Talk:Ghost

1. REDIRECT Halloween

Template:Vital article

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2023

I feel strongly that the word "spooky" needs to be included in the definition of a ghost. Mattcomputer (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Please correct statistic for "seeing" ghosts.

The article incorrectly asserts "According to a 2009 study by the Pew Research Center, 18% of Americans say they have seen a ghost".

The citation misinterprets the Pew study. The study actually says 18% of Americans say they have "seen or been in the presence of a ghost".

Instead of citing an article about the research, it would be better to cite the actual research - https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2009/12/multiplefaiths.pdf Danjdanj (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY. On Wikipedia we actually prefer articles about a topic (that demonstrate the notability of a statistic) rather than digging through primary sources for the statistic itself. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Native American/Aboriginal views?

Can someone do a section on it?

~~Ted~~ 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:9133:C026:7F1C:5813 (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

For "See also" section

" List of ghost films " (from wikipedia)

~~Ted~~ 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:9133:C026:7F1C:5813 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus is vague

The paragraph saying "scientific consensus" says ghost aren't real is a vague appeal to Authority. It is a vague authority referring a fluff piece. A more responsible phrasing would place ghosts existence as outside the purview of science. I understand amateur ghost hunters may edit this page often enough to be frustrating but we should strive to avoid logical fallicies. A reasonable voice (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The change you're attempting to make is significant. Altering The overwhelming consensus of science is that there is no proof that ghosts exist to The existence of ghosts is impossible to falsify, equivalent to a *shrug emoji*, will require more than your opinion. Novemberjazz 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. Are you saying that the opinion stated should be stronger? Why do you believe that this revision can not be made. Nonetheless, i don't believe i have made a substantial change to the content so let me know what type of source you believe a rewording requires and i will acquire it. I believe that this edit needs to be made, but as a new Wikipedia contributor I am happy to listen to whatever clerical steps I may have missed or etiquette I should follow for edit. If you feel my rewording needs work, I am happy to hear what you believe a rewording should have. A reasonable voice (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It is a vague authority referring a fluff piece. What "fluff piece" are you referring to? Do you mean Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory, by Mario Bunge? Surely you jest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I mixed the source with this https://www.livescience.com/26697-are-ghosts-real.html article used later. Still, an article defining the philosophy of science is not much better. That means that the current phrasing itself verges on original research, unless the source specifically mentions ghosts. A reasonable voice (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

No, there isn't any original research here. The citation to the treatise by Mario Bunge directly supports the philosophy of science perspective (ghosts resist falsification so whether they exist or not is moot), but since Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, ending the discussion there would not be useful since there are perennial surges of pop culture claims and public interest and we have many reliable sources to address them. Evidence, or lack of it, that could support the existence of ghosts and the supernatural has not been seriously entertained within mainstream scientific circles since the Victorian era, so contemporary authors like Benjamin Radford and Joe Nickell are used on Wikipedia to reflect the majority scientific view. In this instance, the citation to livescience.com is merely a convenience; the authors are widely accepted WP:FRIND sources in their own right, often employed to comment on WP:FRINGE topics. I can appreciate your desire to avoid logical fallacies and such, but I don't believe we are in danger of perpetuating any in the present article. Of course you are encouraged to discuss here on the Talk page, but bear in mind any changes to the article need to be agreed to by WP:CONSENSUS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a fine justification to not add any information saying ghosts are real based on science. However, my concern is much simpler. The phrase "The overwhelming consensus of science is that there is no proof that ghosts exist" is not supported or related to the statement "Ghosts themselves are not falsifiable". I have two concerns, the first, this sentence is really a way to get as saying "ghosts aren't real, 'science' proves it" without technically saying it. This is really strongly implying to the laymen that science can indeed prove a negative or make any statements at all about ghosts, when it can't. The second, the specific (and so far unsourced) claim of consensus is meant to imply that science is not a method of creating replicalible models of the world (most often connected to a loose network of individual researchers and research group) but rather an vague god like objective truth. It is this mischaracterization that is harmful, it is an appeal to a vague authority. It didn't even have the decency to be connected to the philosophers you mentioned in your reply. When I have time i will rewrite a sample to make sure your concerns that the public is taking Ghost Hunting a little too seriously (not that is the purpose of an enclyopedia) without implying an appeal to vague authority. However, I don't agree that this phrasing is helpful, logically supported by the source, or good for layman's explanation. I also want to point out that this isn't an article about ghost hunting, this is an article about a cultural phenomenon that ghost hunting is connected to. A strong rebuttal of ghost hunting as pseudoscience belongs in the lead of that article, not in a general article of interest to a much much broader section of the population. A reasonable voice (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)