Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Mystery Missile

This recently happened: November 9th, 2010 Southern California Missile Launch. It's fair to say that the incident is comparable to the 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly, right?--DrWho42 (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that it's comparable yet. There are some similarities but seeing as it's only been a day I don't think we can say that it's as controversial or notable yet. That doesn't mean it won't be though! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouija Board Criticism

I'm trying to make this at the very least a decent merge. Anyone who could lend a hand would be showered in barnstars and kittens. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Great Backlog Drive

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time travel urban legends

All input welcome. For the record I think this article should be called Reports of suspected time travel or List of alleged time travel incidents walk victor falk talk 04:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Any editors still around?

I am in need of assistance from some people here on this project. Please write on my talk page if you have some spare time to help me with an article.«Golgofrinchian» ∞talk∞ 02:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This whole project is pretty moribund tbh. care to join? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Tarot Cards

I will shortly be merging the tarot cards into their suits and I am trying to contact the interested parties for comment.Tetron76 (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Tokyo Sky Tree in 19th century art

According to Mainichi Shimbun, a structure resembling Japan's Tokyo Sky Tree shows up in Utagawa Kuniyoshi's woodblock print "Toto Mitsumata no Zu". Definitely an out-of-place artifact to say the least.--DrWho42 (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Paranormal places merger

Proposed merge of Category:Reportedly haunted locations into Category:Paranormal places. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_24#Category:Reportedly_haunted_locations.

Also see previous related discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_4#Category:Paranormal_places and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_30#Category:Haunted_houses.

Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 21:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

The Hope Diamond, an article within the scope of this project, has been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can vote for this or other articles article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Paranormal portal

Why does Portal:Paranormal redirect to Portal:Occult? It's been redirected since 2007, but I really think it should be revived (or simply deleted?). The two topics are not the same. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Roswell UFO Festival

Roswell UFO Festival is currently a redirect to Roswell UFO incident, which is sad since the festival is likely notable. I ran across the fact accidentally when doing some maintenance on List of festivals in the United States. I quick look on Google shows lots of primary but good quality links, and lord knows that there has probably been plenty of coverage in newspapers on the event. This is well out of my area of expertise (although I would enjoy reading the article) so I figured it would best be to drop a line here, and perhaps someone in the project could start the article in a sandbox and get working on one. I would be happy to assist on the article, but I wouldn't be the right person to take the lead in creating it. If you do start it, drop me a line on my talk page and I will start chasing quality sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding biographies

Being unfamiliar with the scope of this Project and missing any obvious mention of scope relating to this, I thought it best to drop this note here. I've just added bios of Derek Acorah and Ciarán O'Keeffe to the Project. There seem to be some bios already included and these 2 seem to be relevant candidates. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion

There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Simon Turnbull

This article would benefit from the help of some experienced editors. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN about Robert Almeder

There is a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about whether an article on reincarnation by Robert Almeder, professor emeritus of philosophy at Georgia State University, is a reliable source for the article on Ian Stevenson (1918–2007). Several editors have objected to it because Almeder published it in Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal that deals with anomalies (fringe issues). Uninvolved input would be very helpful. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Almeder. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dark Waves and Ethereal Waves

I've noticed these terms used in metaphysics and alternative physics, so I thought I'd inform you of issues concerning these terms: talk:Dark Wave and talk:Ethereal Wave -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ingo Swann - date of death

Hallo! I live in Poland and I'm pl-wiki editor. How do you know that Ingo Swann died 31 January? I saw 1 link in which date of death is 31 January ([1]). In others it's 1 February, for example: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Which date of death is correct and why? Mariusz Swornóg (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Gary Hodson files up for deletion

-- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

More than 2000 articles do. I suppose that many of the links are inappropriate. For instance, "magical" creatures of mythology and fantasy fiction are not generally magic (paranormal) and that main article is not often a helpful target.

This weekend I visited all 150+ articles that link Magic (paranormal) via WP:REDIRECTs and revised most of them to link some article directly, most often magic (paranormal) or magic in fiction. Then I changed several of the redirect targets. See Talk: Magic (paranormal)#Previous redirects to this page.

Ritual magic is the only redirect to magic (paranormal) now used by more than one or two articles.[6]

I do not plan to visit the 2000 direct links. --P64 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge WikiProject Parapsychology

Considering that I am the only one left in WP:PSI, and that this project seems to cover parapsychology anyways, I think it should be merged into this project.-- Lee Tru. 17:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Personally I was thinking there are lots of related wikiprojects that aren't particularly active that could all be merged together. Wikiprojects: Astrology, Paranormal, Alternative views and Skepticism. There are probably others as well. I wonder if there is some tool that could merge the wikiproject article templates and remove redundant entries for the parapsychology one? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed to merge this wikiproject and 12 others to a new wikiproject. Please see the proposal. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Conscientiology

This journal is at AFD and the discussion could use the input of some more knowledgeable editors. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Draugr, recently moved to Draug, should be moved back. The discussion may be found at Talk:Draug#New requested move discussion: return article to Draugr. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Poor quality of articles from archaeosophical topics

When I was at Guardian of the Threshold I noticed a lot of uncited content and a lot of material giving heavy weight to archaeosophy - which appears to be a branch of Italian esotericism from the early 20th century. I've got some WP:DUE concerns regarding this area of Wikipedia. I'll be sorting through a bunch of it shortly to see how much of it is a walled garden and working on adjusting the WP:NPOV balance slightly. I'll be notifying a few different noticeboards about this in case anybody wants to lend a hand / rein me in; as it is a Wikiproject Paranormal article I'm notifying you first. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BERTHOLD E. SCHWARZ, MD

Dear paranormal experts: This old Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable person, and should the article be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ghostly vessels and real derelicts

See categorization proposal here.Alekksandr (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Subproject talk pages

Just for purposes of centralization, it might make sense to have the talk pages of the various child WikiProject talk pages redirect to this one. One centralized location for comments might get more attention than a number of more specific locations. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Paranormal At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Needs more ghost

This project looks a bit dead but I'm sure it's not. Surely there are Wikipedians who are interested in the paranormal, roaming around editing things but they just don't show up here.

I'm planning an overhaul of the main project page, since the current one is outdated, and redundant in some places and lacking in others -- I just don't know where to start so I've decided to work on it in a sandbox til I'm done. I'm looking to organize the content first and then later decide how to style it, so for now it's all in one column.

I've also created a new subpage here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Recognized content. User:JL-Bot should create the content there in the near future (if I got it right). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

We're here. I've been finding it difficult to find others as well. Having a small task force to help save articles that show up here, when appropriate, would also be great. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Project members should put that page on their watchlist! Also anyone can start a discussion thread here if they feel an article needs urgent attention. The Orb of Light article is at AfD now but I don't feel like it's worth saving... — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Questionable pages

We have three outdated to-do lists, as if one wasn't enough:

— Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And a fourth one, also of the bot: Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/To do list short. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Urbanlegend

We should probably get rid of that. It's an old template and not in use, for good reason. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I went and nominated it for deletion, please !vote here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_6#Template:Urbanlegend. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The {{Blackproject}} template looks similar and it's equally old, but it's meant for talkspace use and it's currently in use on (less than 50) pages, also it's more in the area of WikiProject Military history than ours. I think I'll just... leave them a comment and hope they think about if the template is still needed and proper. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

or maybe not. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

New articles

We should probably keep a list of new articles. The newest one right now seems to be Charlie Charlie Challenge (created by User:Yunshui on 28 May) and it's rather amusing. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, because that sounds fun - how would we go about that? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Complete overhaul of UFOs

So any look at a UFO article (like Ufology, or anything like Project Sign), comes up with articles that can only be described as poor. There's a whole bunch to say about it though, and I think with some heavy focus we can actually get it up to scratch. I've started (and just) doing the beginnings of an article on the US government response to UFOs - because the CIA, the FBI, at least 3 presidents, and senators have all at one time or another spent massive amounts of money/time on the phenomena.

It's just throwing words at a page, but I've got books available and I'm going to dive in. Any help would be appreciated! (Trying to break what's already written into sections here in a completely nonsensical manner). PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been eyeing the UFO articles too but I won't promise anything. I borrowed a book about UFO sightings/abductions from my library but I had it so long that I had to take it back, without having used it in articles, but then I borrowed another one, The World's Greatest Alien Abduction Mysteries, which I have now. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Just got this. It's a thing of beauty. So much to digitise. Original patents for UFO models and everything! And FOIs and government maps and lists of cases on Project Blue Book. I may be in heaven. It would be great if we could collaborate on this stuff. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Paranormal

Category:Paranormal had been in the Category:Pseudoscience since an IP moved it there in 2013, but I moved it back to its parent category Category:Fringe theory, since "Paranormal" in total doesn't aspire to be a "science", it's just a collection of unexplainable and weird things or weird theories about unexplainable things... — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Fringe theory" isn't quite right. Pseudoscience is a better umbrella term. Yes, there are paranormal topics which are not pseudoscientific, but the general proposal that there exist paranormal as opposed to normal phenomena is essentially a pseudoscientific one as it rests on an empirically unverified claim. jps (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Ehhhhhh. I think "Fringe theory" is the better umbrella term for that kind of thing. Claims like "I believe I saw a ghost" or "I believe this person has psychic powers" are not pseudoscientific in nature. Most paranormal claims are like "this might be real, even though I can't explain it". Think of why we don't call spirituality a pseudoscience (until it crosses the line into attempting to 'explain' beliefs in sciency-sounding ways). I don't think I see the problem with categorizing it under Fringe theories. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"Paranormal" claims differ from ghost stories or miracle tales in the sense that they are explicitly referring to ideas that people accept as empirically real. There is no one who accepts the "paranormal claim" identifier who thinks that what they are describing doesn't have an empirical basis. This is in contrast to many spiritual or supernatural claims which are occasionally claimed to be *unobservable*. The problem with categorizing it under fringe theories is that there doesn't seem to be any space in the Venn Diagram that includes a paranormal claim that is a fringe theory which is not pseudoscientific. If you can identify such a claim (note that ghost stories, for example, are not properly "fringe theories"), please let me know. jps (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Ghost stories are not properly fringe theories (if you say so) but they're not properly pseudoscience either. I'm confused.
I think the three biggest/most prominent categories of paranormal things are (1) aliens + UFOs, (2) ghosts (as in haunted houses and poltergeists), and (3) psychic abilities like telepathy. People believe in these things because they have seen or experienced something weird and unexplainable or they believe someone else who claims to have experienced such a thing. Stories about these things typically don't include "scientific" explanations about where those entities or abilities came from initially or how they can possibly be. Typically. If someone starts telling you how ghosts are a real thing because "quantum physics" then that's where they've crossed the line into pseudoscience.
But if I'm alone in my room and a lamp gets knocked over for no good reason and I say that a poltergeist did it then I'm not conducting pseudoscience just for saying that. I have a theory ("hypothesis", actually). If I see a seemingly unexplainable object in the sky and say that it's alien spacecraft then I have a theory (hypothesis), not an attempt at a scientific explanation. The concepts of poltergeists and spacealiens come from previously existing myths and legends, kinda like in spirituality where you just believe in concepts that someone else had described first, like angels and chakras and Jesus. You have a theory, and it's a "Fringe theory" because it doesn't (seem to) line up with the rest of reality. Pseudoscience is a more specific subcategory under Fringe theory and we don't have to get that specific. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Science is more than just the explanation. It can also be the claim of empirical availability of the evidence. "The craft was 100 feet away from me." "The temperature dropped by 20 degrees when the ghost entered the room." "I was able to learn with precise accuracy the location of the buried treasure through telepathic communication." Those are empirical claims and the way empirical claims are tested is through scientific investigation. The fact that such empirical claims have always failed scientific verification necessarily means those empirical claims are pseudoscientific. I fail to see how it can be any other way.
Attributing an event such as a miracle supernatural being isn't properly a "paranormal" claim. "God caused this drought-ending rain shower." "A demon causes my cancer." Those are claims that attribute without claiming scientific evidence, but no one would say those are "paranormal claims". This is where we differ. Paranormal is specifically about events which are claimed empirical evidence for conditions which are not scientifically verified. Attributing a lamp's tumble to a poltergeist is the equivalent to claiming that no alternative explanation is possible. That kind of special pleading is absolutely pseudoscientific in the same way people who claim that angels or chakras or Jesus are performing faith healing are also engaging in a kind of pseudoscience. As soon as the false claim becomes empirical, it becomes pseudoscientific. jps (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
This is the demarcation problem right here, and I don't think there's one absolutely correct answer that will apply in all circumstances. Having said that, it seems to me that, while many paranormal claims can be accurately categorised as pseudoscientific, that is not always the case, and therefore the broader category - that of "fringe theory" - is the more appropriate. For instance I'd argue that "a demon caused my cancer" is, indeed, a paranormal claim, at least within the context of modern western society. In fact, demon is in the "occult" category, which is currently a subcategory of "paranormal". Now, that's likely a debate in itself, but my feeling is that the very fact that this sort of thing can be debated makes the broader category the more appropriate one. Anaxial (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but how is "a demon caused my cancer" a "fringe theory"? It isn't according to our own article on the subject. I have yet to see a paranormal claim that is a fringe theory but not pseudoscience be identified. jps (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It (or the idea that it's possible) is "an idea or viewpoint held by a small group of supporters", which is as good a definition of fringe theory as the demarcation problem is likely to allow. It's not perfect, and there may be a better umbrella term, but I think it's better than "pseudoscience". So, yes, I'd say "a demon caused my cancer" is, in the context of western society, a good example of a paranormal claim that is a fringe theory, but not a pseudoscience. Anaxial (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the small group of supporters who hold to that idea? Religious belief in demons causing illness runs rather high in many countries, arguably at the majority level. I'm not sure I understand how you made this determination. I don't think the claim is necessarily pseudoscience because many people who argue for demonology think it's unobservable (evil things in the world are caused by evil spirits but cannot be observed). However, this is not a "fringe" theory. It's a religious/spiritual belief. jps (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Forteana

Category:Forteana seems to contain a random selection of mostly paranormal topics, I'm wondering if it'd be better to reorganize things... somehow. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC) split from previous thread — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Charles Fort, like Robert Ripley, was pretty random when it came to his interests. Still, we should be certain that all the articles included are actually Forteana. jps (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

New article: Jonathan Reed encounter

So we have a new article called Jonathan Reed encounter, but I'm afraid it would not survive AfD if someone were to take it there. :/ — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

New "Library" page

I've started a new page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Library. I intend, over the next few weeks, to add material to that page indicating which Public Domain sources are included in the bibliographies of articles in well-regarded recent reference works relating to the broad topic of the paranormal. I will also add to the talk page of that page some information on the sources ranked by number of articles citing it in those sources, and, where possible, somewhere on the net where those sources might be available in full. If anyone has any interest in doing so, the most frequently cited works might be reasonable additions to wikisource as well. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC

A Request for Comment: Is faith healing a form of pseudoscience and should it be labeled as such either in the article or by assignment of category pseudoscience? is taking place here. Interested editors are invited to comment. - MrX 14:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

KIC 8462852

There is an object orbiting KIC 8462852 that researchers are saying could either be a tight cloud of comet debris, or possibly a megastructure. Is this perhaps an article WikiProject Paranormal should support, as it's a mystery in the same vein as the Wow! signal? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats a draft about a anomalistics researcher at Freiburgs IPPG. I see no reason to fear about GNG, review works well. I would like to use the one or other source and info on articles within your realm. Feel free to provide suggestions. Polentarion Talk 19:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding possible new category

I think that there is probably sufficient basis for a Category:Spirit possession. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Paranormal Day procliamed for June 24th!

The Official PARANORMAL DAY To pratice,celebrate investigate PaRANORMAL TOICS Has been proclaimed for June 24th, Mid Summers Eve St.Johns Day long know n for Paranormal activity. Thanks! Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC Founder , Founder too of Global Energy Independence day on July 10th Birthdate of great inventor (who had ESP too!) Nikola Tesla! Thanks! Sunset Beach,California USA64.134.223.201 (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

PARANORMAL DAY IS JUNE 24TH!

June 24th has been Proclimade Official PARANORMAL DAY! A day to celebrate,practice investigate the PARANORMAL! June 24th is Mid summers eve St.Johns day ! day long known for PARANORMAL EVENTS! Thanks!Dr.Edson Andre' Johnson Founder,Founder too of the Global Energy Independence ay event(since 2005!) July 10th is Nikola Teslas birthdfate too! Thanks! E.A.J.Sunset Beach,California64.134.223.201 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Is Universal trinity discussion attacked by religious fanaticism?

The by User:RHaworth speedy deleted article Universal trinity was discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Universal trinity. Now in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_June_27#Universal trinity some continue to call it a hoax contribution but WP:HOAX defines it as a (sophistically hidden but) obvious misinformation (that means a lie). Of course we can interpret

  • a judicative as a calculator of plain present law trying to regularize the unsolved with verdicts,
  • a legislative as a group which mainly calculates law drafts as a result of current political experience and tries to prove their quality with parliament speeches and majorities, and
  • an executive as a supreme commander elected to make decisions which are most difficult to prove to be right (→ between proving and the unsolved).

Declaring this obvious parallelism as an obvious misinformation seems to be a religious fanaticism attack against this serious theosophic topic? To an admin: please place the deleted article into my user space. Thank you. --MathLine (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You've already listed the article at deletion review. Stop trying to forum shop. --Kinu t/c 14:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hag of the mist

I've proposed that Hag of the mist be merged with Cyhyraeth. What say you? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Paranormal/Archive 9 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about occult and paranormal is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Archive 9/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Paranormal.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Paranormal, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Witch and witchcraft: two Wikidata items, and a problem

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Witchcraft#Witch and witchcraft: two Wikidata items, and a problem which is of relevance to this WikiProject. Narky Blert (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Bass Strait Triangle - Updating References

Managed to locate a copy of the book "The Devil's Meridian" by Killey & Lester which seems to be the book that started off the whole 'Bass Strait Triangle' story. I am currently engaged in finding the page references for the various claims they made so that I can add specific page references to the article. I will note that the book indulges in the mystery mongering tactic of describing something, omitting most of the facts and then proclaim it 'mysterious' so I'm not going to be quoting them directly, just linking page references within the book. Searching through it is hard as the authors omitted to include an index.

I did some searching for the Jack Loney book listed as a source in the article. It looks like the last edition prior to his death (The 5th) was printed in 1995. I think I still have the Macarthur Job books on Australian aviation history so I will be going through that for page references. Graham1973 (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Graham have you tried talking to a librarian? I'm sure you can get it from an inter-library loan. I see that there are a few other citations, just found a National Geo article online that talks about it. I've put out a few feelers to people who might know more, I'll get back if I find anything.Sgerbic (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd checked the local library system and it's available but not for inter-library loan, I'd have to go in to a specific branch to view it. On the other hand I have several books on the 1998 Sydney-to-Hobart race, and I'm reading through them for references to a specific incident involving a yacht called the Charleston which was lost at sea while sailing to Sydney in 1979 to take part in that event, it's mentioned in the Killey & Lester book, but in a dishonest way to imply that a UFO carried of the ship and crew. I've managed to track down a few online news stories covering the anniversaries of the loss. Graham1973 (talk)
I am having trouble seeing why this article exists - all the material there belongs in Bass Strait#Maritime history. Is there enough unique material about the so-called "Triangle" to warrant a separate article? I thought I would ask here before making it official.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a perfect example of just how a 'paranormal region' comes into existence. I am pretty sure if you were to search the paranormal literature prior to the Valentich Disappearance (1978) you would not find any references to the 'Bass Strait Triangle'. That would be the initiating event, the back cover of 'The Devil's Meridian' states specifically that the authors "...first became interested in Bass Strait and its apparently malignant nature after the unexplained disappearance of Fred Valentich." combine that with what was at the time the high profile disappearance of the Yacht Charleston in Bass Strait in 1979 (Then Prime Minister Malcom Fraser, is recorded as ordering the search for that yacht be extended beyond the normal search period for the time.). You then have the appearance of two books in 1980,one being 'The Devil's Meridian' and the other being Jack Loney's 'Mysteries of the Bass Strait Triangle' which the author kept in print until 1995. The latter author was a respected researcher into Australia's shipwreck history and so his words would have more credibility. Nowadays if you do searches for the term 'Bass Strait Triangle' you get lists of supernatural events that are clearly derived from 'The Devil's Meridian' many of these stories are of the 'if there was one survivor there would be no mystery' variety. That's why I think it should be kept. Graham1973 (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Graham1973: I agree with @Gronk Oz: I think the the topic is not notable enough to deserve a page. One or two books written on the topic and a few mentions in the press. Some of the contents should be included on the Bass Strait page. I have managed to locate some clippings that refer to the Bass Strait triangle; I haven't read them all, but in my honest opinion they don't make it notable. There are also two clippings that appear to be syndicated and are written by the same author, Nanaimo Daily News (British Columbia) probably not WP:RS & Pitsburgh Press Jan 1980. Also these articles which only refer to the matter in passing Sydney Morning Herald Sept 8 2001, Sydney Morning Herald Jun 1990, Melbourne Age July 1999, Sydney Morning Herald January 2000, same author. Melbourne Age Jan 2000. Sorry. I forgot to sign 8==8 Boneso (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Paranormal

Started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism#Template:Paranormal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Please come and help...

A requested move has been relisted at Talk:Ectoplasm (paranormal)#Requested move 17 May 2018. Your rationale and !vote to support or oppose this page move would be greatly appreciated!  Painius  put'r there  19:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on merging list of cryptids

I am letting you know of an rfc to merge List of cryptids. Which ever way the wind blows you are welcome to join in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Category name for alleged magicians?

I noticed that Category:Magicians and its subcats contain several people who are not illusionists but people who think (or claim) they can do real magic. They should have a separate category, but I do not know what name it should have. Today I made this edit [7], as a test balloon, but I am not sure if this is right. The category name should fit any person who would be sorted into Category:Magicians by someone who does not know it is for illusionists.

Possible ideas:

Any suggestions, comments, ideas? Any other forums where one could find people interested in this? I alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism, but I think the discussion should be here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

An Experiment with Time

Another editor is seeking to add a link to the film Irréversible to the "See also" section in the article about the book An Experiment with Time. I do not see it as significant enough. More voices in the discussion here would be welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents

Hey everyone.

I've created this page with very careful attention to the sources used and the factuality of the information included. I believe it's a really interesting episode and while not a "UFO guy" myself I have read a lot of interesting evidence on this from reputable sources (such as the NYT, Washington post etc.). Unfortunately very few editors are collaborating on it. Anyone want to contribute to improving this page?

Also some discussion on the talk page in need of a third opinion.

Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Still only 4 editors contributing to the page and a stalled talk page. Anyone want to give a third opinion? (the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard has also has been notified). --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ufology and AATIP

Discussion here: [8] -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 01:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC) (unsigned on 18:46, 19 April 2020)

Discussion about article "Ufology"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ufology, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Project dead?

Is this project dead? Seems nothing new has been posted in related project pages since around 2009. Has it just died out or has it been superseded by another project? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I've decided the project isn't dead as long as one of us is still here. In this case: me. WikiProject Paranormal is dead. Long live WikiProject Paranormal -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 09:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've also just kept this on my watchlist but not done much to it, but I can try and start working on it. Might be a nice change from my typical editing. Pokemonprime (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pokemonprime: That's great!
I've started this "relaunch" by adding an importance scale in the assessment section. I think a good place to start would be by reassessing the pages within the project scope so that we have at least an idea of what is important and what isn't. A second look would be greatly appreciated to ensure the descriptions and examples for each level of importance make sense. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 15:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Project Blue Book

Does any one think. The page for Project Blue Book Needs any work? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book,looks like it needs a bit of work done for it.Driverofknowledge (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Driverofknowledge:I've updated the importance assessment of the page. Is is clearly a major UFO study program (probably the most important ever done) so I've rated it as High importance. It is currently assessed as B on the quality scale. By all means we can improve it! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 01:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Importance Assessment

I've created an Importance Scale guideline for the project. I've started with cleaning up the Top and High categories according to this new evaluation. Input by others would be helpful. Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Assessment#Importance scale -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 09:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about in/excluding sources on Talk:Orgone

Talk:Orgone § RfC about in/excluding sources on pseudoscience I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 00:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

A new user may need welcoming and some help

User:Arjuna Anchan is new. I think he's affiliated with a UFO organization called "Extraterrestrial and Ufo Research Organisation, International." He appears to be drafting an article about it in his sandbox.

He also appears to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules and customs, which might get him into trouble if he's not careful. It would probably help if others with similar interests helped him "learn the ropes" of how Wikipedia does things. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 04:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Arjuna Anchan (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy

hi all, just a heads up, the above article is up for deletion , see here. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Paranormal articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:Paranormal articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Major Arcana#Requested move 20 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Major Arcana#Requested move 20 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Please review recent edits precognition

Hello, I'm uncertain if I am in the right spot. Sorry if I've got that wrong. The article on Precognition may benefit from review. Recent edits have in my opinion taken it backwards.Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Protoscience

Notice

The article Protoscience has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is just a wordy dictionary definition, it contains no significant encyclopedic material. It has been this way for at least sixteen years, see the talk page discussion on Delete the article. Per our policy on WP:NOTADICTIONARY, it has no business here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Inactivity

Is there anyone currently active in this project? I'm going to tidy up the project pages to make them a little more appealing. --AtFirstLight (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the Paranormal

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. He may not realize it, but his problem isn't with GSoW, it's with Wikipedia values; the platform has a strong foundation of scientific skepticism. Most of the time when my watchlist contains edits that leans pro-pseudoscience, another (non-GSoW) editor is already dealing with it. Oh, and in case it needs to be said: we have zero interest in getting editors banned. That is not how we work. Robincantin (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedias of the Paranormal

Several years ago I started a list of encyclopedias on paranormal topics. Not sure it's worth anybody's time, but can't hurt putting it out here. Some of them take a decidedly skeptical view. They are primarily in English and German, and each title covers a broad range of topics (i.e. specialist works limited to UFO topics, for instance, haven't been included). Obviously, it's not a complete list.

  • Encyclopedia of The Unexplained. Magic, Occultism and Parapsychology. Edited by Richard Cavendish. Special Consultant on Parapsychology Professor J.B. Rhine. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1974. ISBN 0710076991
  • Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. General Editor: Dr. William F. Williams. New York: Facts On File Inc. (Book Builders Inc.) 2000, ISBN 081603351X
  • Kleines Lexikon der Parawissenschaften. Herausgegeben von Gerald L. Eberlein. Mit Beiträgen von [...]. München: Beck 1995, ISBN 3406392199
  • Lexikon der Parawissenschaften. Astrologie, Esoterik, Okkultismus, Paramedizin, Parapsychologie kritisch betrachtet. Herausgegeben von Irmgard Oepen, Krista Federspiel, Amardeo Sarma, Jürgen Windeler (Schriftenreihe der GWUP 3). Münster: Lit 1999, ISBN 3825842770
  • The encyclopedia of the paranormal, ed. Gordon Stein 1996, ISBN 1-573-92021-5
  • Tussen waarheid & waanzin: een encyclopedie der pseudo-wetenschappen. Hulspas/ Nienhuys 1997, ISBN 90-5226-601-8
  • Shermer, Skeptic Encyclopedia
  • SkepDic https://www.skepdic.com/
  • Grenzwissenschaften : Tatsachen, Phänomene und Theorien zu Psi, Esoterik, Magie, Mathematik, Physik, Astronomie / Marcus Gossler. - Landsberg am Lech : mvg Verl., 1985, ISBN: 3-478-01080-2
    • Lexikon Grenzwissenschaften. Tatsachen, Phänomene und Theorien zu Psi, Esoterik, Magie, Mathematik, Physik, Astronomie: M. Gossler, Landsberg am Lech : mvg-Verl. 1988
    • Neuaufl. Bindlach : Gondrom, 1990
  • Lexikon des Geheimwissens / Horst E. Miers. - 7. Aufl. - München : Goldmann, 1987, ISBN: 3-442-11708-9
    • Lexikon des Geheimwissens : das umfassende Nachschlagewerk zur Deutung, Erklärung und Erläuterung der Begriffe, Ausdrücke, Symbole und Namen aus allen Gebieten der Geheimlehren und Grenzwissenschaften ; nebst Darstellungen der Geschichte, Zielsetzungen und Tendenzen der einschlägigen Vereinigungen und den Lebensdaten der mit ihnen verbundenen Persönlichkeiten ; mit 2790 Stichwörtern, 223 Abbildungen, 3960 Literaturhinweisen / Horst E. Miers. - Freiburg i. Br. : Bauer, 1970

--Jonas kork (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on Witchcraft talk page

Hello everyone! There is an ongoing discussion occurring at Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous! which focuses on women who identify as a witch, their relationships to the term witchcraft and its practices (both historically and present day, see the short descriptor for a start, ""Practice of malevolent magic"), and whether the article is neutral. Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Paranormal/Archive_9&oldid=1200032897"