This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This template is meant to link up main articles related to paranormal beliefs. It may be a good idea to remain minimalistic here. Please don't spam. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
How does this template work in terms of the preexisting Template:Parapsychology? Which entries belong in one, which belong in the other, which belong in both? - Verdatum ( talk) 15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Science is dependent on reproducible registration by human sensations. We all know that science has alot of limitation in what we know! About human life and death itself we are not knowing many things. And we must accept that science is the name of continous search and change. For all these reasons I feel we should be cautious about denying existence of otherside of the nature which remains unexplored and we should leave that to our future generations. May be some day we know them all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmanku ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Keeping it simple would be just a list of articles. That is useful. Having the articles and the skeptical ones makes it a "ya but this is why they are all false" kind of billboard. Tom Butler ( talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to delete the whole box then. Saying this is paranormal and this is what the skeptics say is just another forum for conflict. While they may not be real, the rest of the story is told by the science articles and sociological dynamics of emergent ideas.
Meanwhile, I am taking it back. Your decision that the box is too big seems arbitrary. Tom Butler ( talk) 02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I have added Scientific literacy to the "Related articles on Social change and Parapsychology" section. A major issue for people interested in these subjects is the lack of guidance from mainstream science. Except for a handful of academically trained researchers in parapsychology, there is virtually no culture of science leadership within the frontier subject community. In the sense intended by the National Science Foundation, improved education would probably change the character of how these subjects are viewed by people in the frontier subject community. Tom Butler ( talk) 17:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add Orb (paranormal) to the template, if this is acceptable. Thanks. Jack1956 ( talk) 14:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
After adding this Navbox to a large set of UFO related articles (as well as other woo items), another editor deleted all the UFO ones claiming the topic is not Paranormal. This despite me pointing out that WikiProject Paranormal flagged the articles, and the Navbox itself has UFOs in its list. Please see the discussion here. Anyone care to join in the argument on that page? If not, the Paranormal boxes will likely stay off. RobP ( talk) 16:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear all, I submit request for removing near death experiences from Paranormal Navbox. The main reason for saying this is that there are pretty solid mainstream scientific explanations showing that "an NDE is a subjective phenomenon resulting from 'disturbed bodily multisensory integration' that occurs during life-threatening events" see [ [2]]. A solid publication supporting this is: Blanke, Olaf (2009). The Neurology of Consciousness. London: London: Academic Publishers, 2009. pp. 303–324. ISBN 978-0-12-374168-4. If you wish I can provide more publications.
The other argument is that near death experiences are very frequent. If you check under the "Prevalence" section, on the [ [3]] page you will see that a selective study in Germany found that 4% of the sample population had had an NDE - and another 2005 telephone survey in Australia concluded that 8.9% of the population had had an NDE.
So, both due to their frequencies as well as to the availability of mainstream science explanations, I believe NDEs should be removed from the template.
Your thoughts? Josezetabal ( talk) 15:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
What exactly is going on in the "main article" section of this template? Almost all of these entries are simply examples of folklore, many of them ghostlore. Exactly what qualifies something to become a part of this section? From what I can tell, this portion of the template appears to be a grab bag of whatever editors deemed to be 'weird' some time in the past (UFOs, fairies, ghosts) and should simply be removed. In fact, it's unclear to me what exactly the purpose of this template is today, particularly in light of the fact that we now have, say, WP:Folklore. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia, but I was wondering why the article Lucid Dreaming is listed in this paranormal template under the Parapsychology section? Although lucid dreaming attracts a lot of New-Age/Spiritual people, it's a scientifically-backed phenomena that has been documented for years in various studies (such as the 1975 Hearne study included in its article), and one that many people experience regularly. It is a naturally-occurring event and thus, I feel that it is misleading for it to be included in this "Paranormal" template under the "Parapsychology" section.
What do you all think? Suuvah ( talk) 17:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This template is meant to link up main articles related to paranormal beliefs. It may be a good idea to remain minimalistic here. Please don't spam. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
How does this template work in terms of the preexisting Template:Parapsychology? Which entries belong in one, which belong in the other, which belong in both? - Verdatum ( talk) 15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Science is dependent on reproducible registration by human sensations. We all know that science has alot of limitation in what we know! About human life and death itself we are not knowing many things. And we must accept that science is the name of continous search and change. For all these reasons I feel we should be cautious about denying existence of otherside of the nature which remains unexplored and we should leave that to our future generations. May be some day we know them all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmanku ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Keeping it simple would be just a list of articles. That is useful. Having the articles and the skeptical ones makes it a "ya but this is why they are all false" kind of billboard. Tom Butler ( talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to delete the whole box then. Saying this is paranormal and this is what the skeptics say is just another forum for conflict. While they may not be real, the rest of the story is told by the science articles and sociological dynamics of emergent ideas.
Meanwhile, I am taking it back. Your decision that the box is too big seems arbitrary. Tom Butler ( talk) 02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I have added Scientific literacy to the "Related articles on Social change and Parapsychology" section. A major issue for people interested in these subjects is the lack of guidance from mainstream science. Except for a handful of academically trained researchers in parapsychology, there is virtually no culture of science leadership within the frontier subject community. In the sense intended by the National Science Foundation, improved education would probably change the character of how these subjects are viewed by people in the frontier subject community. Tom Butler ( talk) 17:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add Orb (paranormal) to the template, if this is acceptable. Thanks. Jack1956 ( talk) 14:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
After adding this Navbox to a large set of UFO related articles (as well as other woo items), another editor deleted all the UFO ones claiming the topic is not Paranormal. This despite me pointing out that WikiProject Paranormal flagged the articles, and the Navbox itself has UFOs in its list. Please see the discussion here. Anyone care to join in the argument on that page? If not, the Paranormal boxes will likely stay off. RobP ( talk) 16:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear all, I submit request for removing near death experiences from Paranormal Navbox. The main reason for saying this is that there are pretty solid mainstream scientific explanations showing that "an NDE is a subjective phenomenon resulting from 'disturbed bodily multisensory integration' that occurs during life-threatening events" see [ [2]]. A solid publication supporting this is: Blanke, Olaf (2009). The Neurology of Consciousness. London: London: Academic Publishers, 2009. pp. 303–324. ISBN 978-0-12-374168-4. If you wish I can provide more publications.
The other argument is that near death experiences are very frequent. If you check under the "Prevalence" section, on the [ [3]] page you will see that a selective study in Germany found that 4% of the sample population had had an NDE - and another 2005 telephone survey in Australia concluded that 8.9% of the population had had an NDE.
So, both due to their frequencies as well as to the availability of mainstream science explanations, I believe NDEs should be removed from the template.
Your thoughts? Josezetabal ( talk) 15:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
What exactly is going on in the "main article" section of this template? Almost all of these entries are simply examples of folklore, many of them ghostlore. Exactly what qualifies something to become a part of this section? From what I can tell, this portion of the template appears to be a grab bag of whatever editors deemed to be 'weird' some time in the past (UFOs, fairies, ghosts) and should simply be removed. In fact, it's unclear to me what exactly the purpose of this template is today, particularly in light of the fact that we now have, say, WP:Folklore. :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia, but I was wondering why the article Lucid Dreaming is listed in this paranormal template under the Parapsychology section? Although lucid dreaming attracts a lot of New-Age/Spiritual people, it's a scientifically-backed phenomena that has been documented for years in various studies (such as the 1975 Hearne study included in its article), and one that many people experience regularly. It is a naturally-occurring event and thus, I feel that it is misleading for it to be included in this "Paranormal" template under the "Parapsychology" section.
What do you all think? Suuvah ( talk) 17:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)