Talk:Time travel claims and urban legends

'Hypothesis' versus 'claim'
As per the definitions of both words, hypothesis is more accurate. The filmmaker sees what he believes to be an anachronistic item in old footage and draws from that they hypothesis that the user of the device is a time traveler. A person making a claim provides no such substantiating basis for their statements, only the observation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that he had in fact not claimed it was a mobile phone, but that it looked likie it might be. So its not a hypothosis aas he does not claim it as afact but mealry as a possibility.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also seem to recall he never said she was a time traveller, but that it was the only explanation that he could think of. As such it was not a thory but a susgestion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are going to want to view the youtube video again He suggests that it looks like a cell phone, then later submits that she might be a time traveler. Therefore, theory follows his suggestion of evidence. You might want to get some admin input on this, or maybe just an English teacher. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * NPA.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * None made - just an assertion that you might not be as familiar with the usage of grammar, and should get some outside input. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No English teachers on this page. 24.148.68.57 (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think time exist due to mass. Sk11111bh (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Stock-trading time traveler
I think that this section doesn't have enough citation to withstand reference scrutiny. It looks like it was initially reported only in WWN and UD, which don't fill a reasonable editor with confidence as to their reliability. As Snopes has pointed out, it was reported nowhere else. I think we're too far out on a limb mentioning it. That said, I am not keen on removing it until I get some feedback.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just added a new source. Also the matter is in the book that mentioned, thats two sources at least.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are misreading the Snopes article, it was reported elsewhere - however all reports led back to the original weekly world news article - none of them were original investigations into the subject matter (which is a given, since the original story was fictional). As with all Urban legends there is usually some original source that inspires other sources to present it as a fact whether or not it truly is. Google still returns over 25,000 hits discussing whether Andrew Carlssin was real or not; choose any number of citations you want. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuart, the article right now states at the beginning that this is a real person, even though later there is a reference to a fictional account. Per your note on my talk page that this is not a real person, I think we need to rephrase. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One other point: I don't understand why we're using the UFO Digest item. It treats this Carlsson as a real person. Adding a fictional denouement to an already fictional account really adds nothing and is going to be confusing. Believe me, I was confused. Here is the original wording, which I suggest be reinstated:

"Andrew Carlssin was a fictional time traveller who appeared in a 2003 news story on Yahoo!. The article claimed that a man named Andrew Carlssin had been arrested for SEC violations for making 126 high-risk stock trades and being successful on every one. It was said that he started with an initial investment of $800 and made a fortune of over $350,000,000. Apparently, he had claimed to be a time traveler from the year 2256 and upon making bail, he had promptly disappeared. The news article was originally published 25 February 2003 in the Weekly World News, a popular satirical news-paper known for making exaggerated or fabricated claims, and later was reprinted on Yahoo! News's Entertainment and Gossip section."

--ScottyBerg (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Scotty, I think the original wording had some issues as well; mostly it didn't really cover the depth and spread of the legend (which are what made it notable) I've reworded the current version focusing on the fact that it appeared as a news story but not asserting that story to be true. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead section
Recently, I removed the highlighted portion from the lead section:

"Often these have turned out to either be hoaxes or to be based on incorrect assumptions, incomplete information or interpretation of fiction as fact, while others remain mysterious and have yet to be fully explained."

For some reason that I do not understand, my removal was reverted. Since an urban legend is neither "mysterious" nor "unexplained", I would like a good explanation, based on reliable sources, why this was added back into the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked yet to be fully explained meant something completely different from unexplained, the former suggest rightly that we have partial or competing explanations the latter suggests we have no explanations at all. By the same token "mystery" is defined on wiktionary as Someone or thing with an obscure or puzzling nature, so whilst it may be hyperbole it is a valid description of some of these legends.
 * Whilst some legends like the Time Travelling Spammer have a clear explanation and are fully explained and not mysterious, others such as the Charlie Chaplin Time Traveller may be only partially explained and still retain a puzzling nature and the lead should not claim otherwise. This was explained in the Edit Summary of the revert, I'd also like to add that your labelling this content as B.S does not show an intent to assume good faith or show civilty in your action. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Stuart.Jamieson. There appears to be a bit of confusion here, so let me try to clear it up.  First, labeling content as "B.S." and removing it is actually part of what we do here. It's called "good editing".  Please note, when you edit an article on Wikipedia, it says several things on the editing page, most importantly it instructs one to "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view."  Right above it, in a small font, it also says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."  Now, with that said, we do not "assume good faith" about content, only about editors.  In fact, we most certainly do not assume good faith about content, and for encyclopedic purposes, we take a skeptical approach, especially in controversial, fringe topics involving time travel claims.  It is also not related to civility to call an unsourced, questionable claim "B.S."  So, with that cleared up, I'll move on to the next point.  Looking at the page history, you appear to be the editor who added this unsourced original research.  In your reply above, you claim that the Charlie Chaplin Time Traveller video is an example of a mysterious, unexplained phenomenon.  You are certainly welcome to that belief, and I encourage you to maintain it as you like, however you must do this on another website, not on Wikipedia.  I am now removing this material once again.  Do not add it back until you are ready to support it with reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Virditas: firstly read WP:DTR, your continued incivility seems to be a growing issue. You have yet to detail how a story with several possible explanations can be consider fully explained? Since it cannot be; your edit which now claims it is is a breach of both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Again you launch an ad hominem stating my position to be that this is the OR that the case is unexplained - again I reply that my position is the NPOV that the case is not yet fully explained and I place the WP:Burden on you to prove that all the cases are fully explained. 178.97.60.76 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Your link to secure.en seems to have logged me out, needless to say the above comment was mine. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet, a "time traveler" is not one of the "possible explanations". Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The passage highlighted in yellow appears to be synthesis, or perhaps original research. I'd suggest removal. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Scotty: The highlighted text was added in this diff by Jack Sebastian; rewording the original to add in the "mysterious" which I think is hyperbole and should be removed. Did you feel that the lead (worked on by you as well as myself) was a fair summation of the article before Jack's change - especially since Viriditas has warned me for OR for writing a lead in the first place (most of which he's chosen to retain despite the warning).
 * Rather than simply reverting Jack Sebastian's change Viriditas wants to delete the entire end and change the section to All of these reports have turned out to either be hoaxes or to be based on incorrect assumptions, incomplete information or interpretation of fiction as fact. If a report has not yet turned out to be one of those distinct groupings (or possibly fits into two diametrically opposed groupings) then do you consider it is "Fully Explained" or does having the "or not fully explained" clause allow us to maintain a NPOV catching those that are partially or conflictingly explained? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to just remove it entirely, as it's Wikipedia making a statement summing up disparate sources. While it's a reasonable interpretation, it's one I'd rather see made by a source. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When something shows up that can not be explained, it changes our way of thinking until an answer is found. Talking about the Chaplin Video - Later the article was updated with an answer - it doesn't claim the answer it gives is definitive, but it certainly says that some Time Travel Urban Legends are not yet explained. I'm sure there are other quotes in a similar vein. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. The correct link to the ref you offer above is found here.  There isn't anything we can use from it in this encyclopedia, except to show that the YouTube video received attention.  The problem is that you've confused a blog posting on "phonearena.com" with a humorous blurb in the Ledger-Enquirer that the blogger used as a source.  The blogger linked to the newspaper article as a source, but it doesn't include any of the content.  Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry; but I haven't confused anything, so don't tell me that I have - phonearena.com is not a blog; it is a technology news site which is used as a reliable source on around 45 mobile phone related articles on wikipedia. The reporter on this report identifies the Ledger-Enquirer as the source they picked the story up from to but performs a separate analysis of the primary source rather than repeat or paraphrase the Ledger-Enquirer's one. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What reporter and what analysis? This is not a RS for this article nor is there any content which can be used. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is content you have decided you will not use to justify the lede but that's O.K. how about another: Book of Urban Legend By Rodney Dale pg 135 covers Parascience (which Timetravel is part of) and starts "Parascience covers a vast range of unexplained happenings" it goes on "disproving such widely reported phenomenon... ...is difficult. Proving it; if the evidence should become available, would be much easier." it finishes this section with "We can explain ways... ...but this does not prove they were made this way."
 * Wikipedia should not be claiming in the lead of this article that all these cases have been proven or fully explained if the consensus of sources for each case do not support that position; and again I ask you Viriditas to provide evidence that the sources do support that position... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your comment and for doing the research.  We need more editors to do the hard work like you have.  When we use sources on Wikipedia, we use them explicitly, such that there is little to no interpretation on the part of our editors and readers.  Although I do not think the "phonearena.com" source is acceptable for this article, the general statement, "when something shows up that can not be explained, it changes our way of thinking until an answer is found," is all but meaningless for our purposes.  And, the second source you've offered, while interesting, offers another quote that isn't helpful.  We do not want to engage in interpretation of meaning.  We need good sources about urban legends and time travel.  As for the lead,  WP:LEAD stipulates that we should be summarizing the topic.  Since this article is really a glorified list (or category) of time travel-related urban legends, it might help if you review the FA-Class list articles to see how they write lead sections.  I would support your rewrite of the lead if it follows WP:LEAD and summarizes the most important aspects of the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Viriditas thanks for your comments, it's nice that you feel this article has potential to be a FA-Class list article. But I have to warn you that you are being a little premature in this assessment and that your initial aim should be to WP:IAR and generate a stable start class article without worrying too much about the WP:MOS at this stage. I am well aware of the criteria for a good lead, having spent the last few weeks polishing my first ever GA submission on points such as these; however I have the good grace to know the difference between a GA or FA class article and a Stub or Start class article and concentrate on meeting the important requirements of notability and verifiability. If you feel this strongly about improving this article, then you may wish to look at the following related articles Time slip, Unexplained disappearances, Déjà vu, Second sight amongst others and concentrate your efforts on making sure they meet the Policy requirements of WP:N and WP:V rather than overly applying the guidelines of WP:MOS so early in this article's life cycle. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your continuing interest, Stuart. I hope to see you improve this article over the next few days and weeks.  Hopefully, you'll be able to add it to long list of GA trophies demonstrating your good work.  Until that time, however, the lead needs to summarize the article, and it can't be based on statements without good sources.  To correct your understanding of IAR and what it entails, as your understanding of it appears to be at odds with how we use it, IAR is not a a trump card or carte blanche to avoid writing good articles based on good sources or to avoid writing a basic lead section that summarizes the topic.  Feel free to read up on IAR and how it used.  Since you already know the rules, as you admit above, and nothing is stopping you from improving this article, you have no reason to ignore them. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No thank you Viriditas; but WP:Lead is a guideline not a policy and it explicitly says there will be exceptions where it should be ignored - many list style articles do this because the lead explains the inclusion criteria rather a summation of the content of the article - which the lead I wrote does. However the lead as it stands at the moment is less neutral than the one I originally wrote yet you see fit to keep it in that state rather than remove the lead altogether - this worries me because although you are ignoring WP:Lead to keep your position intact (a position which is not borne out by the sources as there are no full explanations or proofs presented by the sources for several of the cases) you are choosing to lecture me on the meaning of WP:Lead rather than either working with me to reword the lead in a neutral manner or removing the lead completely. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your reply, Stuart. I'm afraid we are not communicating so let me be very clear so there isn't any further confusion: arguing over a guideline versus a policy in regards to IAR, all the while ignoring the problem (sources, summary) is what is called wikilawyering.  Please take a moment out of your busy day to read about it.  The problem with the article still remains, and this can very easily be remedied by reviewing how we write lead sections and summarizing the topic.  It is important to stick closely to the sources used and not to extrapolate or interpret.  If this isn't making sense to you let me know, or feel free to ask for help and I will be happy to write the lead for you, however, I have and continue to express concerns with the sourcing being used to justify the existence of this topic.  Hopefully, what I've written makes perfect sense, and if it does not, ask questions and I'll answer them.  Thanks again for your attention to this matter. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your incivility, Viriditas. As it appears you cannot address me (or judging by your past history any editor) without engaging is uncivil behaviour such as insulting my intelligence and my knowledge of policy. I would quote from your account Block Log or mentions of your name at project noticeboards where it is clear that this is a recurrent problem in your interactions with other editors, but since I have no doubt that will have no effect and you will continue to behave in this manner as you always have - I will simply end this discussion here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuart, there is absolutely no "incivility" in my above reply (or in anything I've written above) and if you think there is, I would encourage you to report me in the appropriate place. I should warn you however, that the above discussion documents your repeated accusations against me, which are personal attacks, and repeated assumptions of bad faith.  To repeat what I've said above, I'm ready and willing to work with you on developing the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Intended or not, nearly all of your posts come across as condescending towards me which is not conducive to a civil atmosphere. This was combined with your previous templating of my talk page which is generally considered Patronising and uncivil. These are not personal attacks against you, they are concerns that you are unaware of the way your posts are coming across to me and possibly other editors. That said I do not believe these actions were taken by you in Bad Faith, I believe that you made them in good faith believing that you are improving the article - just as I made the original edit in an effort to improve the article. However I invoked BRD in an effort to discuss and find common ground here, instead you immediately restored your edit which is does not help to find compromise either. NPOV has to include the fact that not all urban legends can be fully explained or proven, your edit has instead changed it to say that all these cases are fully explained and proven which is less borne out than sources than my original edit was so it is less of a summary of the article - I am open to how we word that differently whether it's something along the lines of the Urban Legends encyclopedia saying that "We can explain ways [that some of these legends may have originated] but this does not prove they [originated] this way." or whether it's something completely different. At the moment I'm going to look at writing a sourced overview section covering a history and general analysis from the sources I provided on the AfD and hopefully the lead can take it's basis from a summary of that. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, Stuart, however, looking over this discussion, from start to finish, I must disagree with your assessment. My comment started out with "Recently, I removed the highlighted portion from the lead section...For some reason that I do not understand, my removal was reverted.  Since an urban legend is neither "mysterious" nor "unexplained", I would like a good explanation, based on reliable sources, why this was added back into the lead section."  Instead of an explanation, my simple request was met with attack after attack, evasion after evasion, and more attacks.  For you to then turn around and accuse me of "condescdending" is simply more of the same.  Again, the lead needs to reflect a summary of the topic covered in the article, and it needs to be based on good sources.  I am curious, which sources cover the topic of "time travel urban legends", specifically the ones listed in this article?  I ask, because I have not been able to find any.  Backing up a bit, there still appears to be confusion as to what is occurring in the article and in this discussion.  You write above, "I invoked BRD in an effort to discuss and find common ground here, instead you immediately restored your edit which is does not help to find compromise either."  That is not true, Stuart.  BRD involves making a bold edit, a reversion, and then discussing it.  You are the one who boldly added the content, and I was the one who reverted it.  Instead of discussing it on talk, you tried edit warring your additions back into the article.  If any of this isn't making sense, let me know and I'll explain it another way.  Finally, your assertion that "NPOV has to include the fact that not all urban legends can be fully explained or proven" is demonstrably false.  An urban legend by its very definition is "explained" in some way, and a "time traveler from the future" is not an explanation that Wikipedia is going to entertain as the simplest explanation.  See WP:FRINGE for more information. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry my mistake there, I din't relaise you were "Reverting" my edit when you removed a portion of text that had been substantially rewritten by two other editors (not myself). Of course the fact that this apparent "Reversion" on your behalf completely changes the meaning of the lead makes it's removal a Bold Edit and not simply a reversion of my added content as you are now claiming. I also do not see any examples of myself evading your questions - when asked for a reliable source I provided one which covered all subjects under the larger parascience genre of Urban Legends including time travel at which point you stopped asking for sources and began quoting WP:Lead. I agree with your pointer to WP:FRINGE "time traveller" is not an acceptable explanation but neither is it a full explanation because it relies on a hypothetical Time Machine that cannot be explained, which is why my original edit claimed that in cases where the case has been given no full explanation that we do not claim that it is fully explained. If you feel my questioning of your conduct is a personal attack the feel free to take me to WP:RFC/U and I will quite happily write up the RFC against myself on your behalf. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Stuart. My interest is in improving this article, especially the lead section.  If you wish to "question my conduct", feel free to do it in the appropriate place.  Talk page discussions are for discussing the article, not other contributors or what you think of them.  Currently, the lead section says the following:
 * "Time travel urban legends are accounts of persons who allegedly traveled through time, reported by the press or circulated on the Internet. All of these reports have turned out to either be hoaxes or to be based on incorrect assumptions, incomplete information or interpretation of fiction as fact."
 * I would like to see this replaced not only with a summary of the current subject, but with an assessment from the reliable sources. I am still unable to find good reliable sources that discuss many of the topics.  Although I could list the types of urban legends and generalize the outcome, the presentation of this subject is bordering on original research, as no known reliable source that I am aware of groups them or discusses them as a group like this.  In the AfD, you said you've found a source or two that discuss this subject in an explicit way, without interpretation.  Per WP:V, I hope you will share the name of the source and snippets of the material.  I looked at some of the sources your named in the AfD and could not find anything of use. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify my previous post, I agree with inclusion of the phrase in the lead "All of these reports have turned out to either be hoaxes or to be based on incorrect assumptions, incomplete information or interpretation of fiction as fact." I realized that my last post on this issue was hazy and might easily be misunderstood. See, that sentence gets to the bottom of the problem that I have with this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Acousticon
As a slight aside, when I recently developed an article on Miller Reese Hutchison the inventor of the acousticon hearing aid, I uploaded a picture of it. It struck me that it looked amazingly like an iPod or cell phone. But I knew that saying that would be Original Research of course. Here is a picture from 1906. See the Hutchison article for sources and the story of the device. Not sure if it is worth putting it in the article, however. W Nowicki (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean the picture yes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

John Krasinski?
I motion to remove the portion about John Krasinski and his look alike from the 18th century or whatever. It has been revealed to be a portrait of another documented human being... enough reason right there. If we let this one slide, what's stopping the community from posting other similar stories? I've seen many memes online with this subject matter. Michael Cera, Keanu Reeves... I mean come on. - tbone (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can provide citeable sources then consider generalising it to say that several similar myths of a similar have emerged. It strikes me that the general case may be something that has been the subject of research if you can find some. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The burden is on the editor making the claim, not proving a negative. There are no good, serious sources making the claim that Krasinski is a time traveler. The CBS News source, a gossip column called "Celebrity Circuit", is not written by scientists involved in time travel research.  It is authored by entertainment and gossip columnists who make funny jokes about celebrities.  Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia that discusses serious topics, and this type of coverage, while it is certainly appropriate for an article on John Krasinski, is not appropriate here. Two gossip columnists having a barrel of laughs during a slow news day does not an urban legend make. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Burden would apply if it was unsourced or unreliably sourced - Again your insistence that sources should be catalogued by "scientists involved in time travel research" is a flawed one; the article is about cultural memes, mythologies and legends which involve Time Travel. Experts at collating those include celebrity columnists (where the subject is a celebrity) as well folklorists, paranormal researchers, etc; and sources from them can be taken as reliable about the fact that such a cultural claim has been made - it's rare that many scientists study or record such phenomenon and the few that do are often Psychologists operating out of specialist Parapsychology units at a number of universities. The Washington Post and Daily mail do not make this out as a joke, just reporting of a story as recorded about Krasinski. I do agree that the number of sources specifically for Krasinski is low, which is why I suggest generalising the section so as not to focus entirely on Krasinski and include claims on the likes of Cera, etc;. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The burden applies to every aspect of editing. You are confusing a literal description of its application to V with its use across the board. For example, you have the burden to show that Krasinski is a notable urban legend rather than a one-time event added due to recentism. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So you feel it's OK to take specific Policy terms and use them in any manner you wish and expect everyone to know what you mean? Here you use both Burden and Notability in a manner that differs from the specific way they are used in policy. As it is even if Burden did apply, it would not fall on me as I did not add the material, and am not even defending keeping the material but suggesting that if Tbone feels the myth is more common (and less specific) the we could look at rewriting the material to encompass that. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This kind of thing reminds me of other articles, such as the List of films considered the worst, and List of common misconceptions. A pretty tight sourcing standard has to be applied, or the articles would balloon to book size. First, it's a given that there's no such thing as reverse time travel, so that's not even an issue. The issue is whether a given "alleged" time-traveler is sufficiently notable, as Viriditas said, i.e. whether it has received broad coverage. If not, then it's just a bit of trivia or clutter in the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold on there - it's only a given that there is no such thing as reverse time travel? Isn't it a given that there is no such thing as time travel period? 104.0.216.102 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I would say currently there is no reverse Time travel so it's not yet an issue. Secondly Notability is a requirement of article existence, what we should be considering is whether it is relevant to this article - these types of story appear regularly and whilst Krasinski may be a minor example; someone like Michael Jackson - who has been reported everywhere from Ancient Egypt to the Rumble in the Jungle are far more prominent examples of this type of phenomenon. The stories in general are relevant, but it's probably undue representation to focus on a single case like Krasinki. There has been some research in this direction but most that I've seen start with a comparison against a caricatured drawing of the actual celebrity rather than an image/painting/drawing of another individual who is close enough in appearance that their appearance could be mistaken for the celebrity. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a celebrity mis-identification sectio is better then one on a single celb.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Along with time travel, what else would you say currently does not exist? What meaning is there to things that currently do not exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.0.216.102 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Both these types of memes and the "Chaplin Time Traveller" are closely related both can be filed under the phenomenon of the Anachronistic Pareidolia although a specific meme has been coined in relation to technological devices the "PLUPERFECT PDA"  I can't find one yet for people but very quickly you can find: Particular examples may continue to circulate but there is more coverage of the general meme that some celebrities are capable of timeravel. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Matt Damon & Debra Messing
 * 2) Jacko in Ancient Egypt
 * 3) Jacko at the Rumble in the Jungle
 * 4) Michael Cera in 1935 Nazi Germany
 * 5) Keanu Revees time travels back to 1875
 * And let's not forget the immortal time-traveler Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Chaplin's Time Traveler"
Ther is a sugestion that this name may convey the idea that Chapplin is responsible for the time travel story. I think this may be a justified concearn any susgestions for a rename?Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "1928 cell phone user," which is in keeping with the style of the other sections. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems a better choice.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for some more feedback. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good choice, a lot of sources have similar titles - another common title is "1920's Cell Phone" but the original source clearly identified the person as the subject rather than the anachronistic device. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, just go with the common name. Everyone calls it the "Chaplin Time Traveler" (or some close variation thereof). "1928 cell phone user"?  No one calls it that.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ghits suggest otherwise, variations involving "1928" or "1920's" appear far more common than variations involving "Chaplin". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What are your search terms? The problem with Google search results is that it returns hits from non-reliable sources. When I do a search on 'charlie chaplin Time Traveler 1920 OR 1928' on only reliable sources, these are the first 10 hits:


 * 1) Time Traveler in 1928 Charlie Chaplin Movie Footage? - OK...
 * 2) 'Time Traveler' Spied in 1928 Chaplin Film - FoxNews.com
 * 3) Video: Time traveller spotted in 1928 Charlie Chaplin clip ...
 * 4) Scene from 1928 Charlie Chaplin film sparks theories of a time ...
 * 5) Charlie Chaplin time traveler debunked: It's just a hearing aid ...
 * 6) Is there a time traveler wandering through 'The Circus ...
 * 7) Time traveler caught on film. Hey, why not? - CSMonitor.com
 * 8) Charlie Chaplin Time Traveler? See the Evidence : People.com
 * 9) 'Time traveler' may just be hard of hearing - Technology & science ...
 * 10) The Charlie Chaplin Time Traveler Video Is Freaking Us Out - CNBC

Chaplin is mentioned in 7 out of 10 titles, and the year is mentioned in 4 out of 10 titles. How about a compromise with 1928 Charlie Chaplin Time Traveler? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that option, though it is kinda wordy. I think we have to link it to the source material and mention the Chaplin film connection, or it floats around disembodied like crufty trivia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The search is a little shaped; if I repeat the search with ""Cell Phone" 1928 OR 1920s" Chaplin is mentioned in only 4 titles, the year in 5 and cell phone in 6 and the rest are a mixture. Some of the sources using "Chaplin" read like is claimed above - like it actually occurs in a Chaplin film which it does not.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because you omitted "Charlie Chaplin" from the search. The article text can explain that the footage is from the DVD extras.  You can't include all the relevant info in the section title.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because search engines weigh titles heavily by adding "Charlie Chaplin" to a search the first page will be heavily weighed in favour of articles that use "Charlie Chaplin" in the title. It's why we have to take a broader look at search engine results - both in what reliable sources use and in what usage occurs in general conversation (i.e; forums/blogs) not just look at the first page of a shaped search. On the latter part, we should not use a name that gives a wrong impression if we can avoid it - WP:Commonname requires the name to be precise not just recognizable  and I'm not convinced that chaplin's name is required here to recognize the legend - obstensibly it's about a person in 1928 talking into a cellphone. The connection to Chaplin is window dressing on that story. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I made the year a required field, too, so that should have balanced it out. Even when "Charlie Chaplin" was ommitted and the year required, "Charlie Chaplin" still showed up 4 times.
 * Where does WP:COMMON say titles need to be presise? WP:COMMONNAME seems to be about situations where we would have two things with the same name and need to be differentiated.  I'm not sure how that applies to this situation.
 * As for giving the wrong impression, you can say the same thing about a title with "cell phone" in it, right? :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Search weighting is complicated, but to get an idea look at your search results. The first 4 all rank high because all of the search terms are in the title. The BBC ranks high because it's the BBC (much like wikipedia does in general Google searches).  The remainder rank high because they have some of the terms in the title and all the words appear in close proximity within the article (other than people, within the same paragraph) they are also ranked in closeness to the word order in your search term. Honestly you can't draw a conclusion on common usage by gaguing what hits google returns in the first 10.
 * Precise can also apply with a single name if no common name exists - i.e; make the name as precise as needed. Chaplin is unconnected so it's imprecise to name a section after him. What happened and When it happened make a precise name.
 * I agree but our article is on the myth not the reality. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's nothing I can do about Google's search ranking. :) I choose 10 because it was a fairly reasonable sample size.  Of course, the greater the sample size, the more accurate the results, but also the more time consuming.  What do you think would be a good sample size?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's all about search ranking you can't judge on any sample size outwith the whole pool. Traditionally we compare the unique hit count on an exact phrase search - so for "Chaplin time traveller" on reliable sources that figure is 4 this is the same as "1928 Cell Phone". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, ideally we'd examine every source in existence, but who has the time? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The naem should refelct the story, the story is not about charlie chapplin being a time travelleer, its about a cell phone useer being seen in 1928 (at one of his film premiers). So it shouold be either "ceel phone user in 1928" or "Cell phone use at chapplin premier".Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, it's association with Charlie Chaplan's film is what readers will be more familiar with. In any case, we're spending a lot of time on something rather minor.  I'm removing this article from my watch list and dropping out of the discussion.  You have my 2 cents.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above two suggestions also comply with Naming conventions (events) which requires a What and a Where except where the location is unknown, irrelevant, or the article covers an event that took place in multiple locations. In this case I think the premiere is irrelevant to the actual event.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So what is your sugestion?Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the time-travel story is bogus, "Cell phone use at Chaplin premiere" is really pushing it. If the common internet term is "Chaplin time traveler", then that's what it should be called here - preferably within quotes just like that. If the common term is something else, then that term should be used. If there's no consensus term, then something close to a sentence might be required. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no Common Name, aside from the two (hit counts) I give above (4&4) there's about the same number of hits for "Time Traveler in Chaplin Film" and "Hard of hearing Time Traveler" and their derivatives. I don't like the association with the premiere, as there is no indication she is even attending, she simply walks past the theater in which the premiere will take place whilst a camera is recording the front door. I would accept a title that questions the cell phone assertions "Suspected cell phone found on Chaplin DVD" or "cell phone in 1928 or hearing aid" Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hipster Time traveller story
I agree that can be justified in that the subject was covered in a publication, however it is not acceptable to include the following wording:
 * The article introduced new evidence to support the theory of time travel, and included new research conducted by scientist working on 17-mile-long Large Hadron Collider (LHC) based underground near Geneva.

That is the redflag issue I meant in my edit summary when I removed the text (which has now been restored). To spell it out, there is no connection between the LHC and the possibility that a time traveler appeared in The Circus. Can anyone verify that the "September 2011 issue of Psychic World Newspaper in London" exists and has the specified article? The new text does not seem to add anything to the article—if someone could at least check the publication exists perhaps it might be a second reference, or the dubious text quoted above removed? Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly this is about the Bridge Opening guy, not the Circus - Secondly the claim is not that there is a connection between the BOG and the LHC - but that a scientist working on the LHC has commented on the BOG in the above magazine. It would be helpful if we could verify the source to see who the scientist was but it's not a redflag to vaguely claim that someone commented on a subject in an article on the subject. I have seen Psychic World on the shelves but never picked it up and can't comment on the particular article or even the editorial standards but removing the content on the basis that the magazine isn't an expert in time travel when it may be an expert in what people believe (which is what this whole article is about) seems flawed reasoning - non relevance or spam would be acceptable rationales for removal. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I can barely find any information at all about Psychic World Newspaper. The best I can come up with is their Facebook page. (They have a Wikipedia page, too, but that was recently added to the site by the same editor who added the material above.)
 * There may very well be a September issue that contains such an article, but considering how obscure this publication is, I don't think any claims made in it are notable enough to mention. We're not even approaching Fate Magazine territory here. Zagal e jo^^^ 04:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's even worse than I guessed from my reading of the text added to the article (which I'm glad you have removed). Johnuniq (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Psychic World Monthly Newspaper

http://www.angelfire.com/nj/writeups/psychicworld.html

Psychic World is the independent monthly Spiritualist publication. The first Psychic World was published back in 1946. Founded by Maurice Barbanell, it had a chequered history, finally ceasing publication in 1951. The title was later resurrected in 1993 and published intermittently until September 1994 when the publication was taken over by Ray Taylor former editor of the Two Worlds also Here and There.

Psychic World started republishing with the January issue in 1995 and is now the only independent Spiritualist publication. It has no links to any organisation.

The paper contains a wide variety of topics and writers: Covering news, scientific aspects of Spiritualism, philosophy, views and other subjects. Our writers include editor Ray Taylor BA; Assistant editor Michael Colmer; Book reviews Matthew Hutton; New age Dave Robinson; Also Ray Jones, John Sutton, Billy Roberts, Leslie Price, Stephen O"Brien, Basil Thomas; From the U.S.A. Bob Egby. From Australia there"s Victor Zammit, from New Zealand Ken Pretty plus many more contributors. Not sure if this is the one, and the link is down.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC) http://www.yorkspiritualistcentre.co.uk/books-mags.htmlSlatersteven (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's another sourcing issue. Much of this segment cites "Forgetomori.com," a self-published website. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As with sourcing to Snopes (which is also a SPS) the source is acceptable but should be used in association with the material that Forgetomori references (which in this case is primary sources from the period). I used Forgetomori because it is cited as an expert debunking fringe subjects in many other sources - including a few newspapers such as the Montreal Mirror. It's also heavily cited across the web in debunking this case (3,000 odd hits back to it's article) Since I'm pretty sure he's not a time traveller do you have any more reliable sources to offer showing that this is the case, or would you like us to present a biased argument that he is a time-traveller? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. Do you? The person adding the material has to substantiate it with a WP:V source. If it can't be supported it has to be removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't an issue of verifiability, the claims that Forgetomori makes are verifiable, because they are simple observations of other sources and noting the similarities. Repeating the observation verifies the claim. If he made an analysis based on those sources rather than an observation then and we were using that analysis then there may be grounds for questioning whether or not that analysis was verifiable and had been peer/editor reviewed but it is not the case here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we need to cite the underlying sources, not the website that compiles them, no matter how neutrally. There's a strict rule against self-published sources as you know. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If we use the underlying primary sources in the manner you describe, then we would be committing original research. The rule against self-published sources is only strict when the subject being discussed is a living person, in any other case it's important to consider the source on a case by case basis which is why WP:SPS says "Largely not acceptable" and doesn't say "Never acceptable" and advises that care should be taken when using them. Finally SPS says that a SPS is reliable if it is an expert source - forgetomori is repeatedly cited and published by other sources as an expert in the field of debunking such stories, so if you still feel it shouldn't be used, it would be worth discussing on WP:RS before removing the source from the article - removing it and replacing with templates hasn't improved the article at all. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Again, going back to the original problem, I just don't see how this self-published website is usable as a source. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * RSN seems to best plpace for this. Can we know of some of the sources siting this source?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The most notable source citing forgetomori (that I've found) is Fortean Times, which bases it's coverage of the case on mori's findings. However it is widely cited in both paranormal and skeptic magazines that are less well known. Knowyourmeme states that the forgetomori was an important article both in bringing the legend to a wider audience (such as the specialist press.) But that it also was the first and an important debunking of the legend. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So since no-one seems to want to take this debate to RSN, would we be happy if I reinsert the SPS along with the reference to the Fortean Times article based on it (as a reliable per RSN, but tertiary source)? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold on tiger, I sadi take it to RSN, and no one else has rejected the idea. Go ahead and take it to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, Before you initially replied I asked Scotty to take the source to RSN if he felt it was not reliable (because of its status as an SPS). I have no such doubts and no reason to take the source to RSN so have no need or intention to do so. It is now 3 days since you suggested RSN and 4 days since I mentioned it and no action has been taken, If no-one feels the need to challenge it further than this talk page then I feel I have answered the raised concerns and that source should be reinserted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been off-wiki for a few days. People do that, so it's inadvisable to assume that silent is consent. I think it's fairly obvious that this doesn't fit the parameters of policy, and I'm surprised to see you pressing the issue . Remember that the burden is on you, as the person seeking to use a source, to justify its inclusion. I thought you had understood it wasn't RS, but perhaps I misunderstood. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe me, had I assumed silence was consent I would have gone ahead and reinserted the reference - instead I asked on here whether the silence was to be taken as consent - doing so is the civil thing to do. I think it's fairly obvious that this *does* fit the parameters of policy Fortean Times is generally regarded as an RS, and in issue 263, May 2010 (article: "Future Imperfect") it republishes this source and it's findings. Per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So we have an expert source, who is established based on the numerous links back to it including research papers, journals, magazines, etc and whose work in the field (of rational skeptiscism) has been published in third party reliable sources. What are you still arguing here? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus here, so RSN is the next step, as you wish its inclusion it shuld be you whop should raise it, but if you are (for some reason) unwilling too I will.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no sound policy reason for deletion or consensus for deletion, so it should have been Scotty who took it to RSN but in the interests of resolving this issue I've raised it WP:RSN#Forgetomori.com Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There was, but we may consider applying IAR if there is no other way of replacing that source. So far, not surprisingly, no one has opined on RSN. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

talking or holding
OK what di RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Talking" seems to be the consensus. (This is a reference to recent edits in the "1928 cell phone user section.) ScottyBerg (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed to "apparently talking," to make that passage in conformity with the sources. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't hear her, and her mouth is not clearly visible for more than an instant; to say she is "talking" is completely speculative. Furthermore, it fails NPOV, because the hearing-aid explanation directly disputes that she would be talking. Adding "apparently" isn't as bad, but it's still interpretation, not an objective description of the video. What we objectively see is that she is holding something up to her head and when she pauses briefly she has her mouth open. Maybe she's talking. Or she's old, overweight, and walking with a little difficulty, so she's breathing through her mouth. Many people think it looks like she's talking, and I don't mind if the article says that. But it shouldn't state that as an objective description of the film, because it is just one interpretation of it. Saying that she's holding something up to her head favors neither explanation; what's the problem with that? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and basically agree with you, but I think that we need to go with what the sources say, which was that she was apparently talking into something. Otherwise we'll be interpreting the video, which would appear to be original research. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't attribute the "talking" interpretation to any source; it's stated as a fact... now an apparent fact. Might I suggest instead: "At one point, an old woman is seen walking by.  She is holding a device to the side of her head, and her open mouth is briefly visible. Clarke speculated that she was talking into a cell phone, and that the woman was possibly a time traveler." -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But we'd be interpreting the source, don't you see? I'd much rather we just summarize what the sources say, and all but one have her talking. I don't think it matters as the whole thing is debunked. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my proposed text does not interpret anything. The first two sentences describe the observable and undisputed facts about the original source: the film shows a woman, she's walking, and she's holding something to her head.  It then attributes the speculation that she's talking on a cell phone, to the person who initiated that interpretation.  The current text states as a fact that she appears to be talking, which is (at best) disputed and needs to be attributed to someone. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So should we attribute it to clark, as most of the sources do "Which Greoge Clarke claimed".Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Clarke is the origin of the notion that she's talking on a cell phone. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So perhaps it should be attributed? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bute there's no need to reinvent the wheel - Clarke was already mentioned by full name earlier. As well, I've changed to text to more accurately reflect what Nick Jackson actually said. He says it is the most likely explanation, not that it actually was something. The difference is subtle, but important in order to stay out of the fray. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But the text still implies that everyone agreed she appeared to be talking but the source says "Clarke says in the video" on this matrer and that "Still others have an even simpler explanation: the woman is just talking to herself, as people sometimes do" so indead we shoiuld attribut the claim she is talking to Clarke as he is the only named person who says she appears top be talkiing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's correct. I've brought that sentence into conformity with the source (ABC News website). ScottyBerg (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, has there ever been a picture of the subject in this article? I know it wasn't in the article of its original mention. Might be worth an inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We would need to check the coptright situation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it wouldn't be a consideration, considering that there is no free equivalent, and the image is being specifically and explicitly discussed within the article.
 * I've since uploaded a cropped version of the image which would seem to fulfill the criteria for usage. I tried to add it to the article, but for some reason it won't show up. I don't have time to suss out why; maybe someone else can fix it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Something not being free does not negate copyright laws.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, not what I said. At all. As per WP:FAIRUSE, we could (and should) use the image. What precisely is your problem with the inclusion of the image, apart from the obvious? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the image (jpg omitted). I have doubts about the FUR, however. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in hearing your doubts about the fair use rationale,ScottyBerg - if you think it is inaccurate or ill-constructed, I welcome your input. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, I've taken another look at the FU criteria and I'm now pretty satisfied with it. Also, note Stuart Jamieson's view below. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What is my obvious objections, answer that and you have answerd your own question.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked over the FUR and the rationale appears to be in order - this usage complies with U.S. copyright law. However, I have a strong suspicion that the entire video will have passed into the public domain in 1956 - if that is the case then we could host the entire clip instead of the solitary frame. Confiming that will require hunting down some more information on the clip. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the same, but wouldn't the fact that Chaplin's videos have been continuously released in a variety of formats over the decades would suggest that someone is the copyright holder and that they are likely exercising their rights.
 * As for uploading the clip, that would be pretty interesting - and a lot more encyclopedic, as its the similarity in movement with the person in the clip to a person using a cell phone that makes the whole thing notable in the first place. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's discussing Apples and Oranges - The film "The Circus" had it's copyright renewed in 1956 so was retained in copyright when the law changed in 1978 (making it still in copyright today) in contrast, the footage where this occurs is taken from a newsreel. I can see no renewal for this footage within the 1956 renewal applications, so if it had been shown publicly in 1928 (as a newsreel this is quite likely) it is now in the Public Domain having not been renewed in 1956. The clip on the DVD claims that the footage is being used under a license from the Douris Corporation - but makes no assertion that the Douris corporation owns the copyright; rather this material has been held in Douris' archive to which the DVD creators have been allowed access under license. However I would consider asking for a second opinion at the Reference desk before uploading a copy of it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on this by any means, but doesn't that imply that the Douris Corporation has some rights to the newsreel? I imagine it could be a license to use the physical newsreel but not the copyright to the newsreel. Does that make sense? ScottyBerg (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all, many companies monetise things that are public domain by claiming some non-existent rights see this for instance. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I might have made a little sense. >:[ ScottyBerg (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You do, and in a perfect world and in an ideal world it would be the case; but as our own CC-BY-SA Compliance page shows, there are plenty of organisations willing to represent others work as their own the cynic in me is quite prepared to challenge their claims. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

its leaving out the large hadron collider time traveler
in april of 2010 there was a news story on the internet that a man was arested at the large hadron collider in switzerland and the man was claiming to be a time traveler. im not a beilver of this story but its getting alot of attention even as we get closer to the 2 year aniversary of this alledged time traveler story in april 2012. 69.221.172.106 (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not getting that much attention, I see one recent news blog that mentioned it 3 days ago and even it's page appears to have been deleted since google picked it up. There just isn't that much coverage on it - yes some reliable sources such as the Huffington Post and the BBC News covered it at the time, but all were aware that it was April Fools Day and were repeating a hoax - I don't see any evidence it became accepted as a fact or even possible. There are a few sources such as the Fortean Times one about the hipster time traveller that mention it at the same time and it might warrant a (small) mention in or around there, certainly not a section to itself. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Dienach
Someone please could help me with the article Paul Amadeus Dienach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciao 90 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Time travelling Tweets
Seems that scientists did actually find one example of a possible mention, namely Pope Francis. It appears that it was a blog article speculating the name and was actually correct.

Also relevant: some articles suggest that major events can sometimes lead to subtle changes in the background noise eg certain key words which may be picked up by AI inference techniques. This can be a negative or positive change but consistent with the late Hawkings CPC can only generally be seen after the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.10 (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Woman with "phone"
She might have just been scratching her ear with an object she was carrying when the picture was taken. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Sergei Ponomarenko
This theory of a man time travelling has been debunked 49.207.194.161 (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Carlson was a hacker
Yes it's true 103.199.200.146 (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Mike Marcum death reference
Reference is behind a paywall so I can't check but why is an article from nearly 30 years ago used to say he died in 2023? Did they add an addendum to the old article?--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Amelia-the-comic-geek, that was added by an IP a few weeks ago, immediately followed by a different IP who got reverted so the initial IP's edit seems to have been overlooked. I've removed the section. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits
Source for recent spate of edits. An NPOV summary might be appropriate rather than a credulously sensational one. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with one source I am unsure its not undue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is lately a story going around on TikTok. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's still only one source. Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's basically one story by "Liz Dowell" or "Doc Holiday" copypasted in a few marginal outlets in 2023 . &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So yes, this really is noting and is undue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's undue. The sources as of now aren't robust enough to justify inclusion. The story was making the rounds in many credulous news outlets back in the 90s and even became sort of a craze in paranormal/weird circles during that time. It has seen a resurgence recently because of course it would. Maybe it can be included in the future with more sources and reasons why it's a notable allegation of time travel. SlackingViceroy (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The original story about Mike Macrum by Liz Dowell appears on a tv station website, FOX 2 in St. Louis. (I make no claims about the truth of Macrum traveling thru time, just that the story exists.) There are two more stories online about him, one from an undeniably reliable source ("Epoch Journey", New York Times, dated 8 December 1995), & one from a source admittedly not as reliable (Jaime Dominguez, "What Happened to Mike Marcum?" Medium, 17 November 2023), however both behind paywalls. I'm not sufficiently invested in this story about "Madman" Macrum to want to spend the $$$ to read these articles; I mention these only to prove notability to include him in this article. (IMHO, this is either a hoax or Macrum is just a kook, but there is sufficient interest out there to include him in this article, although maybe not in a separate article.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The NYT source is one paragraph. Summary: Marcum is back (8 Dec 96) after vanishing in September. It says he "resurfaced" in November, that he said that the St. Joseph News-Press report that he'd been evicted after "transporting a cat a block away" was false. He also said that he would test his time machine, which used electrical transformers and 168 electromagnetics, when he figured out how to control time and place of destination, and that "Right now, this would only make a good garbage disposal." Schazjmd   (talk)  22:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Marcum should be mentioned, given the fact that his time travel claims received attention back in the 90s and that interest has been recently revived. There are several sources from then and now indicating notable attention of his claims. It seems that in paranormal/fringe science circles, his claims ave been occasionally covered since then to almost recently as well. I'm not sure yet but a separate article may be possible but at minimum, his claims seem notable to include. SlackingViceroy (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)