This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Earlier today I made a brief edit to the first sentence of the second paragraph, clarifying that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts. That fact should be mentioned higher up in the article because the beginning of the piece makes it seem as if ghosts are real. Predictably, someone undid my edit. (Personally, I think the whole article needs a rewrite.) In any event, being that my revised sentence was balanced, factual, and cited a legitimate reference, why would someone change it back? Below, Rivertorch writes, "It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to pronounce definitively whether ghosts are 'real'; it's the job of an encyclopedia to describe the phenomenon of ghosts and explain why it's significant to humanity." With all due respect, Rivertorch, it's the job of an encyclopedia to educate and to be accurate. Don't you think that conveying scientific knowledge more prominently in such a popular source of reference is "significant to humanity"? The concept of Wikipedia is a great one, but I think only qualified people should be writing articles like this one, not people who think they know what's best for humanity. Tominterval ( talk) 22:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The relevant discussion is on page 34 of the English edition (translated by McQuarrie and Robinson). Here Heidegger mentions both Aristotle's and Aquinas' treatment of the "soul" in the context of Heidegger's concept of "Being" (Sein in German). Katzmik ( talk) 09:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Heidegger's text itself does not say nearly enough of what you want it to for it to stand alone as a source for your claim. I suggest you provide a reference to an article or book by a recognised Heidegger scholar who argues for a reading of the text that would support your claim. Otherwise, you should really consider dropping the reference to Heidegger. Wikiduncan ( talk) 19:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
___________________
Remove all references to Heidegger, and Being and Time, you are misinterpreting him; Being and Time has nothing to do with "souls", "ghosts" or any notion that a supernatural entity animates the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.3.86 ( talk) 23:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the NPOV version and deleted the illogical weasel word advertising copy terminology about the supposed claims of "science". Science tests and measures things, via scientific experiments, it does not prove or disprove the existence of entities. For instance science has not proved or disproved the existence of the wikipedia, but we all presume it exists because we experience it. Same with ghosts. Colin4C ( talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an intriguing and tricky problem - thus we have:
I am trying to think of something more solid as the definition is so widely accepted, but acknowledging the fringe nature of firm belief in them. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
So I guess:
Ghosts are folkloric apparitions of deceased people.
There is something wrong with this edit--if only the summary. The summary says "references given do not support assertion that ghosts contradict laws of physics" and that's a false statement.
From the AP report cited:
So by a simple, trivial example, referenced in the article, a physicist demonstrates that ghost stories tend to contradict basic laws of physics. -- TS 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Arguably, one of the most famous ghosts in the world is excluded by the definition provided in this article. I put it to the editors: Is the Holy Ghost a ghost? If so, we may have to rethink the way this article is being presented. I think a major part of ghosts is their relation to religions, in particular ancestor worship. This is totally obscured by the present focus of the article which is mainly on folklore and the increasingly marginalized "parapsychology" perspective. Indeed, I think putting parapsychology in the lead is wholly inappropriate. A small section for parapsychology's perspective on the matter may be okay, but the vast majority of relevant, reliable sources do not treat ghosts as parapsychology does.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Do editors here think that Fox News has provided irrefutable evidence that ghosts don't exist in this news-report?:
See more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225640,00.html - a sterling ref for the wikipedia... Colin4C ( talk) 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Colin4C ( talk) 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
that would be okay according to Newtonian physics. The only (Newtonially) physically impossible thing for a Swayzite ghost would be to BOTH walk and go through the wall. Sorry for my "unproductive" logic, yours: Colin4C ( talk) 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Aaawww, my head hurts...never mind. All this will eb dealt with as there will be loads better sources if'n this article is buffed up for GA or FA. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey all, I usually like split articles - eg I prefer poltergeist to stay split as it describes a particular subtype of ghost with attributes, but I feel that Apparitional experience is essentially synonymous with ghost but a moe scientific name applied. Thus merging the material would bolster this article muchly. We could have a really neat article like vampire with folkloric, literary, parapsychological and even spooky stuff all in the one place :)
#.
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 11:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea. Go for it! Great idea!!
I strongly oppose the idea of assimilating the Apparitional Experience to the article on Ghosts. As the introduction to the former makes clear, to suppose that ghosts (in the sense of suriving spirits of the dead) are the cause, or indeed in any way associated with, apparitional experiences is to beg the question.
A considerable part of the Apparitional Experience article is in fact devoted to showing why the two concepts should not be assimilated; for example:
- the list of differences between actual apparitional experiences and fictional ghost stories
- the fact that people can have apparitional experiences of inanimate objects, where there can be no question of a surviving ‘spirit’ being involved.
I consider it would be an intellectually retrogressive step to merge the two articles, since it would be implicitly lending support to the ‘supernaturalist’ explanation of apparitional experiences to the exclusion of other explanations. Ranger2006 ( talk) 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Rather than merge the two articles, I suggest that each should have an internal link to the other. I have added a link to the Ghost article from the one on Apparitional Experience, and I suggest that the same might be done in reverse, i.e. add an internal link from this article (Ghost) to Apparitional Experience. That way anyone who happens to come across the Apparitional Experience article first but is primarily interested in the history or other aspects of the ghost concept can pursue the matter via the Ghost article and vice versa.
Ranger2006 (
talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeing that apparitional experience is de facto our article on "ghosts (parnormal)", I think it should remain a WP:SS sub-article of this one after all. -- dab (𒁳) 11:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I know they aren't the same in roleplaying, but what about folklore? How do folks feel about merging? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
after cleaning up the wraith article, it turns out it is a stub, close to a dictdef plus some etymological notes. Should and can easily be merged. -- dab (𒁳) 14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to oppose this one too, google shows over 3 million hits. Some of course are going to mention roleplaying (which should get a brief mention over there dab), and I added a section for the film. Theres enough to merit its own article I believe. Syn ergy 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
hm, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. Just because a word sees frequent use doesn't establish it should get its own standalone article. -- dab (𒁳) 21:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - For mine, these seem synonymous, plus allows for better discussion of classical ghosty things in the
ghost article as the evolution of an idea.
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There is alot of overlap here... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the suggested merger of Apparitional Experience with Ghost-hunting. It is open to precisely the same objections as the earlier proposal to merge Apparitional Experience with Ghost (see above).
To conflate the concept of Apparition with that of Ghost is to beg the question. There are other possible explanations of apparitional experiences besides the suggestion that human beings survive death and are sometimes able to ‘return’ and make their presence felt to the living.
The article on Apparitional Experience is attempting something quite different from either the articles on Ghost or Ghost-busting. It gives a historical account of attempts to treat the experience of ‘seeing’ or otherwise ‘perceiving’ an apparition from a purely psychological point of view, and discusses the implications for theories of perception, both psychological and philosophical, that can be derived from the study of such experiences.
Any merger of the Apparitional Experience article with one containing Ghost in the title would be a retrogressive step, in my opinion. It has taken a century or more for the study of apparitional experiences as a purely psychological phenomenon to establish itself as a valid object of scientific enquiry, independently of popular theories about ghosts and survival of death. Conflating articles in the way proposed would be merely re-establishing confusion. Ranger2006 ( talk) 14:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
that's because you apparently haven't understood the WP:NPOV policy, no matter how often you like to mention the "POV" abbreviation. It states that Wikipedia by its foundational principles is obliged to suck up to The Man and to marginalize the marginalized. Wikipedia isn't for championing the underdogs (of academic discourse), it must callously call the underdogs underdogs. As a sidenote, I find definate about as jarring a turn-off as grammer and sentance. -- dab (𒁳) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that ghosts are relevant to the topic of paranormal phenomena or parapsychology, but I fail to see how parapsychology has particular relevance to the topic of ghosts. Ghosts are a human cultural universal (or neurological universal, if you prefer), and I fail to see why they should be discussed in terms of 19th century spiritst fads in particular. The point is that parapsychology falls under WP:FRINGE while the wider topic of ghosts does not. There can of course be a "parapsychology" section here, probably best as h4 under "Modern period", but excessive detail would need to go to a WP:SS sub-article. -- dab (𒁳) 12:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
January 2009 (UTC)
I decided to
give it a go and junked all the "paranormal" material, including the skeptical stuff. See how it reads. --
TS 11:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Colin4C's objection appears to be unaware of WP:DUE. Any topic can be discussed, if notable, but any given article needs to balance weight given to sub-topic. Excessive coverage of a particular aspect should either result in pruning, or in WP:SS spin-off articles. -- dab (𒁳) 14:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I just found revenant (folklore). This is the topic at the core of the world's "ghost beliefs", and the article should consequently be organized around it. The argument goes like this,
this is the narrative hard-wired in the human brain, so to speak. Specific mythologies, religions, rituals, etc. build on this.
The western "spiritist"/"ghost-busting" material is probably best understood as one specific cultural tradition reflecting these fundamentals. I have now created a "by culture" section, and refer to spiritism etc. under "Western culture". -- dab (𒁳) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
My take on the paranoraml is that unlike with vampires, werewolves, dragons etc, extensive ghost hunting and investigation is pretty prominent and therefore can be quite detailed. (bit like hunting the loch ness monster or bigfoot) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There is an entire section on "belief in ghosts" aka "ontological status". Devoting an entire h2 section to paranormal research and parapsychological opinion is hardly "pov censorship". I wish you would stop mentioning Fox News, Colin4C, it is beginning to make you look silly. -- dab (𒁳) 20:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"ontology" is a better term than "existence" because it looks beyond the "do they exist" yes-or-no question. Of course an apple exists, the UN exists, the Republic of China exists, Linux exists, Christianity exists, the hope for change under the Obama administration exists, my moral compass exists, cinema exists, and the word "nonexistence" exists. The question isn't "do ghosts exist", because they obviously do. The question is about the nature of their existence: do they exist rather like a dream exists, or rather like the movie "Gladiator" exists. That they do not exist in the sense that a given apple exists is undisputed, since ghosts, unlike apples, by definition have no physical (material) existence, otherwise they wouldn't be ghosts but undead or similar. The synonyms apparition and spectre make clear that their nature is in being seen. An apparition that doesn't appear, or a spectrum that isn't visible are contradictions in terms. For a ghost, being seen is existing. -- dab (𒁳) 09:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
emphatically sans infobox (see also shadow people). The problem isn't with articles taking their subject matter seriously, the problem is with them taking it "seriously" in a way suggesting they were written by 13-year-old geeks. -- dab (𒁳) 15:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This unreferenced statement in the article appears to be meaningless:
How on earth can an apparition have a "scientific method"? Colin4C ( talk) 19:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It is saying that in the 19th century, these seances were considered scientific experiments. The "pseudo" in "pseudoscience" says that they were not, in fact, good science. An "apparition" *Latin
spectrum) can obviously be studied in a scientific way. We scientists refer to such study as "observation" within an "experiment". If the apparition has reproducible qualities, a "law" may be formulated. If not, not. --
dab
(𒁳) 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
indeed. impartial observation is the prerequisite for any scientific theory. If you can see ghosts, you can observe them just like you can observe clouds, or just like you can keep a journal of your dreams, even before you formulate any theories. It is unclear which are the "sentences that don't make sense" Colin is referring to. Jung himself was capable of seeing ghosts at times, and he made perfectly rational use of his experiences. You can agree or disagree with Jung's views of the psyche, but it would be difficult to claim that his reports of his "ghost sightings" were just lies: you would need to reject all literature on dream studies, since obviously no account of a dream is ever verifiable. --
dab
(𒁳) 09:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
conflating this with the Copenhagen school etc. is pure quantum quackery. Obviously ghosts are "all in the mind" (or psyche), along with the rest of the known universe. -- dab (𒁳) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
:mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment
Thats taken from our article on mass hysteria. I'm sure there are plenty of sources that will verify that groups of people hear, or see the same thing (in this case, a ghost or ghosts). Is it really that dubious dab? Syn ergy 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
yes, it remains dubious as long as your generalization from "thing" to "in this case, ghosts" remains unreferenced. As I said, I am unaware of reports where ghosts have appeared to entire crowds. My understanding is that ghosts are most frequently seen by individuals, not groups, let alone crowds. -- dab (𒁳) 11:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I have modified some dubious stuff which seems to suggest that an experience is a concept - which is meaningless:
I was tempted to say that this sentence was POV, but it is worse than that, it actually makes no sense to say that an experience, even a non-veridical hallucination or dream is "pseudoscientific". If this is the best "mainstream scientists" can do, they should be locked up overnight in a haunted house, though, to be fair, I think a wikipedia editor has misquoted them, or failed to grasp the import of what he/she was reading. Colin4C ( talk) 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs to report the mainstream scientific view up front, provided it is understood that the "science" in question is anthropology. mythography or psychology, not physics. -- dab (𒁳) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Aaawww heck, I feel it is important in the cinematic section to mention films from a ghost POV such as the 1999 film The Sixth Sense, 2001's The Others, and the 2006 horror film Silent Hill from the ghost's point of view....
but I do appreciate I feel a bit like the heckler sitting in the cinema at an early screening of The Sixth Sense who shouts out ....."He's a ghost!!" Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we have some disagreement about the lead.
First off, I think the version that says "A place in which ghosts are reported is described as haunted. A revenant is a deceased person returning from the dead to haunt the living, either as a disembodied ghost or alternatively as an animated ("undead") corpse." is just extremely awkward. That's seems more appropriate to a disambiguation page, or as discrete information that's better handled as it comes up later in the article (as it does already). At the top there it just sounds like a laundry list of related terms. The insect article doesn't have as its second and third sentences "A place in which insects are reported is described as infested. Vermin are animals that infests places that humans live, whether they are insects or other creatures like mice." Can't you see why that doesn't belong there?
Also, the lead is really, really, REALLY hurting for a nice summary of ghost as a topic. Just saying it's a disembodied spirit of a dead person doesn't tell us if they are invisible, or what they look like when visible, or how widespread the idea is, or that ghost is also applied for nebulous ideas and so forth. It's just a very poor lead. I almost reverted the whole thing back to a version from about two years back, but that one, though better, had some other problems. But at least someone reading it would have a better idea of what is meant by the word "ghost". DreamGuy ( talk) 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we fix this please? I noticed an image a placed on the article, direction left, was changed to the right. Shouldn't they flow from right to left? I see too many on the right hand side. Syn ergy 16:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
we should avoid left aligned images if at all possible. there is nothing worse than an article text meandering between images on both sides. Put them all on the right, please. If they don't all fit on the right, there are probably too many images present, and a few need to be thrown out. -- dab (𒁳) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should take a broad view of all aspects of this subject rather than getting entangled in some lame "it all depends on what you mean by...." half arsed POV game of semantics. Trying to fit the nebulous subject of ghosts into an editor's favorite POV formulation as backed up by their personal interpretation of ill understood wikipedia "rules" is not the way forward I feel...This is an area where, for once, some knowledge of the subject is necessary rather than it being yet another opportunity for editors to compete for the "most annoying wikilawyer of the year" award. Colin4C ( talk) 10:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
My take on it is, regardless of whether one believes in ghosts or not (I am still in the X-files like "I want to believe category" :)), ghost-hunting and investigation is a much more notable area than with other creatures, so is worthy of more space. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Colin4C, considering that you have so far refused to appreciate any point made regarding your "Fox News" approach to ghosts, you are generating a lot of output to this page, and from a rather high horse at that. There is serious work to be done here, such as the pending merge requests. It won't do to keep the article hostage by your idiosyncratic insistence on "paranormal" vs. "skeptical" "explanations". Wikipedia can discuss pseudoscience, but WP:DUE says that pseudoscience (the "paranormal" etc.) should be discussed on articles dedicated to pseudoscience, not on articles discussing much wider topics. As it stands, we have the Apparitional experience article dedicated to this stuff. This article should be summarized in a brief paragraph, in best WP:SS here, but not more. You want to discuss paranormal "explanations" and skeptical response to such? Please edit the main article. -- dab (𒁳) 10:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there are any existing preferred versions: the article has made progress, but we are still separated from any "preferred version" by a substantial editing effort to be invested. -- dab (𒁳) 16:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea why you keep saying this, seeing that nobody disagreed in the first place, and nobody except for you has even mentioned the concept of "absolute truth". People have mentioned WP:DUE, which is quite a different animal, and which you continue to cheerfully ignore. You also continue to imply things I have never said. To the contrary, I have myself stated that I think observing ghosts is like observing clouds (or trees), provided you can see them, since all observation is subjective. It is impossible to have a discussion with you if you insist on refusing to appreciate anything that was said and insist on rebutting strawman arguments that were never in fact made. -- dab (𒁳) 22:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the attempt being made here by "scientific" fundamentalist POV pushers to divide folklore or ghostlore from apparitional experiences is misguided. Take for instance the legend of the Flying Dutchman. This is most certainly a legend, but, weirdly, apparitions of the Flying Dutchman have been quite widely reported by sailors, including one sighting by the future King George V of England. If we follow the POV pushers logic all these latter sightings would be censored from the Flying Dutchman article or a note attached to each one saying that scientists have disproved them, that they disobey the laws of nature and the readers of the wikipedia are on no account allowed to speculate about them as scientists, at an unspecified time, date and location, have proved for all time that appearances of the Flying Dutchman cannot ever occur. Maybe the POV pushers think that wikipedia readers have to be told what to think in case they get infected with paranormal notions and start disrespecting scientists in the street. Colin4C ( talk) 08:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Did George V happen to have any spirit photography equipment or other ghostbusters gear with him? No? Then it is folklore. Of course sightings of the Flying Dutchman occurred, if there are no sightings there is no ghost. Now why, do you argue, is it "misguided" to divide such perfectly pedestrian reports of ghost sightings from pseudoscientific explanation attempts? It is one thing to tell of your ghost sightings in the harbour tavern. It is quite another to draw up a theory surrounding ectoplasm, infrasound, morphogenetc fields and what have you.
I think you should just quit your wikilawyering. It isn't "POV pushing" to classify 19th century pseudoscience as 19th century pseudoscience. -- dab (𒁳) 11:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
yeah, yeah, WP:FORUM. -- dab (𒁳) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I wonder where screaming skulls come in the typology of ghost-lore? They are neither insubstantial nor have come back from the dead...One supposed to be incumbent at Burton Agnes Hall in Yorkshire though I didn't hear it, when I visited the house - too pre-occupied by whatever the hell it was that was sitting in that chair...(later learnt that a girl of the house had been murdered by brigands in the grounds of the house in the 17th century and had haunted the place ever since...). Colin4C ( talk) 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The article offers a variety of percentages for how many Americans might believe in ghosts. In one place it says more than half, in another it says less than 40%. That's all very nice, and I should hope that Wikipedia would NOT attempt to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts - but would it be too contraversial to have a section about the evidence favouring and disputing the existence of ghosts? Is there any evidence to disprove or discredit their existence? Is there any evidence to prove or strongly support their existence? We see plenty of stuff on TV and in print every day about how so-and-so saw a ghost, or so-and-so took a photo of a ghost, but that doesn't really convince me either way. I don't think that I've ever seen one. Basically, may ghosts be real? Is it likely, or even possible? 222.155.18.236 ( talk) 09:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Earlier today I made a brief edit to the first sentence of the second paragraph, clarifying that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts. That fact should be mentioned higher up in the article because the beginning of the piece makes it seem as if ghosts are real. Predictably, someone undid my edit. (Personally, I think the whole article needs a rewrite.) In any event, being that my revised sentence was balanced, factual, and cited a legitimate reference, why would someone change it back? Below, Rivertorch writes, "It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to pronounce definitively whether ghosts are 'real'; it's the job of an encyclopedia to describe the phenomenon of ghosts and explain why it's significant to humanity." With all due respect, Rivertorch, it's the job of an encyclopedia to educate and to be accurate. Don't you think that conveying scientific knowledge more prominently in such a popular source of reference is "significant to humanity"? The concept of Wikipedia is a great one, but I think only qualified people should be writing articles like this one, not people who think they know what's best for humanity. Tominterval ( talk) 22:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The relevant discussion is on page 34 of the English edition (translated by McQuarrie and Robinson). Here Heidegger mentions both Aristotle's and Aquinas' treatment of the "soul" in the context of Heidegger's concept of "Being" (Sein in German). Katzmik ( talk) 09:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Heidegger's text itself does not say nearly enough of what you want it to for it to stand alone as a source for your claim. I suggest you provide a reference to an article or book by a recognised Heidegger scholar who argues for a reading of the text that would support your claim. Otherwise, you should really consider dropping the reference to Heidegger. Wikiduncan ( talk) 19:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
___________________
Remove all references to Heidegger, and Being and Time, you are misinterpreting him; Being and Time has nothing to do with "souls", "ghosts" or any notion that a supernatural entity animates the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.3.86 ( talk) 23:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the NPOV version and deleted the illogical weasel word advertising copy terminology about the supposed claims of "science". Science tests and measures things, via scientific experiments, it does not prove or disprove the existence of entities. For instance science has not proved or disproved the existence of the wikipedia, but we all presume it exists because we experience it. Same with ghosts. Colin4C ( talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an intriguing and tricky problem - thus we have:
I am trying to think of something more solid as the definition is so widely accepted, but acknowledging the fringe nature of firm belief in them. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
So I guess:
Ghosts are folkloric apparitions of deceased people.
There is something wrong with this edit--if only the summary. The summary says "references given do not support assertion that ghosts contradict laws of physics" and that's a false statement.
From the AP report cited:
So by a simple, trivial example, referenced in the article, a physicist demonstrates that ghost stories tend to contradict basic laws of physics. -- TS 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Arguably, one of the most famous ghosts in the world is excluded by the definition provided in this article. I put it to the editors: Is the Holy Ghost a ghost? If so, we may have to rethink the way this article is being presented. I think a major part of ghosts is their relation to religions, in particular ancestor worship. This is totally obscured by the present focus of the article which is mainly on folklore and the increasingly marginalized "parapsychology" perspective. Indeed, I think putting parapsychology in the lead is wholly inappropriate. A small section for parapsychology's perspective on the matter may be okay, but the vast majority of relevant, reliable sources do not treat ghosts as parapsychology does.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Do editors here think that Fox News has provided irrefutable evidence that ghosts don't exist in this news-report?:
See more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225640,00.html - a sterling ref for the wikipedia... Colin4C ( talk) 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Colin4C ( talk) 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
that would be okay according to Newtonian physics. The only (Newtonially) physically impossible thing for a Swayzite ghost would be to BOTH walk and go through the wall. Sorry for my "unproductive" logic, yours: Colin4C ( talk) 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Aaawww, my head hurts...never mind. All this will eb dealt with as there will be loads better sources if'n this article is buffed up for GA or FA. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey all, I usually like split articles - eg I prefer poltergeist to stay split as it describes a particular subtype of ghost with attributes, but I feel that Apparitional experience is essentially synonymous with ghost but a moe scientific name applied. Thus merging the material would bolster this article muchly. We could have a really neat article like vampire with folkloric, literary, parapsychological and even spooky stuff all in the one place :)
#.
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 11:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea. Go for it! Great idea!!
I strongly oppose the idea of assimilating the Apparitional Experience to the article on Ghosts. As the introduction to the former makes clear, to suppose that ghosts (in the sense of suriving spirits of the dead) are the cause, or indeed in any way associated with, apparitional experiences is to beg the question.
A considerable part of the Apparitional Experience article is in fact devoted to showing why the two concepts should not be assimilated; for example:
- the list of differences between actual apparitional experiences and fictional ghost stories
- the fact that people can have apparitional experiences of inanimate objects, where there can be no question of a surviving ‘spirit’ being involved.
I consider it would be an intellectually retrogressive step to merge the two articles, since it would be implicitly lending support to the ‘supernaturalist’ explanation of apparitional experiences to the exclusion of other explanations. Ranger2006 ( talk) 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Rather than merge the two articles, I suggest that each should have an internal link to the other. I have added a link to the Ghost article from the one on Apparitional Experience, and I suggest that the same might be done in reverse, i.e. add an internal link from this article (Ghost) to Apparitional Experience. That way anyone who happens to come across the Apparitional Experience article first but is primarily interested in the history or other aspects of the ghost concept can pursue the matter via the Ghost article and vice versa.
Ranger2006 (
talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeing that apparitional experience is de facto our article on "ghosts (parnormal)", I think it should remain a WP:SS sub-article of this one after all. -- dab (𒁳) 11:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I know they aren't the same in roleplaying, but what about folklore? How do folks feel about merging? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
after cleaning up the wraith article, it turns out it is a stub, close to a dictdef plus some etymological notes. Should and can easily be merged. -- dab (𒁳) 14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to oppose this one too, google shows over 3 million hits. Some of course are going to mention roleplaying (which should get a brief mention over there dab), and I added a section for the film. Theres enough to merit its own article I believe. Syn ergy 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
hm, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. Just because a word sees frequent use doesn't establish it should get its own standalone article. -- dab (𒁳) 21:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Support - For mine, these seem synonymous, plus allows for better discussion of classical ghosty things in the
ghost article as the evolution of an idea.
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There is alot of overlap here... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the suggested merger of Apparitional Experience with Ghost-hunting. It is open to precisely the same objections as the earlier proposal to merge Apparitional Experience with Ghost (see above).
To conflate the concept of Apparition with that of Ghost is to beg the question. There are other possible explanations of apparitional experiences besides the suggestion that human beings survive death and are sometimes able to ‘return’ and make their presence felt to the living.
The article on Apparitional Experience is attempting something quite different from either the articles on Ghost or Ghost-busting. It gives a historical account of attempts to treat the experience of ‘seeing’ or otherwise ‘perceiving’ an apparition from a purely psychological point of view, and discusses the implications for theories of perception, both psychological and philosophical, that can be derived from the study of such experiences.
Any merger of the Apparitional Experience article with one containing Ghost in the title would be a retrogressive step, in my opinion. It has taken a century or more for the study of apparitional experiences as a purely psychological phenomenon to establish itself as a valid object of scientific enquiry, independently of popular theories about ghosts and survival of death. Conflating articles in the way proposed would be merely re-establishing confusion. Ranger2006 ( talk) 14:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
that's because you apparently haven't understood the WP:NPOV policy, no matter how often you like to mention the "POV" abbreviation. It states that Wikipedia by its foundational principles is obliged to suck up to The Man and to marginalize the marginalized. Wikipedia isn't for championing the underdogs (of academic discourse), it must callously call the underdogs underdogs. As a sidenote, I find definate about as jarring a turn-off as grammer and sentance. -- dab (𒁳) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that ghosts are relevant to the topic of paranormal phenomena or parapsychology, but I fail to see how parapsychology has particular relevance to the topic of ghosts. Ghosts are a human cultural universal (or neurological universal, if you prefer), and I fail to see why they should be discussed in terms of 19th century spiritst fads in particular. The point is that parapsychology falls under WP:FRINGE while the wider topic of ghosts does not. There can of course be a "parapsychology" section here, probably best as h4 under "Modern period", but excessive detail would need to go to a WP:SS sub-article. -- dab (𒁳) 12:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
January 2009 (UTC)
I decided to
give it a go and junked all the "paranormal" material, including the skeptical stuff. See how it reads. --
TS 11:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Colin4C's objection appears to be unaware of WP:DUE. Any topic can be discussed, if notable, but any given article needs to balance weight given to sub-topic. Excessive coverage of a particular aspect should either result in pruning, or in WP:SS spin-off articles. -- dab (𒁳) 14:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I just found revenant (folklore). This is the topic at the core of the world's "ghost beliefs", and the article should consequently be organized around it. The argument goes like this,
this is the narrative hard-wired in the human brain, so to speak. Specific mythologies, religions, rituals, etc. build on this.
The western "spiritist"/"ghost-busting" material is probably best understood as one specific cultural tradition reflecting these fundamentals. I have now created a "by culture" section, and refer to spiritism etc. under "Western culture". -- dab (𒁳) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
My take on the paranoraml is that unlike with vampires, werewolves, dragons etc, extensive ghost hunting and investigation is pretty prominent and therefore can be quite detailed. (bit like hunting the loch ness monster or bigfoot) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There is an entire section on "belief in ghosts" aka "ontological status". Devoting an entire h2 section to paranormal research and parapsychological opinion is hardly "pov censorship". I wish you would stop mentioning Fox News, Colin4C, it is beginning to make you look silly. -- dab (𒁳) 20:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"ontology" is a better term than "existence" because it looks beyond the "do they exist" yes-or-no question. Of course an apple exists, the UN exists, the Republic of China exists, Linux exists, Christianity exists, the hope for change under the Obama administration exists, my moral compass exists, cinema exists, and the word "nonexistence" exists. The question isn't "do ghosts exist", because they obviously do. The question is about the nature of their existence: do they exist rather like a dream exists, or rather like the movie "Gladiator" exists. That they do not exist in the sense that a given apple exists is undisputed, since ghosts, unlike apples, by definition have no physical (material) existence, otherwise they wouldn't be ghosts but undead or similar. The synonyms apparition and spectre make clear that their nature is in being seen. An apparition that doesn't appear, or a spectrum that isn't visible are contradictions in terms. For a ghost, being seen is existing. -- dab (𒁳) 09:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
emphatically sans infobox (see also shadow people). The problem isn't with articles taking their subject matter seriously, the problem is with them taking it "seriously" in a way suggesting they were written by 13-year-old geeks. -- dab (𒁳) 15:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This unreferenced statement in the article appears to be meaningless:
How on earth can an apparition have a "scientific method"? Colin4C ( talk) 19:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It is saying that in the 19th century, these seances were considered scientific experiments. The "pseudo" in "pseudoscience" says that they were not, in fact, good science. An "apparition" *Latin
spectrum) can obviously be studied in a scientific way. We scientists refer to such study as "observation" within an "experiment". If the apparition has reproducible qualities, a "law" may be formulated. If not, not. --
dab
(𒁳) 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
indeed. impartial observation is the prerequisite for any scientific theory. If you can see ghosts, you can observe them just like you can observe clouds, or just like you can keep a journal of your dreams, even before you formulate any theories. It is unclear which are the "sentences that don't make sense" Colin is referring to. Jung himself was capable of seeing ghosts at times, and he made perfectly rational use of his experiences. You can agree or disagree with Jung's views of the psyche, but it would be difficult to claim that his reports of his "ghost sightings" were just lies: you would need to reject all literature on dream studies, since obviously no account of a dream is ever verifiable. --
dab
(𒁳) 09:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
conflating this with the Copenhagen school etc. is pure quantum quackery. Obviously ghosts are "all in the mind" (or psyche), along with the rest of the known universe. -- dab (𒁳) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
:mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment
Thats taken from our article on mass hysteria. I'm sure there are plenty of sources that will verify that groups of people hear, or see the same thing (in this case, a ghost or ghosts). Is it really that dubious dab? Syn ergy 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
yes, it remains dubious as long as your generalization from "thing" to "in this case, ghosts" remains unreferenced. As I said, I am unaware of reports where ghosts have appeared to entire crowds. My understanding is that ghosts are most frequently seen by individuals, not groups, let alone crowds. -- dab (𒁳) 11:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I have modified some dubious stuff which seems to suggest that an experience is a concept - which is meaningless:
I was tempted to say that this sentence was POV, but it is worse than that, it actually makes no sense to say that an experience, even a non-veridical hallucination or dream is "pseudoscientific". If this is the best "mainstream scientists" can do, they should be locked up overnight in a haunted house, though, to be fair, I think a wikipedia editor has misquoted them, or failed to grasp the import of what he/she was reading. Colin4C ( talk) 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs to report the mainstream scientific view up front, provided it is understood that the "science" in question is anthropology. mythography or psychology, not physics. -- dab (𒁳) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Aaawww heck, I feel it is important in the cinematic section to mention films from a ghost POV such as the 1999 film The Sixth Sense, 2001's The Others, and the 2006 horror film Silent Hill from the ghost's point of view....
but I do appreciate I feel a bit like the heckler sitting in the cinema at an early screening of The Sixth Sense who shouts out ....."He's a ghost!!" Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we have some disagreement about the lead.
First off, I think the version that says "A place in which ghosts are reported is described as haunted. A revenant is a deceased person returning from the dead to haunt the living, either as a disembodied ghost or alternatively as an animated ("undead") corpse." is just extremely awkward. That's seems more appropriate to a disambiguation page, or as discrete information that's better handled as it comes up later in the article (as it does already). At the top there it just sounds like a laundry list of related terms. The insect article doesn't have as its second and third sentences "A place in which insects are reported is described as infested. Vermin are animals that infests places that humans live, whether they are insects or other creatures like mice." Can't you see why that doesn't belong there?
Also, the lead is really, really, REALLY hurting for a nice summary of ghost as a topic. Just saying it's a disembodied spirit of a dead person doesn't tell us if they are invisible, or what they look like when visible, or how widespread the idea is, or that ghost is also applied for nebulous ideas and so forth. It's just a very poor lead. I almost reverted the whole thing back to a version from about two years back, but that one, though better, had some other problems. But at least someone reading it would have a better idea of what is meant by the word "ghost". DreamGuy ( talk) 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we fix this please? I noticed an image a placed on the article, direction left, was changed to the right. Shouldn't they flow from right to left? I see too many on the right hand side. Syn ergy 16:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
we should avoid left aligned images if at all possible. there is nothing worse than an article text meandering between images on both sides. Put them all on the right, please. If they don't all fit on the right, there are probably too many images present, and a few need to be thrown out. -- dab (𒁳) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should take a broad view of all aspects of this subject rather than getting entangled in some lame "it all depends on what you mean by...." half arsed POV game of semantics. Trying to fit the nebulous subject of ghosts into an editor's favorite POV formulation as backed up by their personal interpretation of ill understood wikipedia "rules" is not the way forward I feel...This is an area where, for once, some knowledge of the subject is necessary rather than it being yet another opportunity for editors to compete for the "most annoying wikilawyer of the year" award. Colin4C ( talk) 10:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
My take on it is, regardless of whether one believes in ghosts or not (I am still in the X-files like "I want to believe category" :)), ghost-hunting and investigation is a much more notable area than with other creatures, so is worthy of more space. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Colin4C, considering that you have so far refused to appreciate any point made regarding your "Fox News" approach to ghosts, you are generating a lot of output to this page, and from a rather high horse at that. There is serious work to be done here, such as the pending merge requests. It won't do to keep the article hostage by your idiosyncratic insistence on "paranormal" vs. "skeptical" "explanations". Wikipedia can discuss pseudoscience, but WP:DUE says that pseudoscience (the "paranormal" etc.) should be discussed on articles dedicated to pseudoscience, not on articles discussing much wider topics. As it stands, we have the Apparitional experience article dedicated to this stuff. This article should be summarized in a brief paragraph, in best WP:SS here, but not more. You want to discuss paranormal "explanations" and skeptical response to such? Please edit the main article. -- dab (𒁳) 10:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there are any existing preferred versions: the article has made progress, but we are still separated from any "preferred version" by a substantial editing effort to be invested. -- dab (𒁳) 16:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea why you keep saying this, seeing that nobody disagreed in the first place, and nobody except for you has even mentioned the concept of "absolute truth". People have mentioned WP:DUE, which is quite a different animal, and which you continue to cheerfully ignore. You also continue to imply things I have never said. To the contrary, I have myself stated that I think observing ghosts is like observing clouds (or trees), provided you can see them, since all observation is subjective. It is impossible to have a discussion with you if you insist on refusing to appreciate anything that was said and insist on rebutting strawman arguments that were never in fact made. -- dab (𒁳) 22:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the attempt being made here by "scientific" fundamentalist POV pushers to divide folklore or ghostlore from apparitional experiences is misguided. Take for instance the legend of the Flying Dutchman. This is most certainly a legend, but, weirdly, apparitions of the Flying Dutchman have been quite widely reported by sailors, including one sighting by the future King George V of England. If we follow the POV pushers logic all these latter sightings would be censored from the Flying Dutchman article or a note attached to each one saying that scientists have disproved them, that they disobey the laws of nature and the readers of the wikipedia are on no account allowed to speculate about them as scientists, at an unspecified time, date and location, have proved for all time that appearances of the Flying Dutchman cannot ever occur. Maybe the POV pushers think that wikipedia readers have to be told what to think in case they get infected with paranormal notions and start disrespecting scientists in the street. Colin4C ( talk) 08:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Did George V happen to have any spirit photography equipment or other ghostbusters gear with him? No? Then it is folklore. Of course sightings of the Flying Dutchman occurred, if there are no sightings there is no ghost. Now why, do you argue, is it "misguided" to divide such perfectly pedestrian reports of ghost sightings from pseudoscientific explanation attempts? It is one thing to tell of your ghost sightings in the harbour tavern. It is quite another to draw up a theory surrounding ectoplasm, infrasound, morphogenetc fields and what have you.
I think you should just quit your wikilawyering. It isn't "POV pushing" to classify 19th century pseudoscience as 19th century pseudoscience. -- dab (𒁳) 11:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
yeah, yeah, WP:FORUM. -- dab (𒁳) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I wonder where screaming skulls come in the typology of ghost-lore? They are neither insubstantial nor have come back from the dead...One supposed to be incumbent at Burton Agnes Hall in Yorkshire though I didn't hear it, when I visited the house - too pre-occupied by whatever the hell it was that was sitting in that chair...(later learnt that a girl of the house had been murdered by brigands in the grounds of the house in the 17th century and had haunted the place ever since...). Colin4C ( talk) 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The article offers a variety of percentages for how many Americans might believe in ghosts. In one place it says more than half, in another it says less than 40%. That's all very nice, and I should hope that Wikipedia would NOT attempt to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts - but would it be too contraversial to have a section about the evidence favouring and disputing the existence of ghosts? Is there any evidence to disprove or discredit their existence? Is there any evidence to prove or strongly support their existence? We see plenty of stuff on TV and in print every day about how so-and-so saw a ghost, or so-and-so took a photo of a ghost, but that doesn't really convince me either way. I don't think that I've ever seen one. Basically, may ghosts be real? Is it likely, or even possible? 222.155.18.236 ( talk) 09:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |