Talk:Ghost/Archive 4

This article reads like ghosts are real

Actually, that logic is a bit backward. First, evolution is widely accepted by most scientists. Second, science is what steadily fills in the gaps of human knowledge as the years roll by. Ancient societies invented magical explanations for what they didn't understand -- until science enlightened them. While scientific theory is subject to change, it's absurd to compare evolution to the mistaken beliefs of ancient civilizations. Even today, much of society lacks the ability to think critically and doesn't give science the credit it deserves. And to make matters worse, the media favors stories relating to pseudoscience over reason because the former yields higher ratings and readership. That's one reason why a 2005 Gallup poll found that about three out of four Americans have at least one paranormal belief, with ESP, haunted houses, and ghosts being the most popular, respectively. So getting back to this particular article: I don't think there's anything wrong with explaining how a belief in ghosts has affected culture, but that explanation should clarify early on that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of ghosts. Otherwise, accuracy and neutrality take a back seat. - Tominterval (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I made a brief edit to the first sentence of the second paragraph, clarifying that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts. That fact should be mentioned higher up in the article because the beginning of the piece makes it seem as if ghosts are real. Predictably, someone undid my edit. (Personally, I think the whole article needs a rewrite.) In any event, being that my revised sentence was balanced, factual, and cited a legitimate reference, why would someone change it back? Below, Rivertorch writes, "It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to pronounce definitively whether ghosts are 'real'; it's the job of an encyclopedia to describe the phenomenon of ghosts and explain why it's significant to humanity." With all due respect, Rivertorch, it's the job of an encyclopedia to educate and to be accurate. Don't you think that conveying scientific knowledge more prominently in such a popular source of reference is "significant to humanity"? The concept of Wikipedia is a great one, but I think only qualified people should be writing articles like this one, not people who think they know what's best for humanity. Tominterval (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tominterval, I saw your edit and had no objection to it. Perhaps Colin4C will elaborate on the comments in the edit summary of the revert. In any case, I think you may have misunderstood my earlier comments here; let me try to be clearer. Reasonable people will disagree over what constitutes the "job of an encyclopedia," but I actually agree with much of what you say. My original point was made in the context of a proposal to place in the lede a "clarification that [ghosts are] all a load of sh*t." What I was trying to convey is that the concept of ghosts is ancient and widespread and touches everything from personal belief to literature to metaphysics to the modern scientific method. That's what I meant by "significant to humanity." Is it appropriate for the article to make clear that scientists to date have found no evidence of the existence of ghosts? Of course. It is not, however, appropriate for the article's lede to take a dismissive tone toward the whole topic. Rivertorch (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rivertorch. I do see your point. My intention above was not to be curt. I just think science should be more prominent in the article. Thanks again for the clarification, and sorry for any misunderstanding. - Tominterval (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Tominterval's edit was meaningless. To take another instance there is no scientific evidence that George Bush exists, either, or even Tominterval himself. "Existence" is a primordial datum to which science has nothing to say. The universe exists for us because we perceive it to do so. We are born and things (the universe, George Bush, Tominterval) are presented to our conciousness and senses without benefit of "science". Colin4C (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a metaphysical over-analysis that has no place in this article. Regardless of your theory of essence, it is a common and legitimate linguistic construct to speak of evidence for the existence of a thing. There is, therefore, scientific evidence for the existence of extra-solar planets, although we do not observe them directly. "Esse est percipi" would say that all that exists here are the data and readouts from scientific instruments. This is not a convenient manner in which to write an encyclopedia, and it is not consistent with the way language is used in the real world. I think it is appropriate that text be added to the effect of what Tominterval originally said. Fish-Face (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There is empirical evidence for the existence of George Bush, Tominterval and ghosts. All these entities have been seen and percieved. Science is never used to prove the existence or non-existence of entities. For instance the chimera is evidentally non-existent but has never been proved to be so by science...though maybe you know different and can point me to the scientific experiments which conclusively proved that the chimera is non-existent...Colin4C (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Beg to differ. Apart from CLAIMS by people that ghosts exist, where is this "empirical evidence" which holds up to any sort of scrutiny or peer review, even from those involved in the field? Plenty of people CLAIM to have seen Leprechauns or Faerie Folk too, but for some reason, this is put across as less convincing than ghosts92.1.48.249 (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Lance T.

Being and Time

The relevant discussion is on page 34 of the English edition (translated by McQuarrie and Robinson). Here Heidegger mentions both Aristotle's and Aquinas' treatment of the "soul" in the context of Heidegger's concept of "Being" (Sein in German). Katzmik (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting...I have often thought that us human beings are merely evanascent ghosts in a dead universe. If Herr Heidegger agrees with me on this I give him due credit for being a wise man (or ghost). Colin4C (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert on Heidegger (that would be a very difficult task), but I think the term "being" in this context is not used as a synonym of "human being", but rather a linguistic/philosophic statement that something "is". This is what Heidegger seems to analyze in his book. At any rate, it seems plausible from the discussion on page 34 that he thinks of his approach is a sophisticated version of what the ancients called the soul. Katzmik (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it is one of the ironies of history and an embarrassment to contemporary philosophy that Heidegger was a Nazi sympathizer, hardly an admirable trait. Katzmik (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry we have a highly trained team of exorcists on hand. Colin4C (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, if he shows up I will let you know right away Katzmik (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger's text itself does not say nearly enough of what you want it to for it to stand alone as a source for your claim. I suggest you provide a reference to an article or book by a recognised Heidegger scholar who argues for a reading of the text that would support your claim. Otherwise, you should really consider dropping the reference to Heidegger.Wikiduncan (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the passage on Aristotle and Aquinas? Katzmik (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

___________________

Remove all references to Heidegger, and Being and Time, you are misinterpreting him; Being and Time has nothing to do with "souls", "ghosts" or any notion that a supernatural entity animates the body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.3.86 (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Heidegger in enough depth to offer much feedback of use here, but the philosophical concept of "Geist" may be worth mentioning to some degree. This can be translated as "ghost," but it means much more than that; Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit was originally published as "Phänomenologie des Geistes," and was critiqued by Heidegger, as discussed here. Having said that, there's already a Geist (philosophy) article, so I don't know how much more needs to be said here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I've restored the NPOV version and deleted the illogical weasel word advertising copy terminology about the supposed claims of "science". Science tests and measures things, via scientific experiments, it does not prove or disprove the existence of entities. For instance science has not proved or disproved the existence of the wikipedia, but we all presume it exists because we experience it. Same with ghosts. Colin4C (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, records of observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how natural phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. The outcome or product of this empirical scientific process is the formulation of theory that describes human understanding of physical processes and facilitates prediction." No mention of proving or disproving the existence of entities...Colin4C (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Options

This is an intriguing and tricky problem - thus we have:

• A ghost is the apparition of a deceased person (Straightforward, but reliable proof is lacking, yet this is a widely accepted definition)

• A ghost is said to be the apparition of a deceased person (Technically more correct, but sounds weaselly and invites the question "by whom")

• A ghost is commonly believed to be the apparition of a deceased person (a half way point maybe?)

I am trying to think of something more solid as the definition is so widely accepted, but acknowledging the fringe nature of firm belief in them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• As an addendum, in vampire (a featured article) we ended up with:

Vampires are mythological or folkloric revenants who subsist by feeding on the blood of the living.

So I guess:

Ghosts are folkloric apparitions of deceased people.

Looks okay to me. I like folkloric, which is what we normally mean when we say "it is said that..." --TS 12:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Above: No. 1 probably needs a citation unless the definition is widely accepted (but don't say explicitly that something is "said to be" or "thought to be", or the reader starts to want a ref for who says/thinks/believes). No. 3, "commonly" or "widely" is OK without a ciation unless there's doubt. That's my take, which is pretty similar to that of Cas, I think. Tony (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

  I suppose it's an ambiguity. In colloquial speech "said to be" signifies folklore. A much tighter standard is better for Wikipedia, for precisely the reasons you and Casliber suggest. --TS 13:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the references given ghostly apparitions have been and are reported by very large numbers of people all over the world for centuries. Are you asserting that everybody who claims to have seen ghosts are telling or enacting fairy stories? Science HAS NOT disproved the existence of ghosts and The Skeptical Enquirer is not the official voice of the scientific community but have their own particular POV. The jury is out about whether ghosts exist or not. Saying that a "ghost" is an apparition of a deceased person is not to state that "ghosts exist", but that people have had certain experiences, which any of us can interpret how we like. To suggest that all these people who have these experiences are liars is original research on the part of wikipedia editors. And please have the courtesy to discuss this on the Talk page before reverting my edits. Colin4C (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The wording "commonly believed to be" is fine; it's descriptive and accurate and carries no judgment about the validity of the belief. "Folkloric", while perhaps equally descriptive and accurate in the strict anthropological meaning, is unnecessarily technical, bordering on gobbledygook; it would be fine later in the article, but simple wording is vastly preferable for the lede. There's actually another problem with all of the proposed wordings: according to some sources, including dictionaries, "apparition" is synonymous with "ghost". Rivertorch (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I accept your point, and would be quite happy with "commonly believed to be". Colin4C (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to include "commonly believed to be", but removed the false implication that the lack of scientific evidence for ghosts is just a matter of the biased opinion of those crazy skeptics. The absence of evidence could be negated by presenting peer reviewed scientific papers demonstrating the existence of ghosts. --TS 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference saying that the Skeptical Enquirer is the official voice of science or that it reflects the views of most scientists? Are all claims made in the Scientific Enquirer always 100% true and impossible of refutation? Do they have a convincing explanation for deathbed apparitions, for instance, for which there are several volumes of evidence gathered by parapsychologists and extensive anecdotal eveidence? What experiments have they performed to prove that, despite extensive eyewitness testimony, that these occurences never occur? All controversial claims should be explicit about their sources and not give the impression of being ex cathedra, uncontrovertable wisdom. Vide: "According to a poll conducted in 2005 by the Gallup Organization about 32% of Americans believe in the existence of ghosts", in the intro, which in the first clause states the source, which I see, inconsistently, you have not altered into an ex-cathedra statement. By the way if you think that The Skeptical Enquirer is NPOV, can you explain why they have the word "Skeptical" in the title of the journal? If I was to cite a journal called, say, The Credulous Enquirer, would you claim that that also was NPOV? Are people trying to push a biased point of view NPOV in your view? Colin4C (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Find peer reviewed scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts, or stop removing the statement that no scientific evidence exists for the existence of ghosts. This is not a controversial claim. It is a fact. --TS 14:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified: Because the traditional interpretation of ghost reports tends to contradict basic laws of physics, it is not taken seriously by scientists.

That statement is supported by the sources cited. --TS 15:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've raised this point here on the fringe theories noticeboard. --TS 15:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is asserted by POV sources that ghosts contradict physics, not proved. By the way not all physical laws are known. Physicists are still researching physical laws and have not come to definate conclusions yet. Dismissing the whole subject under the rubric of "fringe theory" on a noticeboard is original research on your part, which is is not allowed on the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There is something wrong with this edit--if only the summary. The summary says "references given do not support assertion that ghosts contradict laws of physics" and that's a false statement.

From the AP report cited:

Using science and math, Efthimiou explains why it is ghosts can't walk among us while also gliding through walls, like Patrick Swayze in the movie "Ghost."

That violates Newton's law of action and reaction.

If ghosts walk, their feet apply force to the floor, but if they go through walls they are without substance, the professor says.

"So which is it? Are ghosts material or material-less?" he asks.

So by a simple, trivial example, referenced in the article, a physicist demonstrates that ghost stories tend to contradict basic laws of physics. --TS 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Er....Newton's laws are out of date and have been contradicted by later scientists...See Einstein and Quantum Theory for latest info. Also Patrick Swayze was playing a part in a fictional film about ghosts. Critiquing a fictional portrayal of a ghost does not sound very scientific, but rather, laughable. No wonder Fox News featured the duffer involved in this "research". Colin4C (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are already discussed here. --TS 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't see much of an argument here. I can't believe that we're seriously entertaining the notion that quantum physics and "Einstein" explain how ghosts can violate Newton's Laws of Motion. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy Ghost

Arguably, one of the most famous ghosts in the world is excluded by the definition provided in this article. I put it to the editors: Is the Holy Ghost a ghost? If so, we may have to rethink the way this article is being presented. I think a major part of ghosts is their relation to religions, in particular ancestor worship. This is totally obscured by the present focus of the article which is mainly on folklore and the increasingly marginalized "parapsychology" perspective. Indeed, I think putting parapsychology in the lead is wholly inappropriate. A small section for parapsychology's perspective on the matter may be okay, but the vast majority of relevant, reliable sources do not treat ghosts as parapsychology does.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, and very similar to my thoughts on looking at the Encarta article, Ghost. The broader meaning of the term is brought out very well there. We don't necessarily want to go down the same path as other encyclopedias, but I think a look at what others say helps to suggest where our coverage may have become unbalanced. --TS 16:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to merge this article to spirit. We could have another article for ghost story and another article for haunting (which is really what this article is focusing on). It's an interesting issue. I'm going to go poke around to see what other thought people might have on this issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the way the Encarta article introduces the concept of essence. It seems to me that this is fundamental to understanding what place ghosts occupy in the classification of human thought. The concept of haunting (as a purported real life phenomenon) seems to be a preoccupation of a few ghost hunters and whatnot, whereas the concept of ghosts is much more than that. --TS 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that material in some other articles such as poltergeist probably belong (substantially at least) in a haunting article. Currently that is just a link to a list of reported hauntings. --TS 18:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh gawd where to start...there is a huge load which can go here - figurative ghosts such as its use in psychology, as well as literature (Hamlet/Dickens - Christmas Carol) as well as all the spooky stuff :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fox News

Do editors here think that Fox News has provided irrefutable evidence that ghosts don't exist in this news-report?:

"Using science and math, Efthimiou explains why it is ghosts can't walk among us while also gliding through walls, like Patrick Swayze in the movie "Ghost."

That violates Newton's law of action and reaction.

If ghosts walk, their feet apply force to the floor, but if they go through walls they are without substance, the professor says.

"So which is it? Are ghosts material or material-less?" he asks.""

See more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225640,00.html - a sterling ref for the wikipedia... Colin4C (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Only you seem to believe that the article was written by Fox News. Only you seem to believe that Fox News is being represented as providing irrefutable evidence. See WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution for the relevant standards of sourcing. And please get it right. It's an AP article hosted on foxnews.com, not a Fox News article. --TS 21:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the ref claim that ghosts don't and can't exist or rather: "ghosts-can't-walk-among-us-while also-gliding-through-walls-like-Patrick-Swayze-in-the-movie-"Ghost.""?

Colin4C (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to stop responding to your unproductive questions. See the sourcing standard I cited above. --TS 21:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The on-line source you quote is not irrefutable evidence that ghosts don't exist. Rather it claims that: "ghosts can't walk among us while also gliding through walls like Patrick-Swayze in the movie "Ghost."" Therefore, according to Efthimiou, if the Swayzeite ghost either:

• walked but didn't go through the wall or:
• went through the wall but didn't walk

that would be okay according to Newtonian physics. The only (Newtonially) physically impossible thing for a Swayzite ghost would be to BOTH walk and go through the wall. Sorry for my "unproductive" logic, yours: Colin4C (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No original research. And you're still asking for irrefutable evidence that ghosts do not exist. That is not our sourcing standard. --TS 22:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am quoting the source that you gave as a reference that the laws of physics say that ghosts can't exist. That is untrue. The source says: "ghosts can't walk among us while also gliding through walls like Patrick-Swayze in the movie "Ghost"" - which is not the same thing. Colin4C (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you personally offended by this or something? The sourcing and straightforward logic of the argument is unassailable. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the film, "Ghost". Did Swayzee's character have a particular way of passing through walls, or did he just do it the way regular ghosts are supposed to? To further highlight the absurdity of the quibble, are ghosts supposed to radiate normal visible light? If so, why are there no convincing photographs of ghosts? If it's some silly-putty light that acts on humans but not on CCDs and old photographic film, again there's that problem with physics in another form. --TS 01:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am offended that you are using a reference which says one thing to back up a statement that says another. Original research is not allowed on the wikipedia. The source you quote - Efthimiou - is saying that certain popular representations of ghosts in film defy the laws of physics, he is not making a general statement about ghosts, as you have done. In passing...I wonder if he thinks that Swayze the ghost walking, seemingly, inside the TV box, when you play the DVD also defies the laws of physics. There is Swayze seemingly strolling along on the screen, without putting his foot inside the TV.... Colin4C (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaawww, my head hurts...never mind. All this will eb dealt with as there will be loads better sources if'n this article is buffed up for GA or FA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I just say that IMHO a wikipedia article is not the place to solve the riddle of the existence or non-existence of ghosts. If you look at the literature you will see it has not been solved. Vampires and fairies are reasonably thought, through investigation of the evidence, to be non-existent, but not ghosts. E.g. the 18th and 19th century investigations into vampires have led to the reasonable conclusion that bloated blood filled corpses are the natural result of decomposition, not nocturnal blood-sucking rambles and the Cottingley Fairies have been proved to be a fraud - so much for fairies... Investigations into ghosts, however, have not been proved them to be false but, rather, some "rationalists" have decided in their infinite wisdom that ghosts don't exist and that copious empirical evidence can just be ignored or "explained away". Pre-judgement of an issue is not a scientific attitude, but rather an affectation of scientism - clothing oneself in the white mantle of a scientist in order to bolster ones supposed truth-claims. Similarly, in the past, "rationalists" debunked hypnotism as a fraud and stated point blank that meteorites were a myth, only believed by credulous fools. One of these "wise" men even stated that if he saw a rock fall from the sky in front of his eyes he would still disbelieve it. Proclaiming "I do not believe it!" is a faith statement - not science. Unlike some editors here. I, myself, claim no wisdom on these matters. Ghosts might or might not exist. Nobody knows and to claim otherwise is original research. Colin4C (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

no consensus for merger

---

Hey all, I usually like split articles - eg I prefer poltergeist to stay split as it describes a particular subtype of ghost with attributes, but I feel that Apparitional experience is essentially synonymous with ghost but a moe scientific name applied. Thus merging the material would bolster this article muchly. We could have a really neat article like vampire with folkloric, literary, parapsychological and even spooky stuff all in the one place :)

Support

#. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. Go for it! Great idea!!

Oppose

I strongly oppose the idea of assimilating the Apparitional Experience to the article on Ghosts. As the introduction to the former makes clear, to suppose that ghosts (in the sense of suriving spirits of the dead) are the cause, or indeed in any way associated with, apparitional experiences is to beg the question.

A considerable part of the Apparitional Experience article is in fact devoted to showing why the two concepts should not be assimilated; for example:

- the list of differences between actual apparitional experiences and fictional ghost stories

- the fact that people can have apparitional experiences of inanimate objects, where there can be no question of a surviving ‘spirit’ being involved.

I consider it would be an intellectually retrogressive step to merge the two articles, since it would be implicitly lending support to the ‘supernaturalist’ explanation of apparitional experiences to the exclusion of other explanations. Ranger2006 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than merge the two articles, I suggest that each should have an internal link to the other. I have added a link to the Ghost article from the one on Apparitional Experience, and I suggest that the same might be done in reverse, i.e. add an internal link from this article (Ghost) to Apparitional Experience. That way anyone who happens to come across the Apparitional Experience article first but is primarily interested in the history or other aspects of the ghost concept can pursue the matter via the Ghost article and vice versa.Ranger2006 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Apparational experience" is yet more jargon; if it's a term used in one or more professional fields, fine, but then that's a separate article. Rivertorch (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• apparitional experience should redirect to apparition, the disambiguation page, since any apparition is of course an experience, so that the phrase is really just a tautology. ghost is one item linked to from the apparition disambiguation. --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

O-kay, does that in fact strengthen the case for merging it all under one heading then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that apparitional experience is de facto our article on "ghosts (parnormal)", I think it should remain a WP:SS sub-article of this one after all. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not sure who uses 'Apparational experience' Clear overlap in concept. the 'inanimate objects' concept holds no water, I'm sure everyone can relate to a 'Ghost Ship' or a 'Ghost Train'. The experiences don't seemn distinct to me. If anything 'Appartional Experiance' belongs split between Hallucination and Ghost Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You say you're not sure who uses the term "Apparitional" but I'm seeing a bunch of hits through google books, not to mention the books being used to cite portions of the content. This tells me that its a separate issue, with more to it than just ghosts. So I would not favor the merger. However, some if it should be on ghost, linking to the main article. Synergy 19:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Find me a dictionary or thesaurus that makes a distinction between "apparition" and "ghost"...the two are the same. Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be true, although there are distinctions. Even though two words may be synonymous, we can't ignore history, culture and the like. This is what separates us from a dictionary, obviously. You're also forgetting that these experiences are not limited to "ghosts". Synergy 21:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

what about merging Wraith into ghost then?

I know they aren't the same in roleplaying, but what about folklore? How do folks feel about merging? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't do roleplay so I've no idea what you're talking about there, but a glance at wraith (after I got rid of that hideous unsourced trivia section) shows it to be an article about a superficially similar but actually rather distinct phenomenon. A wraith seems to be a harbinger of death, whereas typically a ghost is supposed to be an autonomous being. They just don't sound like the same kind of thing, culturally speaking--just as cats and dogs are both carnivores with common ancestry but distinct characteristics. Actually on that thought I wonder if it would be a good idea to set out a complete taxonomy of spirits, and see what other articles we have. Then rather than these ad hoc merge suggestions we might arrive at a feeling of which articles we actually need to cover the field efficiently. --TS 11:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

after cleaning up the wraith article, it turns out it is a stub, close to a dictdef plus some etymological notes. Should and can easily be merged. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, ditch the stub. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. Seems like it would fit right into the "By culture" section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose this one too, google shows over 3 million hits. Some of course are going to mention roleplaying (which should get a brief mention over there dab), and I added a section for the film. Theres enough to merit its own article I believe. Synergy 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

hm, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary. Just because a word sees frequent use doesn't establish it should get its own standalone article. --dab (𒁳) 21:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I love your sidestepping dab. It may work with others, but not me. I wasn't using the ghits to claim it needs an article, I was using random examples based on those ghits to provide information currently lacking in the article. Once added in, it should be a great start class article (upgraded from your stub). Synergy 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

what about merging Shade (mythology) into ghost then?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

pretty clear that with improvements, Shade (mythology) is ok as a standalone article

---

Support - For mine, these seem synonymous, plus allows for better discussion of classical ghosty things in the ghost article as the evolution of an idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this one should be merged until there is enough to cover the subject (if ever there is a time). This would be the only one I could see merging. Synergy 19:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Switched to weak oppose - Ottava Rima has pointed out that shades are seen in Hades not on earth. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lukewarm oppose - Don't know if the Shades article could eventually generate more content than is found in references by Dante and Homer, but if it can, I could see keeping it as its own stub. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

...or Apparitional experience with Ghost hunting?

There is alot of overlap here...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the suggested merger of Apparitional Experience with Ghost-hunting. It is open to precisely the same objections as the earlier proposal to merge Apparitional Experience with Ghost (see above).

To conflate the concept of Apparition with that of Ghost is to beg the question. There are other possible explanations of apparitional experiences besides the suggestion that human beings survive death and are sometimes able to ‘return’ and make their presence felt to the living.

The article on Apparitional Experience is attempting something quite different from either the articles on Ghost or Ghost-busting. It gives a historical account of attempts to treat the experience of ‘seeing’ or otherwise ‘perceiving’ an apparition from a purely psychological point of view, and discusses the implications for theories of perception, both psychological and philosophical, that can be derived from the study of such experiences.

Any merger of the Apparitional Experience article with one containing Ghost in the title would be a retrogressive step, in my opinion. It has taken a century or more for the study of apparitional experiences as a purely psychological phenomenon to establish itself as a valid object of scientific enquiry, independently of popular theories about ghosts and survival of death. Conflating articles in the way proposed would be merely re-establishing confusion.Ranger2006 (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough with the paranormal nonsense, please! There may be a few people who believe in ghosts and things that go bump in the night, but most people who come to read about ghosts won't expect to have to wade through a load of rubbish. Moroeover our neutral point of view policy suggests that we cover such matters only as minority points of view. I don't even know what we're doing discussing nonsense like ghost-hunting on this talk page. --TS 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the article Apparitional experience itself needs some attention. It seems to be using fringe sources (e.g. "Society For Psychical Research") to define the concept as something more than philosophical/psychological. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling something "nonsense" is not an argument but POV rhetoric. And your statement "our neutral point of view policy suggests that we cover such matters only as minority points of view" is just...er...meaningless....I don't know why some people on the wikipedia are so insistent in telling other people what to think, about matters of which neither they or anybody else in the world has any definate knowledge. Colin4C (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

that's because you apparently haven't understood the WP:NPOV policy, no matter how often you like to mention the "POV" abbreviation. It states that Wikipedia by its foundational principles is obliged to suck up to The Man and to marginalize the marginalized. Wikipedia isn't for championing the underdogs (of academic discourse), it must callously call the underdogs underdogs. As a sidenote, I find definate about as jarring a turn-off as grammer and sentance. --dab (𒁳) 21:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If a wikipedia editor or a website or a source asserts that a certain field of discourse or study or range of experiences is a "fringe theory", does that make it so? All we have had so far is such assertions, without proof. This is what is called, in the trade, begging the question. A source asserting that, "all scientists believe x is a fringe theory", is not necessarily true. The mere mention of the glamour word "science" is not automatically confirm what a source has to say about it. As far as I'm aware there is no monolithic "Science" organisation which gives ex cathedra irrefuttable pronouncements on what is "fringe" and what isn't. And, anyhow, it doesn't make sense to call e.g. an experience of "a night in a haunted house" a "theory". If anthing is "nonsense", then that is. Colin4C (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Vote not to merge, as Apparitional experience seems to be about the hallucinatory experience, even though it begins by positioning early paranormal beliefs as the basis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Paranormal" material

I appreciate that ghosts are relevant to the topic of paranormal phenomena or parapsychology, but I fail to see how parapsychology has particular relevance to the topic of ghosts. Ghosts are a human cultural universal (or neurological universal, if you prefer), and I fail to see why they should be discussed in terms of 19th century spiritst fads in particular. The point is that parapsychology falls under WP:FRINGE while the wider topic of ghosts does not. There can of course be a "parapsychology" section here, probably best as h4 under "Modern period", but excessive detail would need to go to a WP:SS sub-article. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was starting to think something along the same lines. The apparitional experience maybe should be renamed then as it is the appropriate daughter article. I was modelling this article on vampire - with a section on origins which includes all sorts of explanations why people believe and what they have done to investigate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

dab is correct. And I'd go further and say that what has happened to the article over the past 24 hours is quite unfortunate. We went from a perfectly decent lede (for which consensus seemed to be building) which properly was based on a generalized overview of the topic to something inappropriately specific dealing with "folklore, mythology and in visionary accounts". The topic of ghosts is a broad one; it is cross-cultural and has wide relevance to modern culture as well as recent and ancient history. The article is now slanted towards one particular way of looking at ghosts. It's a valid way, but it shouldn't form the basis of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, this sort of thing always happens. We'll get there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 27

January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rivertorch that the subject of ghosts is a broad one, covering folklore, parapsychology, spiritualism with a wide historical and contemporary relevence. As the wikipedia is an encyclopedia the article should be encyclopediac in its coverage and not be diverted down one track by tendentious POV pushers. The wikipedia is not a dictionary so we should not get side-tracked into original research semantic wrangles over definitions. See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Colin4C (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I decided to give it a go and junked all the "paranormal" material, including the skeptical stuff. See how it reads. --TS 11:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As per what Rivertorch and me have just said, the subject of ghosts is a broad one. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore the article should be encyclopediac not focused on one aspect to the exclusion of others. Colin4C (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, can't blame me for trying. I think this silly "ghost busters" stuff (whether credulous or skeptical) dreadfully overbalances the article. (My version here for reference) --TS 11:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Colin4C's objection appears to be unaware of WP:DUE. Any topic can be discussed, if notable, but any given article needs to balance weight given to sub-topic. Excessive coverage of a particular aspect should either result in pruning, or in WP:SS spin-off articles. --dab (𒁳) 14:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. Now This current version is not bad. The article is much better than when I looked at it last week. Framing the subject as folklore/spiritual/psychological is a step in the right direction. However, if the ghost-busting/spiritism aspect is included somewhere in the article, per WP:WEIGHT, it would need to be clearly framed by the current mainstream scientific view, i.e. there is no WP:RS evidence in favor of ghosts. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I just found revenant (folklore). This is the topic at the core of the world's "ghost beliefs", and the article should consequently be organized around it. The argument goes like this,

• humans generally imagine an immaterial animating principle inhabiting anything alive, usually in the form of a substance like "breath" or "wind"
• upon death, this substance is "exhaled" and leads a disembodied existence: physically located in the grave, or by mythological extension, in the underworld
• now these substances are unhappy, because obviously the living have much more fun than these wisps of animating force imprisoned underground.
• for this reason, they will try to return and haunt the living
• from the point of view of the living, this results in "seeing ghosts". Seeing a ghost implies something went wrong, because the spirit somehow escaped from its proper place in the grave / underworld
• measures are taken to prevent this. This includes either magical banishment, fixating the spirits where they belong, or an expiatory approach, giving the spirits what they crave before they become active themselves

this is the narrative hard-wired in the human brain, so to speak. Specific mythologies, religions, rituals, etc. build on this.

The western "spiritist"/"ghost-busting" material is probably best understood as one specific cultural tradition reflecting these fundamentals. I have now created a "by culture" section, and refer to spiritism etc. under "Western culture". --dab (𒁳) 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning in a very few words the parapsychological aspect of this subject is not "undue weight". Deleting all reference to parapsychology is POV censorship. Mentioning something on the wikipedia does not mean that you endorse it. This article should reflect the BROAD literature on the subject, not be an attempt to ram one POV viewpoint down everybody's throats, Such statements as "the current mainstream scientific view, i.e. there is no WP:RS evidence in favor of ghosts" is just, unproved, POV original research, posturing and bullying of those other editors who have the temerity to have a different viewpoint. Fox News and the Skeptical Enquirer do not represent the official voice of science, they are POV pushers. Such "science" is not value-neutral, but has its own political and ideolological agenda and corporate backers. Scientists who deviate from this agenda, and take seriously, supposed "fringe" views" like Hans Eysenck, who found that some of the claims of astrology seemed to have some evidential basis are often ostracised from the scientific community for not toeing the fundamentalist "rationalist" party line of those who believe that supposed fringe beliefs MUST BE WRONG, despite all evidence to the contrary. Colin4C (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My take on the paranoraml is that unlike with vampires, werewolves, dragons etc, extensive ghost hunting and investigation is pretty prominent and therefore can be quite detailed. (bit like hunting the loch ness monster or bigfoot) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an entire section on "belief in ghosts" aka "ontological status". Devoting an entire h2 section to paranormal research and parapsychological opinion is hardly "pov censorship". I wish you would stop mentioning Fox News, Colin4C, it is beginning to make you look silly. --dab (𒁳) 20:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to remove material that described the ontology of ghosts as a "controversial subject" supported by many "unexplained" claims, etc. Ontology describes "existence" rather than "belief". And since pop culture and 'ghost book' authors typically promote the existence of ghosts as "unexplained and controversial", that material when rendered as statement of fact is ambiguous and even misleading to a reader. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"ontology" is a better term than "existence" because it looks beyond the "do they exist" yes-or-no question. Of course an apple exists, the UN exists, the Republic of China exists, Linux exists, Christianity exists, the hope for change under the Obama administration exists, my moral compass exists, cinema exists, and the word "nonexistence" exists. The question isn't "do ghosts exist", because they obviously do. The question is about the nature of their existence: do they exist rather like a dream exists, or rather like the movie "Gladiator" exists. That they do not exist in the sense that a given apple exists is undisputed, since ghosts, unlike apples, by definition have no physical (material) existence, otherwise they wouldn't be ghosts but undead or similar. The synonyms apparition and spectre make clear that their nature is in being seen. An apparition that doesn't appear, or a spectrum that isn't visible are contradictions in terms. For a ghost, being seen is existing. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No disagreement, I see the philosophical interpretations of existence as valid. On the other hand, we probably should avoid parsing them to create potential ambiguity, especially in the lead. Along these lines, we might look at Greys as a rough model (sans that silly infobox) for the Ghost article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

On this philosophical note, that fellow Democritus in the cemetery, back in the 5th century BC, featured in the article, bent on proving ghosts don't exist, is the same guy who formulated the atomic theory which posited that everything that exists is basically just atoms-and-the-void. This ancient materialist and atheistic doctrine was and is regularly wheeled out by skeptics to controvert ghosts, and anything else not immediately obvious to them, despite being superseded by quantum theory which posits that what we see is dependent on our subjectivity. The atom is either/or a particle/wave...dependent on the observer. Some physicists even posit and anthropogenic explanation for the whole universe. Such considerations should be born in mind by wikipedia editors bent on telling us dogmatic revealed "truths" about what supposedly defies the laws of nature. Colin4C (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, as the great philosopher and wit, Stephen Colbert, has correctly pointed out, truthiness is far more important than evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts. You make your own truths with your gut. --TS 11:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

also, we don't need to rely on Democritus' account that he spent a night in a cemetery. Since the scientific revolution, taking accounts in the classics at face value is rather frowned upon. You may have missed out on these exciting developments, it is possible that your ancestors had retreated into the American prairie before they occurred (I am suggesting this possibility seeing you appear to be in the "Fox News" demographics). It is now possible to check, e.g. by spending a night in a cemetery yourself, Democritus or no Democritus. --dab (𒁳) 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

emphatically sans infobox (see also shadow people). The problem isn't with articles taking their subject matter seriously, the problem is with them taking it "seriously" in a way suggesting they were written by 13-year-old geeks. --dab (𒁳) 15:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

This unreferenced statement in the article appears to be meaningless:

"Spiritist séances together with pseudoscientific explanations like ectoplasm and spirit photography appeared to give a quality of scientific method to apparitions."

How on earth can an apparition have a "scientific method"? Colin4C (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have to admit that is a very interesting sentence :) ...I sorta know what it is trying to say (??) But may as well remove and start from scratch I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is saying that in the 19th century, these seances were considered scientific experiments. The "pseudo" in "pseudoscience" says that they were not, in fact, good science. An "apparition" *Latin spectrum) can obviously be studied in a scientific way. We scientists refer to such study as "observation" within an "experiment". If the apparition has reproducible qualities, a "law" may be formulated. If not, not. --dab (𒁳) 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For now, sentences that don't make sense can be removed or replaced.

I ask Colin to be patient. The paranomal stuff shouldn't be entirely forgotten, but I realised the more I thought about it that the paranormal stuff that we did have was getting in the way of writing the bulk of the article, which should be about ghosts in culture, folklore, psychology and whatnot. --TS 01:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to add that phenomena can be observed, and recorded without a requirement for a scientific explanation to give a rationale or prove that they exist. E.g. one can observe and describe cloud formations, without a scientific or ontological theory for them. The data of history, also, are usually recorded without benefit of scientific explanations...Colin4C (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

indeed. impartial observation is the prerequisite for any scientific theory. If you can see ghosts, you can observe them just like you can observe clouds, or just like you can keep a journal of your dreams, even before you formulate any theories. It is unclear which are the "sentences that don't make sense" Colin is referring to. Jung himself was capable of seeing ghosts at times, and he made perfectly rational use of his experiences. You can agree or disagree with Jung's views of the psyche, but it would be difficult to claim that his reports of his "ghost sightings" were just lies: you would need to reject all literature on dream studies, since obviously no account of a dream is ever verifiable. --dab (𒁳) 09:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been mulling your comment over for a bit. Carl Jung was "capable of seeing ghosts", and also reported a few other bizarre phenomena. In his writing he stressed the incidence of apparent confusion in human perception between the exterior and the interior, and aspects of his thinking converged with that of the later Copenhagen School of theoretical physicists, to the extent that appeals to Jungian interpretations and to quantum physics have both become touchstones of paranormalists. Having said that, Jung's thoughts on the paranormal, and on ghosts, haven't been so influential that ghosts (or the paranormal in general) are taken seriously as external phenomena. Modern psychologists are, I think, more likely to take the approach adopted by Richard Wiseman, [1], and test the hypothesis that ghosts are "all in the mind" (in this case, by seeing if people can predict what kind of ghosts will be reported in a given location). --TS 12:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

conflating this with the Copenhagen school etc. is pure quantum quackery. Obviously ghosts are "all in the mind" (or psyche), along with the rest of the known universe. --dab (𒁳) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mass hysteria

:mass hysteria occurs when a group of people believe they are suffering from a similar disease or ailment

Thats taken from our article on mass hysteria. I'm sure there are plenty of sources that will verify that groups of people hear, or see the same thing (in this case, a ghost or ghosts). Is it really that dubious dab? Synergy 00:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, it remains dubious as long as your generalization from "thing" to "in this case, ghosts" remains unreferenced. As I said, I am unaware of reports where ghosts have appeared to entire crowds. My understanding is that ghosts are most frequently seen by individuals, not groups, let alone crowds. --dab (𒁳) 11:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Concepts and Experience

I have modified some dubious stuff which seems to suggest that an experience is a concept - which is meaningless:

"Ghosts, hauntings, and related paranormal concepts have been characterized as pseudoscientific by mainstream scientists."

I was tempted to say that this sentence was POV, but it is worse than that, it actually makes no sense to say that an experience, even a non-veridical hallucination or dream is "pseudoscientific". If this is the best "mainstream scientists" can do, they should be locked up overnight in a haunted house, though, to be fair, I think a wikipedia editor has misquoted them, or failed to grasp the import of what he/she was reading. Colin4C (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In keeping with WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE, the article needs to report the mainstream scientific view up front. The NSB report (National Science Foundation (official report) (2006). "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding". Science and engineering indicators 2006. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm) of the National Science Board is an excellent source for the views of mainstream scientists, as this orgnization serves as an independent body of advisors to both the President and Congress on broad national policy issues related to science and engineering research and education. This article has failed review again [2] and again [3] for the same reason. It's silly to have an article stalled from moving to a GA or FA because one editor insists the article treat the reality of ghosts credulously or even ambiguously. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So...if you had a dream about...say...a pink elephant...would you be entertaining a pseudo-scientific concept or having an experience? When people see things or report experiences is it obligatory to have a scientific explanation for it? If we reported that Julius Ceasar was stabbed in the Forum is it be necessary to give a scientific explanation for it? And is scientific endeavour at an end now? All phemonomena in the universe are now fully explained and we can all just retire to the seaside? What date was it when scientists discovered the explanation for all phenomena, known and unknown? Last week maybe? Please give ref if this is the case. Or maybe you think the wikipedia obliges us to pretend that scientists have an explanation for all phenomena, known and unknown, in case the hidebound, superstitious, masses lose all respect for them and revert to witchcraft? Colin4C (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt these eccentric arguments will hold sway when the article goes for FA or even GA review, but good luck. I'll check back then. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you concede that there are some phenomena in the universe which scientists cannot (yet) explain? If that is so, is it the wikipedia editor's role to fill the gap? IMHO if something is unknown we should have the sense/courage to say so, not wheel forward some dogmatic ideological construct to fill in the gaps of our knowledge: be that the old religions, the dialectical materialist religion (which also invoked science to prop up its claims) or Science-As-A-Religion. If Einstein doesn't know, Socrates shrugs, the Pope puts his hands up in defeat, it is not the place of the wikipedia editor to fill the gap. Our role is (or should be) more humble...Also I think that there is an unexamined cultural Americano-centric bias in operation here. From what I have read, the theological preconceptions of most Americans, derived from their tub-thumping Puritan ancestors, inclines them to the demon theory to explain the paranormal and to discount ghosts as part of the "superstitious" impedimentia of Anglicans and Catholics etc. But as per usual on the wikipedia American cultural norms are assumed to be true for all cultures everywhere....Colin4C (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to report the mainstream scientific view up front, provided it is understood that the "science" in question is anthropology. mythography or psychology, not physics. --dab (𒁳) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler warning.....

Aaawww heck, I feel it is important in the cinematic section to mention films from a ghost POV such as the 1999 film The Sixth Sense, 2001's The Others, and the 2006 horror film Silent Hill from the ghost's point of view....

but I do appreciate I feel a bit like the heckler sitting in the cinema at an early screening of The Sixth Sense who shouts out ....."He's a ghost!!" Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WHY do you think it's important to mention that they are from the ghost POV? What encyclopedic information about the history of ghostlore does that material give our readers? It sounds like mere trivia, or, at the very best, info that would be more appropriate in an article specifically about ghosts in movies. DreamGuy (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't subscribe to arbitrary ghost-but-not-anything-fictional approach really. Like with vampire, the lines between folklore, mythology, belief, credulity, paranormal, literature and fiction is often blurred, with various elements and threads from antiquity to present. Folklore and some myths were merely former-day pop culture. Any parent article has to be comprehensive, with daughter articles covering particular aspects in more detail (and summarised in parent, not ignored). Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sio the fiction section somehow doesn't adequately summarize the entire history of ghost fiction if we do not spoil the revelations of some recent popular movies? Just don't see it, sorry. Some movies are from the ghost's view, but we can use Mr. Topper or whatever those old ones were -- and those are probably more notable in the long run. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

.....and I agree, hence my non-replacement of the material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead needs lots of work

Looks like we have some disagreement about the lead.

First off, I think the version that says "A place in which ghosts are reported is described as haunted. A revenant is a deceased person returning from the dead to haunt the living, either as a disembodied ghost or alternatively as an animated ("undead") corpse." is just extremely awkward. That's seems more appropriate to a disambiguation page, or as discrete information that's better handled as it comes up later in the article (as it does already). At the top there it just sounds like a laundry list of related terms. The insect article doesn't have as its second and third sentences "A place in which insects are reported is described as infested. Vermin are animals that infests places that humans live, whether they are insects or other creatures like mice." Can't you see why that doesn't belong there?

Also, the lead is really, really, REALLY hurting for a nice summary of ghost as a topic. Just saying it's a disembodied spirit of a dead person doesn't tell us if they are invisible, or what they look like when visible, or how widespread the idea is, or that ghost is also applied for nebulous ideas and so forth. It's just a very poor lead. I almost reverted the whole thing back to a version from about two years back, but that one, though better, had some other problems. But at least someone reading it would have a better idea of what is meant by the word "ghost". DreamGuy (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about the comparison of infested to haunted. agree it was unpolished. Be my guest in suggesting what other salient points need mentioning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Image flow

Can we fix this please? I noticed an image a placed on the article, direction left, was changed to the right. Shouldn't they flow from right to left? I see too many on the right hand side. Synergy 16:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The limiting factor is MOS and the parameter that left-aligned images not come directly under a level 3 subheading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

we should avoid left aligned images if at all possible. there is nothing worse than an article text meandering between images on both sides. Put them all on the right, please. If they don't all fit on the right, there are probably too many images present, and a few need to be thrown out. --dab (𒁳) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking a broad view of the subject

I think that we should take a broad view of all aspects of this subject rather than getting entangled in some lame "it all depends on what you mean by...." half arsed POV game of semantics. Trying to fit the nebulous subject of ghosts into an editor's favorite POV formulation as backed up by their personal interpretation of ill understood wikipedia "rules" is not the way forward I feel...This is an area where, for once, some knowledge of the subject is necessary rather than it being yet another opportunity for editors to compete for the "most annoying wikilawyer of the year" award. Colin4C (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was aiming for something like vampire but figured the paranormal bit would be correspondingly larger than that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I tried to explain to the "scientific" fundamentalists here, empirical evidence for ghosts is a lot stronger than that for vampires, zombies, fairies, Santa Claus etc which they like to put together in the paranormal rag-bag. We all realise fairly early on that our parents lied about Santa Claus; the Cottingley Fairies were a fake; the zombies of Haiti are probably not-dead-yet people on drugs and that the evidence for vampires has been misinterpreted. Ghostly phenomena, however, have been very widely reported in the literature, past and present, by people who are not liars or simpletons. I know several people, personally, who have seen ghosts, and even saw one myself on one occasion. Why this should be I do not pretend to know, but it is an empirical fact. The scientific fundamentalists are like the Inquisitors who refused to look through Galileo's telescope at the four moons of Jupiter. They seem willing to discard all empirical evidence which contradicts their pre-conceived theories. No matter how many moons of Jupiter or ghosts you show them, they will point blank refuse to admit that their pre-conceived theories are wrong. Colin4C (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My take on it is, regardless of whether one believes in ghosts or not (I am still in the X-files like "I want to believe category" :)), ghost-hunting and investigation is a much more notable area than with other creatures, so is worthy of more space. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I believe it would be a shame if this became yet another wikipedia article hijacked by editors who want to ram their POV agenda down everybody's throats based on their limited understanding of the subject, their personal prejudices and their simplistic cod-philosophy. I believe that wikipedia editors should present the variable data of whatever phenomena they are addressing and leave it to the readers to make whatever sense out of it it has. It is not our job to act as some kind of cognitive thought police, labelling stuff we don't understand as "WRONGTHINK". Wikipedia editors should have some humility. If we don't know about something, we should admit it, not erect some more-or-less plausible or popular or folkloric construct ("it's the drains...") to explain it away. "Explaining away" should not be confused with "explaining". Colin4C (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I find that once an article makes FA it is considerably more stable (see vampire this year past) and I am musing on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Colin4C, considering that you have so far refused to appreciate any point made regarding your "Fox News" approach to ghosts, you are generating a lot of output to this page, and from a rather high horse at that. There is serious work to be done here, such as the pending merge requests. It won't do to keep the article hostage by your idiosyncratic insistence on "paranormal" vs. "skeptical" "explanations". Wikipedia can discuss pseudoscience, but WP:DUE says that pseudoscience (the "paranormal" etc.) should be discussed on articles dedicated to pseudoscience, not on articles discussing much wider topics. As it stands, we have the Apparitional experience article dedicated to this stuff. This article should be summarized in a brief paragraph, in best WP:SS here, but not more. You want to discuss paranormal "explanations" and skeptical response to such? Please edit the main article. --dab (𒁳) 10:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't myself examined in detail the difference between preferred versions and will get onto it at some stage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are any existing preferred versions: the article has made progress, but we are still separated from any "preferred version" by a substantial editing effort to be invested. --dab (𒁳) 16:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So you believe that someone who sees (say) a ghost or something inexplicable or unknown is engaged in pseudoscience and someone who sees (say) a tree is engaged in science? When we observe something in world, say a man getting out of a car, we are making scientific theories? You are both begging the question (calling something a "pseudoscience" does not make it so) and making a category mistake (empirical observation does not depend on scientific explanations). You seem to be talking nonsense. Colin4C (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

According to standard academic practice (I used to be an academic, by the way, and have written many hard-copy academic articles) we never said that something was true or false, right or wrong, but always said "according to x such-and-such happened" and left it to the reader how much credence was to be given to "x". Some readers might think that "x" was a credible person whilst others might think he was a crank. We never had the presumption that we academics knew the absolute truth and had to dicatate how people were allowed to think about a certain matter. Outside of academia, of course, ex cathedra absolute statements of truth, are routinely made by politicians and journalists via sound bites to delude the masses. Colin4C (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why you keep saying this, seeing that nobody disagreed in the first place, and nobody except for you has even mentioned the concept of "absolute truth". People have mentioned WP:DUE, which is quite a different animal, and which you continue to cheerfully ignore. You also continue to imply things I have never said. To the contrary, I have myself stated that I think observing ghosts is like observing clouds (or trees), provided you can see them, since all observation is subjective. It is impossible to have a discussion with you if you insist on refusing to appreciate anything that was said and insist on rebutting strawman arguments that were never in fact made. --dab (𒁳) 22:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Folklore and Reality

I think the attempt being made here by "scientific" fundamentalist POV pushers to divide folklore or ghostlore from apparitional experiences is misguided. Take for instance the legend of the Flying Dutchman. This is most certainly a legend, but, weirdly, apparitions of the Flying Dutchman have been quite widely reported by sailors, including one sighting by the future King George V of England. If we follow the POV pushers logic all these latter sightings would be censored from the Flying Dutchman article or a note attached to each one saying that scientists have disproved them, that they disobey the laws of nature and the readers of the wikipedia are on no account allowed to speculate about them as scientists, at an unspecified time, date and location, have proved for all time that appearances of the Flying Dutchman cannot ever occur. Maybe the POV pushers think that wikipedia readers have to be told what to think in case they get infected with paranormal notions and start disrespecting scientists in the street. Colin4C (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Did George V happen to have any spirit photography equipment or other ghostbusters gear with him? No? Then it is folklore. Of course sightings of the Flying Dutchman occurred, if there are no sightings there is no ghost. Now why, do you argue, is it "misguided" to divide such perfectly pedestrian reports of ghost sightings from pseudoscientific explanation attempts? It is one thing to tell of your ghost sightings in the harbour tavern. It is quite another to draw up a theory surrounding ectoplasm, infrasound, morphogenetc fields and what have you.

I think you should just quit your wikilawyering. It isn't "POV pushing" to classify 19th century pseudoscience as 19th century pseudoscience. --dab (𒁳) 11:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should read (or maybe burn?) the scientist Michael Brooks' "13 Things That Don't Make Sense: The Most Intriguing Scientific Mysteries of Our Time". Unlike wikipedia editors Brooks admits that there are some things in the universe which don't make sense or are unknown. Such things like (chapter 1) the fact that only 4% of the universe is known - the other 96% somehow going missing. Though scientists, like Brooks, have no idea about the nature of the missing 96%, this should in no way impede original research claims by wikipedia editors here to tell us all about it and what happens there 24 hours a day for all eternity and the absolutely definate fact known only to wikipedia editors that there are no ghosts there and never could be. Why indeed should we bother with science if wikipedia editors here know everything already? For his part, Brooks, the sort of crank who regularly writes for New Scientist, says that "there are reasons to doubt that what we call the laws of physics necessarily apply everywhere in the universe - or that they were applicable to every time in history". But best to cling to your fundamentalist certainties than listen to this heresy. Colin4C (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah, yeah, WP:FORUM. --dab (𒁳) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Screaming Skulls

I wonder where screaming skulls come in the typology of ghost-lore? They are neither insubstantial nor have come back from the dead...One supposed to be incumbent at Burton Agnes Hall in Yorkshire though I didn't hear it, when I visited the house - too pre-occupied by whatever the hell it was that was sitting in that chair...(later learnt that a girl of the house had been murdered by brigands in the grounds of the house in the 17th century and had haunted the place ever since...). Colin4C (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Are Ghosts real

The article offers a variety of percentages for how many Americans might believe in ghosts. In one place it says more than half, in another it says less than 40%. That's all very nice, and I should hope that Wikipedia would NOT attempt to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts - but would it be too contraversial to have a section about the evidence favouring and disputing the existence of ghosts? Is there any evidence to disprove or discredit their existence? Is there any evidence to prove or strongly support their existence? We see plenty of stuff on TV and in print every day about how so-and-so saw a ghost, or so-and-so took a photo of a ghost, but that doesn't really convince me either way. I don't think that I've ever seen one. Basically, may ghosts be real? Is it likely, or even possible? 222.155.18.236 (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)