Talk:Ghost/Archive 6

Worldview tag

This article could use some re-org. Its "By Culture" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost#By_culture

should really organize the entire structure of the article. As it stands, the viewpoint of the article is heavily based upon European and Western beliefs. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, this article - Reincarnation - offers a better organizational structure. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear you about the article being heavy on Western European belief...but this is English language Wikipedia. Language, by its nature, has a cultural bias that is hard to get away from, and I'm OK with that. I think it is sufficient to mention other cultural concepts without having to give full and equal weight to all cultures. Eastcote (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Eastcote says it well. This is the English Wikipedia. Western European belief is the cultural normal on here.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 10:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Article: "A ghost has been defined as the disembodied spirit or soul of a deceased person,[1] although in popular usage the term refers only to the apparition of such a person.[2]"

Popular usage?

Oxford Dictionary of English:

--- start quote ---

ghost
noun
an apparition of a dead person which is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image: the building is haunted by the ghost of a monk | [AS MODIFIER] the Flying Dutchman is the most famous ghost ship.

a slight trace or vestige of something: she gave the ghost of a smile.

a faint secondary image produced by a fault in an optical system or on a cathode ray screen, e. g. by faulty television reception or internal reflection in a mirror or camera.

verb

1 [WITH OBJ. ] act as ghostwriter of (a work): his memoirs were smoothly ghosted by a journalist. 2 [NO OBJ. , WITH ADVERBIAL OF DIRECTION] glide smoothly and effortlessly: they ghosted up the river.

PHRASES the ghost in the machine Philosophy the mind viewed as distinct from the body (usually used in a derogatory fashion by critics of dualism). [coined by the philosopher Gilbert Ryle (1949).]

give up the ghost die. (of a machine) stop working.

look as if one has seen a ghost look very pale and shocked. not stand the ghost of a chance have no chance at all.

DERIVATIVES ghostlike adjective.

ORIGIN Old English gst (in the sense 'spirit, soul'), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch geest and German Geist. The gh- spelling occurs first in Caxton, probably influenced by Flemish gheest.

--- end quote --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.76.201.9 (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ghost ship links

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change Legends of [[ghost ship]]s have existed since to Legends of [[List of ghost ships|ghost ship]]s have existed since - Ghost ship is a dab page, see also Talk:List of ghost ships#Article organisation.

Please also change and [[List of ghost ships|phantom ships]] have also to and [[List of ghost ships|ghost ships]] have also - for accuracy/consistency. Phantom Ship & The Phantom Ship articles are about an island and a novel. Thanks. 92.1.93.82 (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to link to List of ghost ships twice, so I just removed the link to Ghost ship and kept it bare. When the article says "phantom ships" it isn't using capitals, hence it isn't referring to the island or novel but rather just trying to use another word instead of "ghost." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note 68

Note 68 doesn't seem to lead anywhere. A ghost link in fact....Can someone here fix it, as I'm not sure it backs up the text, as the person referred to in the body of article is not the same as the presumed author of the article, unless the latter is referring to the opinions of the former.... Colin4C (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

confused by a revert

I'm confused by this revert. If in fact the authors in question self-admitedly do not engage in scientific analysis, than either that fact needs to be included, of the reference to the National Science Foundation endorsement needs to be removed. Otherwise the article is giving the impression that the opinion is in fact a scientific position when it is demonstrably not. how do we balance that properly? --Ludwigs2 19:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That edit has nothing to do with this article, hence removed. Verbal chat 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

then you won't mind my balancing the paragraph so that it doesn't seem like a scientific position is being offered? --Ludwigs2 20:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please propose your edit for discussion, with WP:RS. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

sure, that's simple enough. how about "Ghosts, hauntings, and related paranormal concepts have been characterized as pseudoscientific by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, an advocacy group founded by scientists under the auspices of the National Science Foundation" using the same source. Please note that the link you provided has little to do with science or scientific investigation directly: it is a section of a chapter about public attitudes towards science dealing with media stereotypes and public beliefs, in a government-mandated publication whose aim is to provide "a broad base of quantitative information about U.S. science, engineering, and technology for use by public and private policymakers." As such it is clearly advocating for political action, and shouldn't be confused with an unbiased source on the material. The NSF has not endorsed the CSI or its message in this section in any scientific way, it has offered the CSI as one means of solving a social problem. --Ludwigs2 03:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled by POV pushing revert also. Just to add that the stalwarts of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry are mostly not scientists. Their main man Randi, is a magician with no scientific training. Mr Nickell is a part time magician also, though he has a doctorate...in folklore...By contrast the passage which was deleted was by written by a scientist. Wikipedia says that we shall be NPOV and we shall obey them. Colin4C (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The notion that ghosts and haunted houses actually exist are WP:FRINGE fringe concepts that the article need not be "neutral" about. WP:WEIGHT needs to be given to the mainstream view, for which the NSF reports are an excellent source to identify what scientists consider to be pseudoscientific concepts. I don't see any reliable evidence that either CSI or NSF are unqualified, irrelevant, or politically-motivated groups, but you may want to take that issue to WP:RSN, WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN for a broader airing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Louie, you've the point entirely. no one is trying to question the true nature of ghosts, here; we are debating a prima facia misrepresentation of the CSI as being far more scientific than it actually is. Please read the actual change I suggested, so that you can see how off-topic your comments above actually are. --Ludwigs2 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The CSI involves scientists and there is no misrepresentation of CSI here (apart from the attacks by Colin above). The text colin is adding is an offtopic attack on the CSI - which is not for this page. Colin's accusation of POV pushing is also a personal attack, especially when it is he pushing for fringe edits. CSI and NSF are both RS for fringe topics. I would also add that a doctorate in folklaw is perfect for "ghosts", and Randi has been employed by Nature in the past to help with it's scientific investigations and is a world-renowned expert on pseudoscience and "supernatural"/"preternatural" phenomena. Colin, please note WP:BLP applies to talk page comments. Per WP:COATRACK, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE, Colin's addition is unacceptable. The misrepresentation comes from minimising the CSI and the scientific mainstream consensus. Verbal chat 17:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

None of that has any bearing on the change I suggested above. I think I'll go and edit it in just to break the mood here and refocus the conversation. --Ludwigs2 17:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It is on topic, it is a response to Colin's edits, accusations, and comments. If you wan to make a subsection on your proposal feel free. Please be WP:CIVIL. Verbal chat 17:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been being civil, I have made a suggestion on this point, and I'd really prefer not to see any further inflammatory remarks by anyone involved. I am not going to create a separate section just so that people can use this section to continue throwing spitballs at each other. let's refocus on the actual content and drop the scattergun approach, please. --Ludwigs2 17:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Then please desist. Thank you. Verbal chat 17:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, I will take that non-responsive answer as a sign that you have no objections to the change I proposed. would anyone else care to comment? --Ludwigs2 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to say that I support your edit, apart from the bit which says that the CSI was "founded by scientists", which is not true, it was founded by a positivist philosopher called Paul Kurtz. I am not going to be drawn into the mudwrestling. More generally the section needs a bit of logic. It is ambiguous whether the denial of ghosts by the skeptics is a denial of the ontological status of ghosts (spirits of the dead? a stone tape?) or a denial that lots of people throughout history have seen strange apparitions. Colin4C (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

well, the proper skeptic perspective is usually pretty straight-forward - e.g. there is no theory accounting for the existence of ghosts that has any properly scientific evidence supporting it, and thus no credible reason to believe in the existence of ghosts. I don't disagree with that perspective, and I suspect that most scientists wouldn't either; I just get tired of people trying to milk it for more than its worth. As far as I can tell, the CSI is an advocacy group for proper scientific understanding, which is a good thing. but trying to elevate them to spokespeople for the entire realm of science is a bit absurd, in a peculiarly 'holier-than-thou' way. science speaks well enough for itself, IMO. --Ludwigs2 19:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The philosophical issues are extremely complex and disputed, which is why I wanted to get down to brass tacks by stating things which can be proved to be true. I.e. whether the CSI conduct scientific experiments (no) or whether they were founded by scientists (no). Give the facts then the readers of the wikipedia can make up their own minds what to believe. Colin4C (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As for Verbal and Louie I urge them to follow this wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which states that "Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". Colin4C (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate place for your edit, if editors there agree, is the CSI article and not this one. Please stop trying to insert your biased text that is irrelevant to this article. Verbal chat 08:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the insertion is to insinuate that the CSI is not representative of scientific opinion. In fact, it represents the views of most scientists quite well. Very few scientists consider paranormal topics still worth investigating. The fact that the organisation is run by administrators and science writers rather than working scientists is unsurprising, and the idea that this renders it illegitimate is silly. For this reason the insertion is misleading. Xanthoxyl ^< 14:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

where exactly are you getting that? I'm not trying to 'insinuate' anything, and certainly not trying to suggest that CSI doesn't represent the views of scientist. --Ludwigs2 16:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added the "endorsed by the National Science Foundation" edit. My use of the word "endorsed" was to indicate that the reference itself was from the NSF using CSI research to show the prevalence of "pseudoscientific" belief. If they use it, goes the logic, they endorse it. The NSF certainly shares the position that such beliefs are pseudoscientific. However, Ludwigs proposed edit, "Ghosts, hauntings, and related paranormal concepts have been characterized as pseudoscientific by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, an advocacy group founded by scientists under the auspices of the National Science Foundation", looks OK to me. It is perhaps better than my original wording, if CSI was in fact founded under the auspices of the NSF. I believe the "founded by scientists" part to be accurate. All of the founders were not scientists, but scientists were well-represented among the founders. However, having said that, my other two cents is that this is not a forum to discuss CSI. They and the NSF are sufficiently credible to be quoted here. Whether or not they have an agenda, are legitimate, or are themselves "fringe" should be discussed on the CSI talk page. Eastcote (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My remarks were about the new paragraph which Colin4C has tried several times to add, and the subsequent edit war which prompted the page protection. Xanthoxyl ^< 00:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is on public record that CSI was founded by a positivist philospher called Paul Kurtz. He was not and is not a scientist. That is a fact. Positivism is an old 19th century philosophy, which went into steep decline in the early years of the 20th century, when scientists like Mach put forward a more sophisticated theory of reality and you had the rise of quantum theory. Some people like Kurtz still believe in the old positivist stuff. Good luck to him, but it is not the mainstream endorsed philosophy of science. Most scientists avoid such philosophising, and those that don't, do not all endorse one particular strand of philosophy. Colin4C (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

After Kurtz founded CSI he was joined by Martin Gardner (mathemetician), Ray Hyman (psychologist), James Randi (magician), and Marcello Truzzi (sociologist). Truzzi, however, was later purged from the CSI, for not toeing the party the line. Truzzi dubbed his former colleagues' position as Pseudoskepticism. These are all facts on historical record. Colin4C (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The list of CSI fellows includes many working scientists (including Nobel laureates). Kurtz is a naturalist philosopher, and the scientific skepticism which he espouses is widely shared by scientists. You are citing facts selectively in order to imply that the CSI's views are unrepresentative. If you believe that the CSI is not a reliable source, then please find a reliable source which will inform the reader of the undeniable fact that the majority of the scientific community does not consider reports of ghosts and hauntings to be plausible enough to be worth serious investigation, and has held this view for centuries. Xanthoxyl ^< 15:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Colin: without explicitly disagreeing with the facts you present (and don't even get me started on Martin Gardner, who is the only person in the world I feel I can reasonably call a 'meddlesome mathematician'), please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Skepticism is actually a decent philosophy, done well, and the issue of whether the CSI had some sketchy founders is largely irrelevant to their current purpose and mission. To my mind, the problem lies where people (be they wikipedia editors or real-world scholars) step over the line from declaiming a lack of evidence to proclaiming a lack of existence. So, a proper skeptical perspective says "there is no scientific theory or evidence to suggest that ghosts are anything more than a cultural construct of some sort" and asks people who believe in ghosts to consider the matter form a rational, scientific perspective. An improper skeptical perspective says "There are no such things as ghosts; science has proved it" and tells people that they are stupid for believing such nonsense. When you start taking poorly-aimed potshots at skepticism as a whole, you'll hit the first version as often as you hit the second, and you'll put off reasonable, clear-thinking people who might otherwise agree with you. You'll do a lot better (here and everywhere) to acknowledge reasonableness where you find it, and to avoid reaching for political ad hominems as a form of argument. just my 2¢, of course, and I don't want to rain on your picnic, but consider it please. --Ludwigs2 18:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have considered it, which is why I tried to restrict myself to the facts about who and what the CSI is. That matter is capable of investigation. Ghosts are a more difficult area of investigation, and, as you suggest, I don't think the matter should be dismissed in a glib one-liner. Anyway, I hope we can discuss all this without rancour. Colin4C (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the original revert. This is the Ghost article. If people want to discuss the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in any detail, let them do that at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry article.

That said, the entire "scientific explanations" section remains deeply flawed, and probably belongs compressed into a very brief paragraph under #Modern_period. This section has been tagged for cleanup for ages, and if it isn't going to make any progress soon, drastic measures will be called for, as we cannot have the article held hostage by such a marginal item. --dab (𒁳) 19:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the page to get unlocked so that I can begin some largish revisions. Is there a normal practice for requesting unprotection, or do we just wait until it happens? --Ludwigs2 19:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you can be fairly certain that those revisions will be contested, it would be best to propose them here first and let them get discussed and hammered into a consensus version. We don't need anymore edit wars. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

eh, no. You will learn to respect me as an editor or you won't, but I'm not about to start acting as though I need your approval to edit wikipedia. If you feel the need to revert me, so be it, but I trust that you will be thinking about what's correct for the encyclopedia, and not migrating your personal dispute with me across a range of pages. --Ludwigs2 06:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't take it personally. What I wrote applies to anyone. Potentially controversial edits should be attempted on the talk page first. Of course, if you will respect the BRD cycle this time, then go ahead and be BOLD. If someone Reverts you, then you will have to Discuss, without editing the article at the same time. We have seen you do that before, and it didn't give you any good result. Instead it created a huge edit war. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

of-topic material archived
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
lol - the irony. . If you revert me, no worries, I'll discuss the matter as I always do. this time you'd better be prepared to do the same yourself. --Ludwigs2 15:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Stop the deviousness. No one has disputed that you'll discuss. Your problem was that you continued to make repeated controversial edits while they were being discussed in a BRD situation. You had it repeatedly explained to you that you should stop editing and stick to discussing until a consensus could be achieved. You refused and continued to force your controversial edits on the article against the advice of several editors. That's classic edit warring. Don't try to make it sound like I did something wrong when I repeatedly tried to get you to stop doing it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

guys, if you can agree to respect WP:BRD and don't act as it it's "either my version or your version" (it is actually a matter of combining the best from either proposal into an ever more refined revision), I can unprotect this immediately. The current "scientific" section is so bad that there is no need to "protect" it from anything. --dab (𒁳) 10:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

note that if one editor starts making unilateral changes, we let them run into WP:3RR. If an edit war between two or more editor resumes, the page will need to be re-protected. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to abide by BRD, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. Ludwigs2 has a history of not respecting it and recently engaged in a protracted edit war with a number of editors at the Alternative medicine article. It all ended up here. (I still haven't gotten any indication of any kind that they understand or respect that BRD means one doesn't edit at the same time.) I wish to prevent that, so, considering Ludwigs2's history, the option of 3RR is unacceptable. I think that their history would dictate that they should abide by BRD. If they didn't have such a history, the normal 3RR would apply, but that's not a good option in this case. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left a warning on Brangifer's page about his personal attacks against me. I suggest we ignore it and move on with the discussion; if he continues and it becomes disruptive, I'll take it up with the admins. --Ludwigs2 16:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And I have replied. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be back on track. The section is fair enough for what it is, but I am unhappy with it in this article. The problem is, we have a rather nice article on ghosts in anthropology, folklore, history, art, and then we conclude with a section on childish "paranormal" pseudoscience. It destroys the flow. I think this material is misplaced here, it should either grow into a standalone article, or be merged Paranormal#Ghosts_and_other_spiritual_entities. People who think ghosts are "paranormal" and should be explained by magnetism and what have you have not understood the concept, and they would do well to read the remainder of the article attentively.

This is just my opinion. The "paranormal" material is a burden on an otherwise nice article, and it needs to be constrained to a minimum. --dab (𒁳) 22:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I'm willing to take a stab at revising it. I've been hesitating because I don't want to stir up controversy (which I suspect will happen if I touch that section), but I guess there's no way of knowing until I try. give me a bit. --Ludwigs2 23:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

sure, there is no deadline. The article can stand as is for a while, the pseudoscience stuff is not the only thing on the to do list, see the other cleanup templates. Now might be a good time to check how other tertiary sources treat the topic.

What we definitely need is more coverage on serious psychological research. Unlike the "paranormal" stuff, these have actual explanatory power and can be respectable.

I am not sure about the "globalize" tag. The "by culture" section already tries too hard to be "global", and adding further bits and pieces on tribal mythologies from Africa, Central Asia, South America, etc. will just lead to an unstructured heap of trivia. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed improvements

The following section is currently tagged and needs improvement:

• Scientific explanations

I would like to make the following changes:

1. It covers different subjects which are blended and therefore needs to be divided. I'd like to place a section heading in the middle of it as shown below in bold caps.

2. The "new" second section needs more sourcing with accompanied tweaks.

3. The Weinstein, Todd, and Nickell quotes will be moved to the first section, thus gathering like with like.

4. The LEAD will need to mention these sections in an appropriate manner, and the word "pseudoscience" should be used. I'll let others propose such wordings.

I will identify my additions in bold italics.

Please do NOT edit this. There is a section for comments go to the workpage linked below. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Ghost/Workpage for the revision under development.

Introduction

The long-standing lead-section introduction was "A ghost has been defined as the disembodied spirit or soul of a deceased person, although in popular usage the term refers only to the apparition of such a person". This is clearly less than elegant. Currently, we seem to be trying out "In $FIELD, a ghost is the disembodied spirit or soul of a deceased person that can reveal itself in a number of different ways to the living." But just what is this "field"? Mythology? Folklore? Folk religion? "Traditional belief"? Popular culture? Art and Drama? The fact is that all of the above apply. The level of existence of the idea of ghosts is much deeper, at what you might call the proto-Sapiens subconscious, and hence it is reflected into all aspects of human culture. Thus, we might as well say, "in human culture", or better yet, "in the human condition". This is silly, of course, and I would suggest to drop the "in $FIELD" part altogether. A ghost is the disembodied spirit or soul of a deceased person that can reveal itself to the living. Whether and in way such a thing exists, and what is its ontological status is another question, but that's what a ghost is.

OED:

"[a ghost is t]he soul of a deceased person, spoken of as appearing in a visible form, or otherwise manifesting its presence, to the living."

EB:

"[a ghost is the] soul or spectre of a dead person, usually believed to inhabit the netherworld and to be capable of returning in some form to the world of the living."

combining these two remarkably parallel encyclopedic definitions, "a ghost is the soul or spectre of a deceased person, taken to be capable of appearing in visible form or otherwise manifesting itself to the living."

--dab (𒁳) 12:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

well, the $FIELD variable is misnamed, it should be $CONTEXT; this isn't about academic descriptions. 'Mythology' worked for me, 'popular culture' might be better, but I'm open to rewording suggestions. The main problem here is pragmatic, having to do with misleading constructions. For example, the statement "The ravenous bug-bladder beast is the stupidest animal in the known universe" is factually true within the context of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but factually unsupportable as a plain statement. Most people with common sense can make that distinction on their own, of course, but wikipedia doesn't generally cater to the 'common sense' crowd. You could try removing the qualifying phrase entirely (I won't object, but I think it will cause strife), or we could go for something like "Ghosts are entities of myth and legend that...'. what would you prefer? --Ludwigs2 14:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

fine, $CONTEXT. The point is that a ghost is a ghost in all sorts of contexts, including but not limited to mythology and popular culture. Unlike the ravenous bug-bladder beast, which must indeed be discussed in context, "ghost" is a common English word with definitions in each English dictionary and applicable in all contexts.

yes, strictly speaking the English noun ghost has even wider application, OED counts 13 entries. But this is about item 8, "now the prevailing sense" of the word.

because I have just cited one notable dictionary definition and one notable encyclopedia entry which can both do without the "in $CONTEXT", I submit that Wikipedia can do the same. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have stumbled upon some impressive revising of this article. However, I have just one quibble at the moment: I would not equate "ghost" to "soul". As explained throughout Soul#Philosophical views, ever since Socrates, soul has had strong connections, not so much to apparitions of the dead, but rather to the living psyche ("psukhē" is often translated as "soul"). Soul therefore is, by definition, a psychological entity which is (to a debatable extent) undermined by the death of a psychologically coherent being. "Spirit" most definitely would be a better choice; it is, in fact, used interchangeably with the word "ghost" to denote an apparitional entity. I would go a step further and call a ghost a "disembodied spirit", because even though living, corporeal people are said to have "spiritual" experiences, they are not said to possess "ghosts" which benefit from such experiences. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point. the argument I'd make in favor of some reference to soul is that there is a distinct (if backhanded) relationship in Christian theosophy: as mentioned, ghosts are often thought of as damned souls. however, I'll be satisfied so long as some reference to it is left - feel free to revise it as you see fit. --Ludwigs2 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand you mean theology, not actual theosophy? It is true that "soul" is much more of a culturally coloured concept than the generic "ghost", and it is unsatisfactory to define the later in terms of the former. This is, I imagine, why EB says "soul or spectre", but then we have no spectre article to link to, and "a ghost is a spectre" is somewhat tautological.

Fwiiw, the OED has as the meaning of "soul":

"The principle of thought and action in man, commonly regarded as an entity distinct from the body; the spiritual part of man in contrast to the purely physical. ... Freq. in connexion with, or in contrast to, body."

this is what we intend here. The spiritual part of man, or principle of thought or action, as opposed to the body. Christian theology has nothing to do with that. I suggest we say "soul or spirit". --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I did mean theosophy, but I was using it in a more general sense; not a big issue. I'm ok with whatever you guys do on this - the point doesn't need much in the way of arguing.

"Soul or spirit" sounds decently complementary to me. On further thought, I agree that something would indeed be missing if "ghost" were equated to "spirit" alone (e.g., physical haunting doesn't quite smack of "spiritual" transcendence). I'll go ahead and make the change. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"soul": "The principle of thought and action in man". "spirit": "The animating or vital principle in man". Doesn't sound all that complementary to me, although I can see the focus is slightly different. --dab (𒁳) 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Question about the word 'opaque' - is that really what we're after? I'd have chosen something like 'substantial' instead, I think. --Ludwigs2 17:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

that part is the remaining least elegant of the lead. Opacity (optics) is intended, but it should be put in other terms. "Substantial" doesn't do it because the idea isn't that you can touch the apparition, just that it looks (optically) exactly like the real thing. Not sure this belongs in the intro in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 18:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How about something like, "and to figures that seem sufficiently formed [or 'solid', 'corporeal', etc.] to be mistaken for the living"? Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this would need to be discussed (and referenced) under Ghost#Common_attributes. But we will also need to rethink the current toc. The article isn't bad at all, but it is by no means finished. I think we need to look at its overall structure and possible sub-articles at this point. --dab (𒁳) 19:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article structure

giving this more thought, I believe the way forward is to divide the article along the lines of folklore and mythology, magic and religion, art and popular culture, anthropology and psychology, spiritism and pseudoscience. Giving perhaps five h2 sections, as follows,

• folklore and mythology, with subsections on both historical civilizations (Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, etc. as well as cultures the world over, Chinese, Aztec, Japanese, Central Asian, African, etc.)
• magic and religion, should address theological points as held by major religions, and scientific approaches to necromancy as current in both Late Antiquity and the Renaissance. These topics are closely related, as Christian theology reacts to the practices of necromancy and vice versa
• art and popular culture, ordered historically as in the current revision
• anthropology and psychology, covering scholarship on the human ethological and/or subconscious mechanisms associated with the topic
• spiritism and pseudoscience, attempts of the 19th and 20th century to cast the topic of ghosts in terms of the scientific method, includes ectoplasm, spirit photography, geomagnetism, infrasound, etc.

--dab (𒁳) 19:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)