity doing the throwing or specifically and only to the act of throwing itself, as seems to be the case in modern usage? Are there other criteria that would qualify or disqualify a given entity or phenomena as a poltergeist?


 * Gef's entry seemed to claim this was the case- it said he was unlike a poltergeist in that he apparently ate, eliminated, and left footprints- thus implying that he did in fact have feet, which a poltergeist apparently does not. Is this always the case? Why? Gef did occasionally claim to be a demonic being or a ghost, and he most certainly did throw things. If he was, say, a demonic being which had manifested a physical body out of thin air, is he a poltergeist? What if he was a demonic being who possessed a normal mongoose, the paws of which he then used to pick up and throw things? If he was a purely non-physical being who used supernatural abilities to create the illusion of having a physical body, among these being the ability to throw things, is he a poltergeist yet? What if he was a hyper-intelligent mongoose with psychokinetic powers? Is he still a poltergeist? What if he was just a hyper-intelligent talking mongoose who threw things? Can we agree that in this case, he was in fact not a poltergeist? What if he was not an entity in and of himself, but a manifestation of uncontrollable psychic abilities in the girl Voirrey or possibly her father, given apparent sentience by that person's sublimated desires? I've heard such a thing described as still being a poltergeist. Is it, according to the legendary definition? What about according to modern usage? What if Gef was actually a trick of ventriloquism & sleight-of-hand, a playful and entertaining outlet for creative energy and intelligence in a family all too affected by the hardships of poverty & the closed-minded, anti-creative attitudes of neighboring families? What if he was created by those non-supernatural means, but was not in fact a conscious prank on anyone's part- given power by the unconscious mind & thwarted creative energy of the focus individual, but not through paranormal means? What about in a world where we suddenly, magically- POOF!- knew for a fact that there is no such thing as a supernaturally-derived poltergeist? Could the lonely girl throwing dishes when her parents aren't looking be considered a poltergeist? Or possibly only the specific act of the dish flying through the air and shattering against the wall? The girl could certainly be said to have a "throwing spirit" in her. As could Gef the hyperintelligent-but-entirely-non-supernatural talking mongoose.


 * I know I've been harping on about Gef, but I'm not suggesting that we change the article to something like "What Was Gef the Mongoose?" I'm using him as an example of an unverified phenomenon, as well as an example of an article with a link someone might follow if they wanted to know what a poltergeist is. Having linked here from Gef and reading this article, a previously ignorant person should be able to ascertain how and why Gef is or is not similar to a poltergeist, and I don't think that this article makes that clear. The existence or non-existence of Gef is irrelevant to the definition of a poltergeist- as in fact is the existence or non-existence of poltergeists. If we were writing an article about Pegasus, a being I think most of us would agree is imaginary, we don't rush to clarify that there's no actual evidence that Pegasus ever existed and even if he did, a horse with wings as described would never get off the ground. Or do we? Hold on... ok, looks like no. Link to the article about Pegasus if you're interested. In any case, I argue that even the staunchest of skeptics should agree that we owe poltergeists at least as much respect as we owe Pegasus- in that they exist as legendary beings, which they do regardless of their literal existence or lack thereof.


 * Something I saw in the Pegasus article that I'd like to see in the Poltergeist article- a discussion of the etymology and evolving usage of the term being discussed (mentioning the generalization of "pegasus" to mean any winged horse.) The origin of "poltergeist" seems to refer mostly to the noisiness of the ghost, but the definition is generalized to include any "demonic spirit or ghost" which affects physical objects. Moving even further from that- and I know this is anecdotal, but I think it's worth mentioning- from what I've read and seen of modern parapsychology, "poltergeist activity" seems to refer mostly to the actual moving and throwing of objects rather than to strictly auditory phenomena, and further, the term doesn't always imply or necessitate the existence of a conscious entity, spirit (demonic or otherwise) or ghost doing the throwing, moving, or noisemaking. Hm... I should go hunt some references for that. What would be considered a credible source for word definitions in present-day parapsychological vernacular? Anyone with a background in the linguistics of parapsychologists wanna step up?


 * Heh. I don't know whether to expect an answer there. In any case, to conclude: You can argue all you want, but until you define your terms, you're not getting anything done except making noise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.221.40 (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't be neutral while giving the definition and/or describing an entity (even one whose existence is not proven yet.
 * Oh, sure you can. There is no end to the number of things you can refrain from giving an actual opinion on with sufficient application of the passive voice. Replace words like "is" and "are" with "has been reported/described as," (ideally giving reference as to where and by whom it was reported and/or described) and poof! Instant accountability shift. You didn't say it, you're just reporting what someone else said. Fun trick for parties, amaze your friends, frighten your enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.75.226 (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why someone would be willing to spend the time.. and even research info.. to provide a lengthy dissertation on why or why not this falls within the vauge boundaries of what is neutrally written vs what is not... even go so far as to give an example of what would be acceptable, and could have in a fraction of that time actually edited the article.. since this is "Wikipedia.. the online ecyclopedia that anyone can edit" 205.172.172.132 (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

YouTube
There are filmed poltergeist attacks on YouTube if you want to check it out.
 * I don't think that counts as evidence. 201.235.51.21 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Why will you not count video evidence as Evidence? First the skeptics say put it on film. So those who believe in this sort of thing did. Then The Skeptics moved the goal post and said only a qualified Film maker could submit the evidence. So those who believe in this thing did. Then the Skeptics moved the goal post again and said there is no way to determine if a thing on film is a thing. 22:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC) This post posted by Magnum Serpentine (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that there is no known distinct entity called The Skeptics. There are well-documented cases of known skeptical individuals, but no good evidence that these individuals are capable of forming a single mass consciousness and engaging in an argument as a single coherent being with a single, unchanging opinion. The existence of individuals who persistently maintain that it's pretty damn easy for an anonymous contributer with a low-rez digital camera to put up a fake poltergeist attack on You-Tube is more likely indicative the diversity of opinions found among human beings.

There are also "filmed attacks" by werewolves and vampires on youtube...I guess that proves the existence of those too, huh? Maybe we should apply some scientific logic to this poltergeist concept of ghosts and spooks. Intranetusa (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fraud statement
Changed statement that claimed that all poltergeist outbreaks are suspect of fraud when there are some that are not. The rosenheim case, even if one aspect was faked [which was never proved and the supposed police officer has never come forward and the police force signed an affi-deffice to the fact that some of the phenoemena happened in front of them.] there were too many reports filmed and happening in front of police, sceintists and workers for the whole outbreak to be suspect. robin Let's face it these narrow minded fools won't believe no matter how strong is the evidence they face.They'll always find something to say about these videos! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkgenesis (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC) Why science always comes in conflict with those issues? Why can't it just accept that there are stuff that it will be able to explain but only if those fools the skeptics accept there existence and research them!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkgenesis (talk • contribs) 16:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Entity Case - Sequel
I have just changed the description of the "Entity" case, removing the unwarranted claim that it was one of the best-documented poltergeist phenomena, and pointing out instead that it has only been dealt with by the sensationalist media; two parapsychologists have reportedly investigated the case, yet they have never, to my knowledge, published their findings in any serious journal of parapsychology. Instead, they have talked to magazines such as "Omni" mag and have even served as advisers for the movie inspired by the case. In other words, their concern for objectivity in that case is rather questionable (though their financial interest may not be), and I thought this deserved to be mentioned.

Aleksandros

I don't know what you consider "sensationalist media." But it is a fact that this case is all over the internet, inspired a novel and was made into a movie. To me, this is a welld-documented case with a lengthy report from Dr. Barry Taff and other scientists. But the mainstream scientists are never gonna accept any kind of evidence whatsoever. Some info on Dr. Taff: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guests/933.html

To me, his competence is unquestionable. But since I do understand your misgivings, I think it is fair to leave the introductory paragraph pointing out the inconsistencies and possible fraud in all these cases. Thus, it is kind of redundant to repeat that this case remains moot and could be a hoaxd. I removed the part where you pointed out "financial gain" because this is an argument that could apply to all scientists and their findings. Thus, it's not a fair criticism and cannot be proven either in this case. Tas

xxxx

The “sensationalist media” are magazines like Omni Mag (at least at the time when they published Gaynor’s interview) and all the websites you are mentioning yourself as bearing testimony to the soundness of the case. The fact that they are so numerous merely shows how easily doubtful information can spread with the help of the internet.

The website for which you provide a link doesn’t tell us anything about where Dr. Taff is working now (he’s NOT at UCLA nor any other university anymore, as far as I know), nor does it give any details about his publications on the subject; it merely says that there are lots of such publications, without any further indication. It also reveals that Dr. Taff regularly shows up at sensationalist shows, in which he uses his academic prestige in order to help persuade people that there are atrocious paranormal events going on in this world.

I've just changed my mind on two points since my initial post: first, the "Entity" case is so clearly doubtful that it doesn't deserve any comment beyond merely registering its doubtful status; and secondly, I'm not sure anymore whether the phrase "serious journal of parapsychology" is not actually an oxymoron.

Aleksandros (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Detective
I removed this sentence:


 * "Though this detective has never been named and did not object to the signed statement by many police offers that claimed they witnessed some of the phenomena."

If he has not been named, it can hardly be known whether he objected to the statement. Also, that is no complete sentence. I moved the "unnamed" part to the previous sentence. --Hob Gadling 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro
Just changed the intro to the poltergeist theories section as the sentence with "disregarding the obviousness of fraud and delusion " is a bit of a leading statement and has no backup that this is the leading concesus on the subject, so have changed to an intro that states that non of the theories are generally accepted. also re added fact that police officers signed statements of witnessing the phenoema at roseheim robin
 * OK. But please don't just put your text at the top of this discussion page. Put it where it belongs. --Hob Gadling 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Quicksilver?
I've heard of a type of poltergeist called "Quicksilver", that, from what I've heard, writes the letter "Q". Does anyone have an information on this? I can't seem to really find anything of worth through Google, so I don't know if this is just some obscure myth, or something that was "made up" recently (20 or so years). Apologies if this kind of thing isn't welcome here. --Feidian 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro
I removed this:


 * These are the major theories for poltergeist phenomena, however one should note that non of these theories is conclusive, parapsychologists claim that the phenomena is too wide spread through out history and cultures and countries to be a hoax, yet there is evidence of hoaxing in some poltergeist cases. Skeptics claim that they are just hoaxes and frauds however when the evidence is reviewed poltergeists are recorded to have benn witnessed by skeptics with no explanation and by people such as police officers, reporters, scientists and bystanders so this causes doubt in the fraud hypothesis. The poltergeist so far remains a mystery.

That's an editorial - it gives the writer's own opinion. To me, it's not a mystery. That's because I see that this writer's reasoning is faulty. Not having an explanation does not mean there is no fraud. Fraudsters can be smarter than scientist. Only a fool would conclude a phenomenon as real just because he does not have an explanation.

So, please keep your opinion piece out of WP. --Hob Gadling 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ghosts and hauntings remain beliefs, not facts. Editors should keep this in mind when adding or revising content. LuckyLouie 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to come down on the side of the poltergeist believers, but you are aware of the problem of induction are you not? For some reason I think of this while reading your comments. First of all, if phenomena is observed, it must, in fact exist. For instance, if I see David Blane levitate, the phenomena of him levitating exists. What is at issue is not its existence, but rather causality. What caused the poltergeist phenomena (or in my example David Blane levitating) is really at issue--that and you are asking a question about somethings metaphysical status.

That and the problem of induction invalidates any attempt at coming to conclusions about causality. So in many respects you have the same logic problem establishing gravity as you do establishing poltergeist phenomena. Indeed, logically both are impossible. I just wanted to throw all that out there since we're now in the business of calling people fools. I will forward you to this excellent wikipage for a more detail explanation of my problem, 169.234.119.12 (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR
This entry seriously needs to look at getting citations for some of its claims, else it leaves itself open to claims of WP:OR, and deletion.

perfectblue 19:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there actually anything paranormal about the accompanying photo?
I fail to see how a photo that doesn't purport to show any thing paranormal, let alone poltergeist-related is relevant to the page. As far as i understand, it's just out of focus rain drops. Ignoring the bland subject matter, it's not even that good a photograph. Isn't no photo better than a misleading photo depicting someone's backyard?


 * I agree with you. It's a picture of false orbs which should be on the orb page.  I understand that the subject of poltergeists is a contreversial one, but putting a picture of what some may claim to be paranormal but in reality is not takes away from the nutreality of this article.  Can someone please delete

This is the standard photograph on a couple of ghost related pages.

perfectblue 09:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That photo looks so fake, there wouldn't be that many ghosts there in one place. It looks more like snow or something to me.

==I'm glad someone removed that photo, it was nothing more then a few rain orbs. The fact that it was a "standard" photograph didn't help matters much either. Stormwysper 11:29 pm, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation
As a German Native speaker who spent most of his youth (including all secondary school education)in the United Kingdom, I would translate the word "Poltergeist" not with "noisy ghost". The "Polter" part of the word does not mean noisy in the strictest sense. Roughly translated it means "bumpy noise" and is usually attributed to for instance a drunk banging his body on the wall for lack of the ability to walk straight. I understand that some translations are set by experts and I have not done any research into this. However I do think that more thought should go into this. I see very often that translations are incorrect by small details which could in essence vary the meaning of the word. Arguably this isn't the case, as "noisy" and "bumpy noise" like the dull thud against a wall are similar, but still consider it an important part of philologic etymology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Becker.Julian (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm not 100% certain what a "bumpy noise" is, although the illustration given does make me think of words like "thud" and "thunk", maybe even "clunk and "clomp". In any event, I agree that such sounds, while indeed "noises", aren't necessarily even "noisy".  So, perhaps a native German speaker could suggest a new translation.  I'm not suggesting "thud ghost" on the basis of this analysis.

POV tag
I marked the article with the POV-check tag. I think the article is clearly biased in favor of paranormal ideas. Yes, it does make sense to talk about poltergeists in the context of parapsychology and state its views about it. But:
 * It should be made explicit, right from the introduction, that the phenomenon itself, as well as parapsychological theories and techniques used to explain it, are not recognized by the majority of the scientific community (or of mainstream scientists, if you will);
 * When discussing the views of parapsychology, it has to be perfectly clear that those are the views of parapsychology, not Wikipedia's. The main article "voice" should be neutral.
 * As it is, contrary ideas are given a very small space, and are unsourced. It's necessary to give proper space to mainstream scientists' overall opinion on the existence and nature of the phenomenon, as well on the validity of the research methods used by proponents, with appropriate sources, not to show this opinion as described by those who oppose it. Specific comments about specific cases are also desirable.

I believe these three points are indispensable. AoS1014 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I believe in poltergeists, but this article is awful - one-sided and unreferenced. However I've seen other "paranormal" articles as bad as this, and they've (mostly) slowly improved. This is now on my watchlist, and I have a couple of books on the subject, so expect citations, and hopefully balance. Totnesmartin 14:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Not sure how much this article has changed over two years but it seems to be written entirely from the perspective of those who believe in ghosts.. it even says 'sceptics' almost pejoratively, like a cult lords over the article and banishes non-believers!--Tomsega (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the article is still problematic, I've gone ahead and also added the Weasel-tag to the Hypothesis section. For the contributors that often edit this article, please heck the guidelines on WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV to see why this article, but especially the current Hypothesis section isn't conform Wikipedia standards. Typehigh (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible poltergeist?
I'm not sure if it could be possible or i'm going crazy... Anyways, while i was surfing the internet, i heard some strange incomprehensible voice from a set of speakers! And to be exact, that computer was off. I had to unplug it to make the strange voice go away... Can anyone explain this? Flashn00b 04:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * not here we can't, try a paranormal forum. This page is for dicussing the article, not poltergeists in general. Totnesmartin 09:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have experiences this a few times and it happens because the speaker wires pick up some radio signals. Sometimes it's almost incomprehensible, sometimes it's not. The source can be radio communication from e.g. truck drivers or perhaps just the local radio station. Unplugging the speaker might make it go away because you remove the part of the "antenna" that picked that signal up, or it might not. There's nothing paranormal about this.130.225.0.251 08:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether there is or isn't, this is an encyclopedia, not a webforum. Take it there. Totnesmartin 08:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I have a pic for page?
would that be good for an image for the page?

"infobox" removal
This article, along with one on the Goatman of Maryland, got their "paranormalcreatures" infoboxes zapped today. Although, the discovery of such an infobox definitely gets my creative juices flowing. Please check the uncyclopedia for the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.83.194 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

POV and citations
This article is a mess. It sounds like a paranormal studies reference guide entry. It remains heavily skewed towards a pro-paranormal point of view, with brief and poorly described bits on skepticism. Paranormal events are anything but scientifically verifiable. As such, the topic remains largely one of personal opinion an beliefs, and therefore needs to be written as such. I will see what I can bring to this article to produce a more neutral view that describes historical and contemporary beliefs in poltergeists and any verifiable evidence, if such exists. Claims by individuals do not count, regardless of the integrity of any overseeing paranormal investigators. This falls under the umbrella of pseudoscience. Halogenated (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Separate existences
I'd like to add my personal theory that poltergiests are the result of the pulp discarded to make pulp-free orange juice. My theory is that the life force of the oranges in in the pulp, and concentrates in a free-roaming spectral creature. I'm joking of course, but its just as credible as what's currently in the article. How about a bit more rigorous approach, with some sourcing? Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hypotheses Section
The entire section should be gutted. Pure speculation and uncited original material. Any objections?


 * I don't know who wrote the above question and when, as it is unsigned, but I agree. The whole hypothesis section should be deleted. It is complete speculation, and the text is peppered with POV issues. Typehigh (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the section should not just be deleted. It should be cleaned up and proper references should be added where they are lacking, but there is certainly good and important information in that section (as well as a handful of sourced statements, I might add). So I disagree. --  Transity  ( talk &bull;  contribs ) 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, perhaps deleting it is a bit overdoing it, but it certainly needs to be extensively rewritten, so it doesn't have POV issues. As it stands now, it is just an opinion by the person who wrote it. That absolutely doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia should reflect scientific knowledge, physical evidence and reasoned logic. It says things like 'no evidence of fraud was found', but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Until verifiable and undeniable scientific evidence FOR the existence of ghosts is found, the article should be written from the premise that ghosts do not exist. Any hypothesis should therefore be written from this perspective, not the other way around. Follow the evidence where it leads you, not lead the evidence where you want it to go. Typehigh (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ju-on Curse?
At the end of the section "Self-delusion and hoaxes" is a link to "The Ju-on Curse" This takes you to a link about the production about the Movie "Ju-on" (in america, "The Grudge"). Shouldn't this link be in the popular culture section? The "Ju-On" page is mostly about the production of the movie and not about ghosts in particular.

I'm not at liberty to log in. I'm at work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.232.50 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Poltergeists reported "haunting people" before the Fox sisters?
It seems like a lot of sources that speak of poltergeists as haunting people rather than just places refer back to the case of the Fox sisters, who were instrumental in the foundation of the Spiritualist movement in the 1800s, and who did late in their lives admit to fraud (though later they recanted that admission.) Since they represented such a formative influence on modern thought about the supernatural, I was wondering how much of the definition of poltergeists specifically as beings capable of haunting people, and particularly tending to focus around young adolescents, is based around their story. Were poltergeists commonly referred to as phenomena focused around an individual rather than a place before the Spiritualist movement was in full swing? The phenomenon seems reminiscent of stories of demonic possession- inexplicable events occurring around an individual, often a young adolescent, and (in popular culture at least) often a young girl.

There are a lot of interesting themes that come up around that... societal anxiety surrounding puberty & female sexuality, female power or lack thereof- there's a lot of talk in the old Spiritualist literature about how such "ignorant, uneducated women" wouldn't possibly be able to pull the wool over the eyes of educated men of Science. Even extending into modern popular culture- movies like The Exorcist and Poltergeist both focused on common anxieties about cultural change.

... hmm, there's probably an essay in there, but I'm getting off-topic. Anyway. The Fox sisters. How formative were they in the creation of the modern conception of the poltergeist? Further- and I know some people will object to use of the word "fraud,"- but is there a place in this article for known fraudulent poltergeist cases? I'm not saying the Fox sisters were faking all the time, but I think that credit should be given where credit's due for a well pulled-off ruse. And such cases do contribute to the poltergeist mythos, which I think makes them relevant to the topic.Coyote-Vega (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of part of intro
REVISION: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.253.30 (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Took out the last bit of the introduction because all links were biased (from hardcore skeptical sites) and also calling the psudoscience makes no sense, mythological perhaps, but the theory of thems as supernatural entites has nothing to do with science, pseduo or otherwise. [User:Straksy] (talk) 12:56, 05 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, "hardcore skeptical sites" like the National Science Foundation? Sorry, but that simply isn't true. Re-read the statement, and the check the sources. The NSF clearly places ghosts under the heading of pseudoscience. And frankly, that makes perfect sense. I have reverted your edit. -- Transity  ( talk &bull; contribs ) 13:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Change to intro
Upon removing the statement that poltergeists are generally considered to be pseudoscience, User:Michael Hardy asks:

"It's not pseudoscience unless it claims to be science and is not. Are there any claims to study poltergeists scientifically?"

I believe there are claims to study ghosts scientifically. Parapsychology includes the study of hauntings by ghosts (see Parapsychology), and poltergeists are categorized as ghosts (see Poltergeist). One of the alternate claims for poltergeists is that they aren't ghosts at all, but are rather due to psychic powers (again, see Parapsychology). In this case, parapsychology would still constitute the scientific study of poltergeists. As such, no matter how you view poltergeist claims, parapsychology would seem to include the scientific study of poltergeists. In addition, the NSF source labels ghosts as "pseudoscience." In my opinion, these factors are enough to label poltergeists as pseudoscience in the article. Thanks. --  Transity  ( talk &bull;  contribs ) 16:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)