Talk:Ghost/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Skepticism, Science and Ghosts

Just received disturbing allegations that the Skeptical Enquirer - which has proved for all time that ghosts don't exist and defy the laws of science - is not the official voice of science:

"There exists in the United States an organisation calling itself the Committee for Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal, or CSICOP for short. While the Executive Council of CSICOP has, in fact few scientists, it has assiduously courted distinguished scientists as members, giving itself the appearance of a scientific organization, an appearance which it exploits to the full when its members go 'ghostbusting'...Quite simply CSICOP is not a scientific organization...The preponderence of media people in its higher echelons show it to be a propaganda movement, dedicated to 'ghostbusting' and to extirpating 'irrational' beliefs" (Eysenck and Sargent (1993) Explaining the Unexplained: 175-8). Colin4C (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked! to hear that a pro-paranormal group attacks scientists who disagree with them and calls them bad names. Who would have thought? Come on, at least pretend you want to follow NPOV policy instead of promoting one view over anotehr. That was a ridiculous edit to the article you just made. 20:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Eysenck was a distinguished scientist unlike the charlatans of CSICOP who are well known for fiddling the results of their 'experiments' when the get the 'wrong' answer, which doesn't fit their pre-concieved fundamentalist opinions, as they did in the case of Gauqulin and Beneviste. "At the time of his death, Hans Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals."

Colin4C (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

At the time of his death he was living?? That's probably not a ghost, but it seems unpossible. CISCOP is reliable, id you disagree take it to the WP:RSN. Verbal chat 21:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Eysenck died in 1997 but is still being cited in academic journals. In academia you are allowed to cite dead people in references. As for CSICOP they have a history of fraudulent use of statistics, censorship and even sacking members of their own board who deviate from the party line. Their mainstay is a magician called Randi, who is not a scientist but a self-publicist in the Houdini mould. And as we know, in the case of Geller, scientists are suckers when it comes to magicians...all that rabbit stuff-out-of-hat stuff leaves them in awe...Editors here may like to read about their dubious antics in the case of Michel Gauquelin, where CSICOP systematically scewed the statistics, censored contributions to the Skeptical Enquirer which didn't toe the party line and dismissed CSICOP members who showed a dangerously open mind on the matter. Colin4C (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think everything CSICOP says is beyond dispute and represents absolute truth? Colin4C (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your source is not reliable, CISCOP is. Take this to WP:RSN. I have asked for input from WP:FTN. Do not edit war, but establish consensus for your controversial edits. Verbal chat 08:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Haggbloom writing in the Review of General Psychology (2002)

"At the time of his death, Hans Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals." Do you dispute that? You have just made assertions without proof. Please give refs. For the benefit of editors who didn't see it here is the referenced material which Verbal has summarily deleted:

"In America a controversial organisation, calling itself the Committee for Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal, or CSICOP dedicates itself to 'ghostbusting'. In their house journal, called the Skeptical Enquirer, they stated that there is no credible scientific evidence that any location is inhabited by spirits of the dead."Colin4C (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, Colin, your edit was a transparent attempt to poison the well to try to disparage the source that happens to support the overwhelming scientific and academic consensus on the topic in order to push your POV onto the article. I know you hate the NPOV policy because it gets in your way, but you have to follow it if you want to edit here. Start colinopedia.org if you can't live by our rules. DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Do you dispute that CSOCOP go 'ghostbusting' and/or that they are controversial? Where is your ref that they do not go ghostbusting and that they are not controversial? I have given my ref, you give yours. Colin4C (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN if you like, but you will get short-shrift. CSI/CSICOP has been there before and always found to be reliable, whereas your POV is clear and causing you to push unreliable references. Perhaps you should have a look at WP:ADVOCACY. Verbal chat 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think anyone is taking your claims at all seriously, Colin4C, you are sorely mistaken. I have yet to see anyone support your assertions. At some point, you're just going to have to give up. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The distinguished and reliable scientist Eysenck made the "claims" not me. See the above quotations. According to the Review of General Psychology "At the time of his death, Hans Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals." Colin4C (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Most cited" psychologist does not an expert on CSICOP/ghostbusting make. Freud thought cocaine to be a pretty wonderful drug. Eysenck thought CSI to be a "controversial" organization. Neither of those facts are relevant from the standpoint of summarizing what the most reliable sources have to say about either of those subjects. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could list these sources? Even one source would be start. I have provided references for my statements. Perhaps you would like to, also. Though the wikipedia doesn't prove anything, the article on CSICOP and the references to such, mentions the controversies in which that organisation was involved with respect to investigating the claims of Gauqulin and Beneviste etc. According to the wikipedia:

Long offtopic quote from the CSICOP article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Some criticism has also come from within the scientific community and at times from within CSI itself. Marcello Truzzi, one of CSICOP's co-founders, left the organization after only a short time, arguing that many of those involved “tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts.” [1] Truzzi coined the term pseudoskeptic to describe critics in whom he detected such an attitude. An early controversy concerned the so-called Mars effect: French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky. In late 1975, prior to the formal launch of CSICOP, astronomer Dennis Rawlins, along with Paul Kurtz, George Abel and Marvin Zelen (all subsequent members of CSICOP) began investigating the claim. Rawlins, a founding member of CSICOP at its launch in May 1976, resigned in early 1980 claiming that other CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science, and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. In an article for the pro-paranormal magazine Fate, he wrote: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism." CSICOP's Philip Klass responded by circulating an article to CSICOP members critical of Rawlins' arguments and motives; Klass's unpublished response itself becoming the target for further criticism. In 2004, CSICOP was accused of scientific misconduct over its involvement in the Discovery Channel's test of the "girl with X-ray eyes," Natasha Demkina. In a self-published commentary, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson criticized the test and evaluation methods and argued that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive" rather than judged in the negative. Josephson, the director of the University of Cambridge's Mind-Matter Unification project, questioned the researchers' motives saying, "On the face of it, it looks as if there was some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic by setting up the conditions to make it likely that they could pass her off as a failure." Ray Hyman, one of the three researchers who designed and conducted the test, published a response to this and other criticisms, and the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health also published a detailed response to these and other objections, saying that biasing the odds against Natasha was appropriate because her claims were unlikely to be true.

Colin4C (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not continue to abuse this talk page. Verbal chat 20:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an error to portray views as mainstream simply because one person advocates them, even if that person is widely respected for work in a different arena. Linus Pauling in his prime was considered the most brilliant chemist alive, but his later writings about vitamin C and orthomolecular medicine are widely discounted. Isaac Newton is often considered the greatest genius of all time, but no scientist takes his late-life work on geochronology seriously. Looie496 (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, please do not make personal attacks on me, but stick to the subject. Also the quote above is not off-topic but is a description of the controversies within and about CSICOP. It is long because there is a lot of material on these controversies involving several incidents. All you do is make assertions about the subject and me, without proof. Saying something is "off-topic" is just words, without meaning. Back on the subject, Eynsenk is not the only one to criticise CSICOP. A man named Marcello Truzzi one of the co-founders of CSICOP, said that those involved “tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them...When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts.” Truzzi is not an advocate of the paranormal but the very reverse, but he finds CSICOP's methodology very faaulty. Colin4C (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They have a meaaning. See WP:TALK. You clearly do not have consensus for this edit. Your next step is to either frop it, or take it to WP:RSN. It is not a personal attack to point out your behaviour, such as posting a large verbatim quote rather than a simple link, is disruptive. Verbal chat 07:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote was there to back up Eynsenk's claim that CSICOP is "controversial". If you read it you will see that it has been involved in many external and internal controversies, leading to a founding member leaving and it changing its name to CSI to become a hard-core advocate for skepticism, without bothering about evidence, which is profoundly unscientific. Prejudging that ghosts don't exist is not scientific, it is a faith position. The true scientist has an open mind and doesn't pre-judge the issue at hand. After reading it do you still believe that CSICOP is uncontroversial and has never, ever been involved in any controversies? Your attitude both to me and the subject at hand is one of censorship. Skepticism of the CSICOP variety has a long and distinguished pedigree going back to Democrites, but it is a philiosophical position and an ideology, not a scientific stance. Colin4C (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This section illustrates the kind of smart-alec, hall-monitor-laden exchanges that have come to strongly characterize the Wikipedia editing experience. 98.113.155.10 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ghosts in other popular media

Various computer and video games contain ghosts, one of the earliest of which is Pac-Man. Also, in various Sierra adventure games, especially King's Quest and Quest for Glory series, some of the games' storylines involve meeting with a ghost, good or evil. Quest for Glory IV: Shadows of Darkness also features a specific ghost, the Wraith--the ghost of a miserly man who won't give up his early possessions. (In other words, Wraiths are ghosts that jealously guard hordes of treasure). --D-Boy Wheeler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.59.182 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My notation was reverted but I am re-reverting it

Usually I don't have a problem with people reverting my edits, because they usually provide me with substantial reasons for the revert. However, for this revert the reasoning was only because it was "completely unneccessary and silly." However I disagree, because the article reads in context as though the editors hold the belief in the existence of ghosts. The article itself defines the subject of "ghosts" rather well, however it does not distinguish between "ghosts" as actual entities, or the belief in the entities. The context of my note at least provided the readers that the following article is discussing a "belief" in a subject, rather than the actual subject as a definitive fact. It may not necessarily need to be in a notation construct, but in my opinion the revert was uncalled for. I am re-reverting my notation, until I can figure out a way to provide it more fomulaically(sic) into the lead paragraph, or someone does so for me. Thanks. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I thought that is popularly held to be in the first sentence set the scene for the article as showing them as predominantly folkloric/fictional. These words (such as 'folklore') have been and probably hould be in the first sentence. I was not fond of the not myself and felt a better way is to flesh out the lede proper. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You were given a substantial reason for the revert: "we don't put notes at tops of article like that" (odd how you cut that part out when you posted above). Have you ever seen any other article that does that? No. That's not how things are done here. We don't put disclaimers like that at the front of articles, and if we ever did we wouldn't use a long winded paragraph with redundant information like that. DreamGuy (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

OK, incorporated more into lead like this. Apparition should be briefly mentioned in etymology section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Still worded awkwardly. I'll go fix. DreamGuy (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

--it is better, I just couldn't figure the proper place for my ideas... I also agree at the awkwardness...but I think the whole article deserves a "clean-up." Wolfpeaceful (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree - is a minefield and requires a good solid concerted effort..Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Err...o-kay...I didn't take 'fix' to mean hack at the lead with a chainsaw. I think we need some consensus on this which I will outline below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, when there's a lot of dead wood and dangerously pointy sticks in a lead cutting it up, removing bad parts and neatly stacking the salvageable bits is a good thing. We've discussed a lot of these problems above, especially with the awkward laundry list of related terms that serve no purpose other than to go off on tangents. I really should have fixed those long ago. DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Improve doesn't necessarily mean chop away. e.g. unlike vampire and many other predominantly mythological entities, there is a huge amount of effort gone into proving or disproving ghosts and it features fairly prominently in many discussions hence something (I feel is needed as a note in the lead)

eg To date, there is no solid empirical evidence of the existence of ghosts. - and adding on "despite numerous investigations to to find proof for over 150 years" or something similar.

I am adopting a consensus-based approach below (as I am not going to edit-war) to determine what should go in the lead as there would be consensus it was too small for the size of the article if it went to GA or FA at any stage. Thus, is there any point you want to make or add to the lead? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course "Improve doesn't necessarily mean chop away" -- not sure if that's just totally missing the point or a straw man argument -- but in this case it definitely did improve it. Adding complete tangents and poor writing to the lead just to up the word count is definitely not the way to improve the article.. DreamGuy (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on size and contents of the lead

Alright then, as per Wikipedia:Lead section, which suggests 3-4 paras for articles over 32kb (this is 40kb), so let's say conservatively 3 paras, and let's say (conservatively minimum of 4-5 sentences per para).

Currently as of this revision it has seven sentences.

Now, to get consensus on what should be in, we can discuss what should be added below and folks can discuss yea or nay regarding each segment: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the third and fourth sentences (which both seem a bit particular) could be wrapped together into a single 'related things' sentence, e.g. "Disembodied spirits have several varieties, depending on their appearance and behavior: Poltergeists primarily move objects, revenants haunt specific living people, and even spectral groups and objects - phantom armies, ghost ships and ghost trains, animals ghosts - have been reported." not great writing, sorry, but you get the drift. --Ludwigs2 03:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea as I felt poltergeists were notable enough for the lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

poltergeist mention

• A related concept is the poltergeist, literally a "rumbling ghost" said to manifest itself by moving and influencing objects.

Comment: Is poltergeist worth mentioning in lede? yes/no?

• Yes

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Given the popularity of the word in popular culture, yes. John Carter (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Some of the most well known ghosts, eg Drummer of Tedworth, have been "poltergeists". Poltergeists are traditionally thought of as "ghosts". The word "Poltergeist" is a term of art in parapsychology, not a scientific description of a completely seperate entity. Colin4C (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• No

1. A lead for an article doesn't go through and explain a laundry list of related terms, especially one with so many to choose from. That's what subsections or even just See alsos are for. If we were to single some out, poltergeist wouldn't be near the top of the list of candidates. DreamGuy (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree with DreamGuy. Duchess of Bathwick (talk · contribs) 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
3. No. Poltergeists are culturally important enough to deserve a prominent discussion in the article—especially since their own article is so horrible—but they don't need to be mentioned in the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Examples of cultural refs

• In literature, notable ghosts have appeared in works of Aeschylus in Classical Greece through Shakespeare, Dickens, Oscar Wilde and many others. Cinematic depictions have been diverse, and ranged from Casper the Friendly Ghost to Beetle Juice and Freddy Krueger, in comedy and children's genres as well as horror.

A sentence highlighting most notable ghosts at end - given examples I thought was important. yea or nay.

• Yes

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
2. I might add reference to Kwaidan: Stories and Studies of Strange Things or something similar, to demonstrate multicultural importance as well. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Duchess of Bathwick (talk · contribs) 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• No

1. Not in the lead... any intelligent reader will assume that there will be cultural references for any and every topic under the sun, and if that's their primary interest they can go see the subsection in the TOC. These particular examples are relatively minor in the grand scope of all things ghostly. And you should also specify here whether this vote is for end of the article or end of the lead? DreamGuy (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Assuming we're discussing end of lede, then no. There are too many notables to pick from; it's a slippery slope. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mention of discussion of proof of existence

• To date, there is no solid empirical scientific evidence to the existence of ghosts, however, there have been paranormal investigations, historical accounts, eye-witness reports etc as well as criticisms of each of those. The accuracy of such claims does not necessarily prove nor disprove the existence of ghosts, however. (i.e. bolded bit has been removed)

Important enough to have more than one sentence? Yea or nay.

• Yes

1. needs something on this as integral part of any discussion on ghosts. vide all the ghost-hunting programs, seances etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
2. I myself might put something on the alleged aspects of ghosts a bit earlier in the lead as well, although I'm not sure of how to phrase it. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Would need re-wording, but it is definitely needed as the existence of ghosts is a very big topic and debate point. Duchess of Bathwick (talk · contribs) 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes, with careful rewording. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• No

1. I'm saying heck no to the wording given above, as it's horribly clumsy. It's also POVy, in that "eye-witness reports" endorses that they were eye witnesses and not just confused/lying. Historical accounts, again as with cultural references, should be assumed about any topic or else we wouldn't have an article on it in the first place. "The accuracy of such claims" doe not "prove nor disprove" is just bad writing and a particularly standard debating technique of pro-paranormal believers: "Hey, even if all these reports are false, and the studies show no evidence, they MAY exist, so who are you to say they don't?" That's not appropriate for Wikipedia at all and has POV slants, along with the rest of all that. And "no solid empirical scientific evidence" is redundant and seems to be worded in such a way as to put so much disclaimer on the lack of science as to rule out what science has to say. Maybe a completely different way of saying it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible lead

As there seems to be some dispute about what the lead section should look like, how about we discuss some changes here before making them? Here's an idea to start off with.

Ghost is a term popularly used to describe the disembodied spirit or soul of a deceaased person. [1][2] They are most frequently described as appearing as insubstantial and partially transpaent, although they have been reported to appear in several other forms as well. They are often said to haunt particular locations with which they were associated in life or at the time of their deaths. Several different kinds of ghosts have been identified and described over the years. These include, in western countries, poltergeists, black dogs and other ghost animals, and chindi. Eastern countries have also reported several kinds, including acheri, Chinese ghosts, Chōchinobake, and others. 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. Ghosts have also been reported as being involved in phantom armies, ghost trains and phantom ships.[3][4]

A poll conducted in 2003 showed that more than half of adults in the United States believe in ghosts and/or demons.[5] There have been for a very long time, particularly the past century or so, several attempts to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts, none of which have been clearly successful. Despite all that effort, there is to date no solid empirical evidence of the existence of ghosts. There are also several popular ghost hunters and related people who have involved themselves in searching for evidence of ghosts in general or for particular specific ghosts.

Ghosts or similar paranormal entities regularly appear in film, theatre, and literature, legends and myths, and some religions.

Please feel free to change the above text, explaining your changes in comments below, until such time as a consensus is arrived at. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking something like 120 years (?), instead of "several years" - hasn't there been investigations since victorian times? (also emphasis the fact folks have been trying to prove this for a loooong time :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, text is adjusted to meet the details above. Also, I regret to say, I more or less pulled some of the names of the specific kinds of ghosts out of the hat. If there are any others which are more important, please feel free to let me know. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, you learn something new every day :) - ain't never heard of chindi...I have an idea on massaging the lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Empiricism

This bit in the intro is false or meaningless: "To date, there is no solid empirical evidence of the existence of ghosts." Empiricism means evidential proof by means of sight and sound, ie "seeing is believing" for which there is hyper-abundant material in respect of ghosts, in the literature. An empiricist is one who accepts the testimony of the senses rather than rejecting on some unproved "rationalistic" or pseudo-scientific grounds as per Randi the Magician and his cohorts and apologists. Colin4C (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you should have italicized solid rather than empirical, no? --dab (𒁳) 20:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there has been some evidence of a spirit or ghost because people have had hauntings in there houses or wherever they live so if i'm wrong tell me on my talk pg. (Twilight578 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

To understand 'Ghosts' perhaps it would be helpfull if we remember that we are talking of 'Perception'. One man can look at a stain on the wall and see the 'face of Jesus' in the shape. Another man will see nothing but a stain. One man will see a U.F.O., the man stood next to him will see nothing. A man may see a ghost, the people next to them will see nothing. While we cannot say the Ghost does exist, we must concede we cannot say it does 'not' exist. We cannot argue that Electro-magnatism does not exist when we see it make a automobile float in the air before our eyes. We cannot see, touch, smell or feel the Magnetic waves, but they are definitely there keeping the automobile floating before us. There have been, are and always will be, people who see 'Ghosts'. Whether the Ghosts are real, or just 'real' to the people who see them, we are unlikely ever to know for sure.Johnwrd (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A very stupid question but...

Can anyone tell me where the cliched idea that ghosts looked like people walking around with sheets over their heads came from? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.156.38 (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

this is in fact an interesting question, and the sort you could expect a Wikipedia article to answer. We'll just have to try and figure it out. My guess is that this is 20th century pop culture, starting out from pictures like this one. --dab (𒁳) 06:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

here is a discussion, with the plausible suggestion that the sheet represents the shroud in which the corpse was buried. It's also from the 19th century, as Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) apparently refers to the cliché,

...there were abundance of full-length portraits of the ghost, abundantly sworn and testified to, which, as is often the case with portraits, agreed with each other in no particular, except the common family peculiarity of the ghost tribe -- the wearing of a white sheet. The poor souls were not versed in ancient history, and did not know that Shakespeare had authenticated this costume, by telling how "...the sheeted dead did squeak and gibber in the streets of Rome" ... Be it as it may, we have private reasons for knowing that a tall figure in a white sheet did walk, at the most approved ghostly hours, around the Legree premises ...

it also traces the sheet to Shakespeare, and even to antiquity, but of course in Shakespeare's time ghosts looked like this, like a regular person wearing the sheet like a toga, not like this, a floating sheet with eye-holes. --dab (𒁳) 06:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the cartoonish ghost type begins to develop in the 1930s, with stuff like Lonesome Ghosts (1937) or Ghost Town Frolics (1938). Note how Disney's 1937 ghosts are not yet of the reduced "shroud with eye holes" type, they are still human figures wearing shrouds, or a sort of glowing overalls, but their "bodies" are themselves a bluish glowing type of ectoplasm, and this was probably simplified into the type familiar today in the history of cartoons since the 30s. --dab (𒁳) 08:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff - agree this is the sort of material which should be in the article...now to just find some sources...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a fascinating question and not stupid at all. Our current image of ghosts has undoubtedly been influenced by film and cartoon depictions, and the image people had in the 19th or 18th centuries was probably likewise influenced by stage depicitons. I did a little research and came up with Renaissance Clothing and the Materials of Memory, (2000), by Ann Jones and Peter Stallybrass, who discuss the development of ghostly garb on the Rennaissance stage. Depictions of stage ghosts during the Rennaissance had them dressed in the garb of the living and even in armor, as with the ghost of Hamlet’s father. Armor, being out-of-date by the Rennaissance, gave the stage ghost a sense of antiquity. But the sheeted ghost began to gain ground on stage in the 19th century because an armored ghost could not satisfactorily convey the requisite spookiness: it clanked and creaked, and had to be moved about by complicated pulley systems or elevators. These clanking ghosts being hoisted about the stage became objects of laughter as they became clichéd stage elements. Jones and Stallybrass point out, “In fact, it is as laughter increasingly threatens the Ghost that he starts to be staged not in armor but in some form of 'spirit drapery'.” An interesting observation by Jones and Stallybrass is that “...at the historical point at which ghosts themselves become increasingly implausible, at least to an educated elite, to believe in them at all it seems to be necessary to assert their immateriality, their invisibility. The drapery of ghosts must now, indeed, be as spiritual as the ghosts themselves. This is a striking departure both from the ghosts of the Rennaissance stage and from the Greek and Roman theatrical ghosts upon which that stage drew. The most prominent feature of Rennaissance ghosts is precisely their gross materiality. They appear to us conspicuously clothed.” Eastcote (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Eastcote, that is exactly the sort of material that would slot in nicely at the In modern culture and fiction section, subsection literature para 1. I think this sort of analysis improves these culture sections greatly. Can you slot it in? :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

very good, this is just the source we were looking for. In conclusion, the "sheeted ghost" is a product of the 19th century, and was turned into the simplified cartoon ghost icon (taken to the extreme, I suppose, in the ghosts in Pac-Man) in the 20th. But the sheet has a pedigree, it is derived from the shroud the corpse was buried in even in Shakespeare.

The question I have at this point would be, was ther, in Shakespeare's time, a difference between ghosts clothed as in life, e.g. in armour, and ghosts in sheets? The sheeted ghosts would be more like revenants, i.e. actual corpses returning from the grave, while "armoured" ghosts would be immaterial spectres of the deceased as he looked in life. But this would somewhat contradict the idea that the move towards sheeted ghosts was supposed to emphasize the immaterial or spectral nature of the appearance.

Regarding the outdated style of clothing suggesting antiquity, this is a very interesting point that should be discussed in greater detail. Note how the stereotypical leprechaun as well as some cartoon witches[2] as popularized by Disney etc. in the first half of the 20th century are clearly dressed in a way placing them in 1700-1750 in fashion (i.e. post-Shakespearean!). I think this suggests there is a standard notion of "antiquated" corresponding to "some 150 years ago", i.e. just within the reach of oral tradition (what my "grandfather said his grandfather told him"): Shakespeare's "ghosts in armour" hark back to the full plate armours of the 15th century, not high medieval armour, and plate armour to Shakespeare would have been just about as remote as 18th century garb was to Disney. Note how even Fuseli in his 1780s drawing observes the "150 years rule", depicting the ghost of Hamlet's father not in late medieval armour that would have seemed antiquated to Shakespeare, but in 17th century armour that would actually have been futuristic in Shakespeare's time. I don't know if the "150 years rule" can be extended to our times, but it would suggest that we should see the appearance of ghosts wearing Victorian fashion. --dab (𒁳) 07:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% comfortable with saying the 19th century is the origin of the "sheeted" ghost image. I've found references from c. 1600 to ghosts in "sheets" on stage, and obviously there is a connection between a burial winding-sheet and the sheeted ghost. And one writer states, "no figure was more familiar to the Elizabethan playgoer than that of the revenge-ghost whining forth his 'Vindicta' cries from underneath a white sheet". However, the same writer states "Shakespeare stripped the ghost of its 'foul sheet'...and arrayed it in the garb which it had worn before mortality had been put off". Most definitely it was in the 19th century that the sheeted ghost became THE dominant image in the popular imagination, but the image is older. I think it's interesting that the Disney-esque sheeted ghost (a bedsheet over the head with eye holes) seems to appear after the use of winding sheets ended in the Western world. Perhaps once folks started to be buried in their Sunday suits during the Victorian era, the reference to a winding-sheet became lost in popular culture and the only sheet that existed in the popular mind was the bedsheet. Certainly today our concept of the "classic" ghost is influenced by Victorian images. I don't think that's because Victorian fashion is "old". I think it's because much of our classic supernatural literature came from the Victorian/Edwardian eras. Bram Stoker, M.R. James, Le Fanu, all influenced the popular image of what is spooky in the popular mind. (However, many of James's ghosts seem to be rooted in the 1700s if I recall correctly). Eastcote (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

interesting points. We should indeed look for Roman era description of ghosts: as the Stowe quote above implies, Shakespeare's "...the sheeted dead did squeak and gibber in the streets of Rome" apparently has a foundation in "ancient history". I am also sure that there must be some academic literature discussing this question, we probably should just need to find that instead of trying to figure this out by ourselves. --dab (𒁳) 17:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

here I find an interesting title, already for its literature section, [3]

Andrew Joynes, Medieval Ghost Stories: An Anthology of Miracles, Marvels And Prodigies, Boydell Press, 2006 ISBN 9781843832690.

here I find a reference to a "ghost in a winding sheet, just as it might appear in art today" in medieval Spanish literature. This is in "cantiga 72" of some unknown work (lost to snippet preview), perhaps Cantigas de Santa Maria of Alfonso the Wise? --dab (𒁳) 17:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this guess was correct, I find the ghost, but I fail to identify a reference to a winding sheet in the passage in question, Seu padre, quand' est' oyu, de sa casa enton sayu; na via un morto viu ben d' i natural, Que lle disse atal razon: «Teu fillo, mui mal garçon, é mort' e en perdiçon, que nunca mais fal; .[4] --dab (𒁳) 17:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

More interesting stuff I googled (just dumping this here for the moment, for later use in the article),

• G. Bennet, Ghost and Witch in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (1986)[5]
• Maleger, in the Faerie Queene, "knits together medieval ghost-lore and classical myth. Both the captain in his winding sheet and his ragged, decomposing followers recall the fifteenth-century's fascination with macabre images of decomposing cadavres and dancing--or armed--skeletons.[6]
• "From [Seneca's] Thyestes and Agamemnon comes the Renaissance revenge ghost... [normally,] as in Seneca, it is the ghost who catalogues the horrors of the underworld, and the catalogues are themselves often intentionally Senecanesque."[7]
• "the ghost of a monarch calling on his kin to avenge his murder ... appears in Greek drama as early as the Oresteia of Aeschylus; Seneca used such phantoms frequently and violently; Italy, with its passion for vendetta, took the revengeful ghost from Seneca , and the English from them both.[8]

--dab (𒁳) 18:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of images, I think a good 17th century example is the "death portrait" of John Donne, [9], and the monument based on it[10]. While these aren't pictures of ghosts per se, it is this type of preparation of the dead that the concept of the sheeted ghost was based on. Eastcote (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be putting together quite a bit of information that can be ultimately woven into a coherent section of the article. Here's another reference that's worth a look. Ghosts in the Middle Ages: The Living and the Dead in Medieval Society.[11] Per the review, the book "examines medieval religious culture and the significance of the widespread belief in ghosts, revealing the ways in which the dead and the living related to each other during the middle ages. Including numerous color reproductions of ghosts and ghostly trappings, this book presents a unique and intriguing look at medieval culture." Eastcote (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have located and ordered a couple of books on the European social history of ghosts, that should shed more light on the evolution of the popular conception of their appearance. Once I digest those, I'll add something into the article. Eastcote (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ghosts in Music

I was thinking about adding a section under "In Modern Culture and Fiction" about "ghost songs". Before creating the new section I wanted to discuss it. There's a danger in adding a section like that because it will quickly become populated by every pop song since 1962 that obliquely mentions ghosts. My idea would be to limit the section to folk/traditional songs, such as The Unquiet Grave, Sweet William's Ghost, or The Wife of Usher's Well. What would the consensus be for setting a limit on what would be placed in this new section? Also I would change the main heading to "In Culture and the Arts" or something like that. Eastcote (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

perhaps we shouldn't structure this by "media type" but rather by period. The "popular culture" section can have subsections of, say, "Victorian", "Edwardian/WWI", "interbellum/WWII (1919-1945)", "post-WWII (1946-1989)" and "current-day (1990-present)", and notable songs could be mentioned in the pertinent section. It is true that pop culture sections always attract a lot of "cruft" on Wikipedia, but this can be exported in list form, as in List of ghost films. --dab (𒁳) 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That may work better than the separate media sections, and might serve to keep down the proliferation of modern pop culture influences. A short summary paragraph for each era with two or three examples of music, literature, art, etc. Perhaps eras similar to the History section: Antiquity, Medieval, Renaissance to Romanticism, Victorian/Edwardian, Modern. Eastcote (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As a guide, two articles I have worked on with alot of cultural material are lion and vampire. The key I think is making paragraphs and linking common themes so it works well as a body of work rather than a laundry list. Agree with dab that list of.. articles are a good place to transfer less notable examples. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've drafted a replacement for the existing "Modern Culture and Fiction" section, with era subsections as discussed above. I'm leaving 99 percent of the information, just moving it around a bit. Where there are references I've included them, and where there's no reference I didn't track one down. I'll make the replacement tomorrow after I tweak it some more. There will be scant information in some subsections (notably in "Medieval"), but that can be filled in as time goes on. Got what looks to be a good book in the mail today, "Appearances of the Dead", which is about how we have imagined ghosts to look since ancient days, and how that has changed over time. It should have some good info for the Medieval section. Eastcote (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made the replacement of a chronological "arts" section for the old section by medium. It's a start anyway. The dates for some of my time periods are semi-arbitrary but I think they work. I wasn't sure about how to split the "modern" era (since 1920), so I just went ahead and split it into "Modern" and "Post-Modern". Some might not agree with that terminology, but I just went with what popped into mind. Eastcote (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Post-modern ghosts, I love it (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the "arts" section should begin in the 19th century only. There is simply no point in distinguishing "art" from "real" here before the rise of Romanticism vs. Spiritism. Viz. the Renaissance, Medieval and Antiquity parts should just be merged into the main "history" section. --dab (𒁳) 16:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I would agree that Antiquity and Medieval could be merged into the history section. But I think there's enough of the arts from the Rennaissance/Romanticism (Shakespeare and balladry in the 16th/17th centuries, the rise of Gothic fiction in the 18th century) to justify keeping that as a subsection of the "arts". Eastcote (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah ok, the Renaissance (that is the English renaissance of the late 16th century, not the Italian one of the 14th, we also need to watch our Anglocentrism here) can be considered the cut-off for a useful distinction of arts vs. scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 17:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This all gets quite interesting. I see two parallel chronologies as it were, one (more "history") of more belief in ghosts as real entities, which includes frank mythology in antiquity and ghost-hunting and mediums later, and then more the folktales/art/fictional view. problem is I am sure the line is pretty blurred for much of the way. Then we have a By culture section which is a geographic and ethnic cross-section - however, much of it would presumably sit better somewhere between antiquity and middle ages (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering myself about the distinctions between/among the History, Culture and Arts sections. Also the typology section contains quite a bit that overlaps the other sections, mentioning ancient Egypt, the Bible, and 18th century poetry. Just throwing some questions out there: should typology be only the current state-of-the-art view of what a ghost is/looks like? should any "past" views of what a ghost is or isn't be in history? Lots of blurriness. Eastcote (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A query for dab above is what we do about Classical Greek plays that are clearly fiction/arts rather than belief. Clearly chronologically they sit better in an antiquity section, but they have alot to do with fictional depictions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some more shuffling

Given there are a few cooks, I thought placing ideas here before shuffling too much was a way to avoid spoiling the broth :)

• Near East and Mediterranean subsction --> to antiquity section preceding? (straightforward?)

• Actually the Asia and Pre-columbian americas maybe to go up there too (?)

• Para 1 of European folklore subsection --> middle ages maybe.

• Para 2 of European folklore subsection --> is more global - to go directly under history major heading (?)

I wouldn't move until others chime in. Anyway, just some thoughts. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My votes...

• Yes to "Near East/Mediterranean", although I think I'd delete the bit concerning Ishara (too conjectural, with "may be", plus she's a goddess and not a ghost, and it's unreferenced).
• Yes to "Pre-columbian".
• I think I'd just delete "Europe" as too general for the history section, and because it is/will be a repeat of much of the rest of the article. Things like haunted locations, revenants and Spiritualism are mentioned elsewhere.
• In "Asia", I'd delete the bit about Shaman spirit guides unless someone wants to write more than is there currently. The rest of "Asia" is not speaking about any period in the past, but about Asian cultural beliefs in general. I think it could go under "Typology", IF typology is supposed to reflect what people think ghosts are IN THE PRESENT DAY.

I guess that's what I was proposing about "Typology" above. That "Typology should be a synopsis (by culture maybe) of "These days people think ghosts are A". And in "History" we put "Once upon a time people thought ghosts were Z". Eastcote (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, good point about the Europe bit. Given it is a potted summary, then the other possibility is placing it in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the salient poiints in the article, and all points therein should be thus expanded elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'd move it to the lead. The existing lead already talks about "haunting particular locations". The synonym revenant, and the Spiritualist movement, are too specific (IMO anyway) for the lead, and are covered in "Terminology" and "History". Eastcote (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrative Question

I know I can probably find this elsewhere, but maybe someone can point me in the right direction or give me a link. I know how to "undo" single edits. Just hit the undo button and go for it. But how do I undo a whole series of edits, such as the recent Krishna edits, and restore an article to the way it was prior to the serial vandalism? I just don't have the Wiki-savvy to do that, and I have to wait for someone else to correct things. I figure it's time to learn to do it myself. Eastcote (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

See Help:Reverting. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal (Black mass (paranormal entity))

The Black Mass article is not notable in and of itself. I strongly suggest merging.Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge, non-notable. Vsmith (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Edit and merge into Ghost#Typology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It should certainly be merged with shadow people - ghost is entirely unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.29.43 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Any additional comments? So far I have 1 support and 1 oppose.Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Definite "Shadow people" merge, not ghost. Shadow people are described on that particular article as being "dark forms" which appear potentially as "shapeless masses," which basically defines the black mass article. 62.239.159.5 (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that Vsmith and I support merging to the Ghost article. (81.170.29.43 edits exactly the same articles as 62.239.159.5, so it is highly likely they are the same) - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the mysterious 81.170.29.43/62.239.159.5. Black mass seems to fit more closely with Shadow people. So "no" to merger with Ghost. The Ghost article relates to more traditional perceptions of "ghost". In reviewing both Black mass and Shadow people, I didn't see much that said these were specifically perceived as "ghost", although there was mention of "haunted houses". Are these both relatively recent concepts? They seem rather "pop", along the lines of "mothmen" and "mysterious unexplained surgical cattle mutilations". Eastcote (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that the only references in the Black mass (paranormal entity) article are Ghost TV shows and Ghost club websites, a merge to Ghost seems quite logical to me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the references in the Black mass (paranormal entity) article, I'm wondering if this is relevant information at all. Perhaps it should just be deleted rather than merging this dubious content with Ghost. There are five references.

• 1. A Youtube clip from a TV show. I don't think that is considered a reliable reference.
• 2. Another Youtube clip from the same TV show. Ditto.
• 3. A book, Castles of Glasgow and the Clyde, which I can't find, so I have no comment on it.
• 4. A website with a story published in 1929, "The Black Mass in Nun's walk". The website itself says the story is "incorrect", "ridiculous", the author of the story wrote ten years later that he himself did not believe it, and it was all really a case of mistaken identity: the "black mass" was the maid coming to call them to supper. Not a very supportive reference.
• 5. A website about a 2007 investigation of a fort, where it is stated one of the investigators "saw a black mass standing" in a room. This is a simple descriptive term, like someone would say "red coat" or "blue shoe", and doesn't indicate that something called a "Black Mass" is a recognized species of "paranormal entity".

Again, the information in the Black mass article appears dubious and is backed by several unreliable sources. I do not think such questionable info should be merged here. Eastcote (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, probably better as an AfD unless more reliable sources can be found. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

LuckyLouie's edit history shows a clear bias against black mass having anything to do with shadow people, although it's entirely logical. A dark shapeless mass is described on the shadow people article, which is what a black mass clearly is. Against his bias, I support a merge with shadow people, not ghost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.193.7 (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm biased in favor of articles that are reliably sourced. Finding none, I've nominated Black mass (paranormal entity) at AfD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Image

Hi, i'm not a real "editer" of wikipedia but do we really think that it is fair to use shakespere as the main picture 1) shakesphere wasn't the first person to describe ghosts 2) it doesn't fit my normal conception of ghosts and when I first saw it I though either KKK or I had the wrong article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.59.2 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Explaination

The scientific explaination section of this article is quite biased. I am not a ghost expert by any means, but I feel like there should be some mention of the "science" behind ghost hunting, and perhaps state what method these ghost hunters use to track spirits, and why or why not these methods are credible. --Lucius Sempronius Turpio (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article does link to the article on Ghost Hunting, where their "scientific" methods and equipment are discussed. I'm not sure we want to get into the debate over whether this is scientific, or not, on the "Ghost" page. That's my two cents on ghost hunting. As for scientific explanations regarding what ghosts are, or appear to be, or why people see them or believe in them, I think that is OK for this article, as long as they are properly referenced "real" science, and not fringe pseudo-science. Eastcote (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the supposed "scientific" stuff in this section is the product and propaganda of a self-styled "rationalistic" pressure group called "The Committee for Skeptical Enquiry" headed, not by a scientist, but a "ghost-busting" magician called Randy. It has been well documented that this group has a vested interest and prejudice in favour of skepticism as a philosophical position rather than unbiased scientific research. The magician Harry Houdini was a similar ghost buster of his day. Giving oneself the airs of a scientist does not make you one...Colin4C (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that it needs some scientific ideas for the acutal exsistence of ghosts, not just aganist it, such as the (limited and few) scientific theorys of why an afterlife MIGHT exist. isen't the [policy of wikipedioa to be unbiased? I underst6and that the theorys in questation can only be barely called scientfic. 68.222.134.159 (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of unsourced material.

I deleted the following, which has been tagged for quite some time as unsourced. If someone can find a reference to support it, please feel free to add it back in.

The fetch is "a notion widespread in shamanistic cultures."

Eastcote (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10