Talk:Ghost

Improvements to make

Get rid of huge quotes

The huge quotes in the article need to be converted and paraphrased. This article has far too many quotations and we don't want most of the text of a section to be a huge quotation from someone. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Better Definition

Would the following definition be more accurate? It is the definition of ghost from How to Hunt Ghosts by Joshua P. Warren.

"...we can loosely define a ghost as some paranormal aspect of the physical form and/or mental presence that appears to exist apart from the original physical form."

The word appears is important to the above definition, for most encounters are perceived by the five senses alone, creating a subjective experience. Therefore, most information about ghosts is subjective.

And to Wikidudeman, I apologize if it is too long. brickdude^_^ 18:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think, that the current definition is tautologic. 89.236.214.174 (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

At the bottom of the "Historical Background" section, there's a reference to the movie "The Frighteners". I'm wondering if this observation should be placed in the "Popular Culture" section. 206.191.173.159 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)anonymous

This article reads like ghosts are real

At least until the "skeptics" section. Something should be added to the first paragraph as clarification that it's all a load of sh*t. 86.135.242.68 23:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have proof that ghosts don't exist? Of course you don't. People such as yourself are "scared". That is the issue here. You are too scared to face up to the fact that there are many things out there in our universe that you know nothing about. Your 7th Grade brain needs to wake up a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DockWinston (talk • contribs) 23:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A "load of sh*t", eh? Lucky you managed to put us all straight on that. So what you're demanding is that Wikipedia abandon its NPOV stance because this is a subject you personally have particularly strong feelings about. Which is unconvincing enough at the best of times, but if you can't even be bothered to identify yourself... - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the first observation. Subjects such as Werewolves, Vampires and Zombies all start with the mention that these are "mythological and/or folkloric" - as this subject should. A NPOV stance does not exclude logic, reason and evidence - Counterpoint : Ghosts are not real, but are an important part of folktales and mythology. (Lordkuz (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

I lived in a haunted house for nearly ten years. The different events, their variety and their regularity, convinced me of the existence of ghosts, and I am a sane, rational person (I think). Unfortunately, the rules of Wikipedia are stacked against the paranormal, because, by their very nature, things like ghosts are non-verifiable and the subject of personal observation, and so I don't think Wikipedia can claim a neutral point of view on the subject. Just because we can't prove that something exists doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that we can't prove it. How about a disclaimer somewhere in the article to the effect that Wikipedia cannot take a neutral point of view on the paranormal because of the way Wikipedia works? Rayhol 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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. A good article will summarize the differing modern viewpoints expressed on this page and provide information on how beliefs have varied through history and continue to vary across cultures and among individuals. It will seek neither to bolster the weight of anyone's anecdotal evidence nor to throw the authority of science at the superstitious. "Ghost, according to tradition, is a spirit of a dead person that visits the living. Most people do not believe in ghosts, but some do." So begins the World Book article on ghosts. I don't have much use for the World Book, but I think they more or less get it right in this case. As long as beliefs are described as beliefs and not facts, NPOV really shouldn't be much of an issue here. Rivertorch 17:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The evolution article reads like a fact, too. It's not proven, just widely accepted. But the theory that the earth is round was unproven and widely accepted, too. If that can be read like its true, why not the ghost article? Because less people believe in ghosts. I'm not saying that either is real or unreal, but both articles are biased in one way, or the other. What we need to do is remove this, not argue about iwether ghosts (or evolution, for that matter) are real. --S'luki 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SalukiGirl (talk • contribs)

Remove what? A little specificity would be helpful. I'm not entirely clear on the rest of your point, but without getting into a highly technical discussion of what constitutes proof, I think what's at issue here is a question of fact vs. belief, not "proven" vs. "unproven". Belief must be identified as such in an encyclopedia article, while fact may simply be stated without qualification. In any case, whether something can legitimately be considered factual has little or nothing to do with how many people accept it as true. (Incidentally, I'd guess that fewer people believe in evolution than in ghosts, not the reverse.) There has long been consensus in the scientific community that evolution is a fact, and to date no credible evidence has arisen to challenge its principal tenets. The existence of ghosts has no such consensus, and much of the evidence for it is questionable, to put it mildly. Rivertorch (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding once again as though I'm in Usenet mode (sorry, Rivertorch), I've got to pick up on this, if only to reiterate what's already been said. It matters, because the assertion that evolution is not fact, while no doubt made innocently and for fair purpose in this case, still gives ammunition to those whose agenda requires that it be discredited. Evolution is a fact - that's not open to question. What can be said is that our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution is not complete - but that doesn't negate the concept as a whole, which has been observed and exploited (albeit without formal definition) by animal breeders and horticulturalists for centuries.

As far as the main question here goes, personally I don't think there's any question that this article presents the subject in a pretty suitable way, overall. There's a (relatively) large section devoted to 'skeptical analysis', and the remainder of the article doesn't make any assertions as to the reality or otherwise of ghosts. For example, it specifically says that the evidence is anecdotal, but (rightly) adds that belief in ghosts has been consistent throughout history. Such comments clearly indicate that reality in this case is questionable. I genuinely can't see why people are having such a problem with the item as it stands. Is it simply that it doesn't say "this is a load of rubbish" at the top, as the anonymous contributor above suggested? - Shrivenzale (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your statement that evolution is fact is called "opinion". The "fact" is, evolutionary researchers agree that the theory falls short but have no other model at this time. Many scientific "facts" through the centuries have been revised when unforseeable information was discovered. Claims of "fact" were equally incorrect then as now. Each period in human history has believed that its science was "finally correct". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets all remember the Greek Gods for a minute here, all the Greeks were completely sure of their existence because of things that were caused by nature. Ghosts are the same, the ignorant man's explanation on things he doesn't want to look into. I swear, I find old used rags in the back of my laundry room smarter than 83.385% of ghost believers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.150.132 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nightmare?

Hi I would just like to know if anyone knows of, or has experienced a ghost pinning them down and not being able to move? Because this morning I woke up at about 5am but I didn't bother checking the time because for some reason lately I've been waking up at that exact time alot. So I just rolled over and tried to go to sleep, which was weird because it felt like I got to sleep straight away. Then when I think I was changing positions, all of a sudden I couldn't move, and I was in a uncomfortable position but I was just stuck. I could only move my eyes and maybe head slightly, and as I was all paralysed I could see a weird round light skim across the roof of my bedroom. It was like a bright blueish-white colour and from my position looked about the size of a tennis ball. So in this time of me trying to move I could see it skimming to directly accross my head, but as soon as I breathed out a help, I felt a release and I could move again and I was awake. This was really weird for me and scary as I could remember every vivid detail and it did not even felt like I had gone to sleep, and when I woke I figured out that this would have happenned in no less than 10 minutes of me waking the 1st time. Also the way I tried crying out for help felt like I was being choked, which I could tell from the sound of my own voice. And I also remember conciously thinking at the time as soon as I saw the light of aliens or ghosts, which made it feel like I was awake. I'm still not sure wether I was awake or asleep during this experience. I don't have alot of nightmares, I can't even remember the last time I did and I didn't watch any scary movies the night before. Can anyone help? TeePee-20.7 06:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

first of all you probably had a hang over and didn't want to move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.194.106 (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the best place to ask for help on specific experiences. This is an encyclopaedia rather than a discussion forum - but if you look there are probably a good number of web forums and Usenet groups available who'd be interested in hearing about it. - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just read that : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis It might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.106.109 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In some dreams, especially nightmares, people have reported slowed movement or being unable to move. A personal example of mine was in a nightmare I began running from some unseen force but my movement got slower and slower until I stopped completely then I woke up. Maybe speech is sometimes altered in a similar way in dreams. In the movie "The Exorcism of Emily Rose," which is based on a true story, the character Emily Rose experienced a force that pinned her down in her bed. I don't remember what the explanations were given as possibilites for this claim but maybe you could find more there. Feral Mind (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ghost Pictures" Section

I've removed the section called "Ghost Pictures: Are They Real?" since it didn't have any actual content. - Shrivenzale (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Racist quote

"As the savage commonly explains the processes of inanimate nature by supposing that they are produced by living beings working in or behind the phenomena, so he explains the phenomena of life itself. If an animal lives and moves, it can only be, he thinks, because there is a little animal inside which moves it. If a man lives and moves, it can only be because he has a little man or animal inside, who moves him. The animal inside the animal, the man inside the man, is the soul. And as the activity of an animal or man is explained by the presence of the soul, so the repose of sleep or death is explained by its absence; sleep or trance being the temporary, death being the permanent absence of the soul... "[6]

This quote right in the beginning of the article is racist because it uses the word "savages" to represent large portions of humanity who have a particular belief. How would it look like if we start to call white skinned people as "criminals" for carrying out mass murders and stealing people's lands? 59.178.45.155 (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, although it is a very old quotation and Frazer seems to have thought of it as a neutral term. [1] Do you want just that word taken out ("tribal person"), or a replacement quote? Xanthoxyl (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I sense a chip on someone's shoulder here. If the anonymous contributor objected to the word being quoted then s/he was entirely free to edit the article either to remove the quotation entirely or to trim it down to exclude that particular word. I wonder why s/he chose not to do so. I have now amended the quote myself to remove the 'offensive' word, though it seems somewhat irrational to attempt to impose modern standards of political correctness on earlier writers.

It is also significant that the quote as originally shown did not make any reference to race or skin colour whatsoever: such association was assumed and expressed only by 59.178.45.155 here. - Shrivenzale (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote probably wasn't that valuable to the article in the first place and perhaps is better removed entirely. Otherwise, I'm tempted to revert because now it makes less sense with the first part gone. At any rate, censoring a quote from The Golden Bough because someone objects to the word "savage" really seems a bit absurd. I refuse not to assume good faith on the part of the complainer, and I don't blame him or her for raising the matter here instead of simply doing the edit, but I think that he or she should consider carefully the fact that encyclopedias often quote old material, and this is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia. Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"I refuse not to assume good faith on the part of the complainer"

Fair point. Sorry - I'm afraid I sometimes forget this isn't Usenet. - Shrivenzale (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you forget that, too? Rivertorch (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have declined the speedy deletion of this well-researched and thoroughly cited article and removed the associated tag. If someone has a problem with the world-view of this article that would possibly prompt its deletion, discussing it here would be a good first step. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see how the quote is racist? It mentions no race - the word used is 'savage' which by definition does not represent a race but is applicable, in this context, to all humanity. The user who complained though spoke about "whites" which suggests they believe colour is mentioned in the quote - it isn't though. The user acutally contradicts themself at the start by identifying the definition they are complaining about as "large portions of humanity who have a particular belief" - notice no mention of colour there, then they say "white skinned people". If we are to assume good faith let us hope the writer can understand why their statement is incorrect and, one could argue, racist itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerbmonkey (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Links to Haunted Places

I've taken out a newly-added link to Chillingham Castle, a supposedly haunted location in the UK. For the same reason I've removed the existing link re haunting of Niagara Falls: the reason being that there are probably millions of locations in the world that claim some sort of haunting, and it seems impractical to list them all. Unless a location has some specific relevance, and itself serves to define what a ghost is (which is the purpose of this article), adding these links can only really serve to advertise the location in question. - Shrivenzale (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Rivertorch (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting note on the story of King Saul and the Witch of Endor-According to the passage in question, she was not trying to call forth Samuel but a demon to pretend to be Samuel. She became afraid when the real Samuel appeared and rebuked Saul for going to a Witch. The traditional Judeo/Christian view is that ghosts are demons that pretend to be the dear departed to deceive the living. It might be worth mentioning in the article.Just-unsigned (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I noticed that only one external link was spared. The link is a reliable source but it mentions of only one experience that is not paranormal-related. There is no problem with this, however, I must point out that not all researchers are skeptic. They may demand more than the scientific point-of-view. Some people who visit Wikipedia looks for possible (not entirely accurate) clues, which may prove or disprove the existence of ghost.

External Links are like additional resources to the researcher. If we save only one source, which cites only one experience, and is not paranormal-related, and remove the rest of the paranormal-related sites, we leave room for doubts of a bias information.

Why not allow additional resources that have different point-of-views. They are not spam links in my opinion since they are after all related to the topic ghost. I would like to request reconsideration. Ursa Gamma (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to paranormal ghost stories are hardly considered scholarly and per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, the links...

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.
3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
4. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well, so be it. Of the many users that viewed the page, no one contradicted that change, only until now. They are not my personal websites. One link there Ghostvilla was created under my design but it belongs to an independent group of ghost hunters. I added it on Wikipedia because they have ghost-related videos, which are what I thought Wikipedia lacks, and I think some people here would agree to that.

You may say that ghost stories are not scholarly but I disagree with you. What science could not explain nor can't prove does not entirely mean they don't exist. Science, in fact, created Parapsychology to deal with it, to study it. However, you have mentioned some strong points, and since it does conform with Wikipedia's rules, I'm afraid, I have to stand down and accept it. I'm sorry if I have caused any troubles but you know, I was just trying to help.Ursa Gamma (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Whisperer

Hi,

I just thought it was funny that a page about Ghosts, which talks about pop culture/tv shows does not reference The Ghost Whisperer on CBS. It's going into its 4th season, has a huge audience and is all about nothing but ghosts.

Just think it should be mentioned.

Croweincali (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Croweincali 05/06/2008

Could be a good idea but I get the impression that Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a bit of a "timeless" quality about them. Will anybody remember that show in 5 years time? I don't know. To be honest I've never heard of it but then I live in the UK and we don't get CBS. Maybe somebody who's seen the show can comment? --RadioElectric (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Page Protected?

Isn't it usually "the done thing" to put an explanation on an article's talk page when you protect it to say why you did it?--RadioElectric (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not always. The reason is provided in the history, the protection log, and the protection template at the top of the article. This page has been subject to high levels of vandalism recently, and needed some protection to cool things down. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I tried to make the introduction read a little better but we could really do with some sources for those first few lines. They'd probably help us come up with something that reads a lot nicer.--RadioElectric (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ghost?

i dont acctually see the point of ghost i mean its a completly mythical legend the creativity though is amazing for the thought and effort buuuut i dont know i just dont see it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaihn52 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is bookmans haunted?

Transferring post, from [2] Cenarium (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Bookmans Haunted?

~~Nat E. de Wulf~~

Jesus & Ghosts

Jesus appears to acknowledge ghosts in Luke 24:39. 12.198.115.130 (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Evidence

Where it says that 32% of Americans believe in ghosts, is it really necessary to say "despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence for their existance". I didn't see anything about the existance of scientific evidence being mentioned in the question, and there are alot of things people believe in without scientific evidence. I don't think scientific evidence should be held as the absolute standard of whether someone should believe in something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.255.178 (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This article says there is no scientific evidence when that simply isn't true(scientific means its real, not edited). There are videos, pictures, recordings etc. Many of which there hasn't been proof of it being a hoax (would you want to look at thousands of false pieces of evidence to show the parts that make it show its fake? No). Of course that's only SOME. But to say that there is absolutely no "scientific evidence" is pure bullshit(well, it will have evidence when someone DOESN'T edit pictures and videos of ghosts, but, you must also believe in the toothfairy). If science proves anything it is that nature has no limits(lol, yes it does.).96.51.21.229 (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you might want to investigate the difference between anecdotal evidence and science. They are not the same thing. Gwernol 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point I would say this: ghosts didn't have much evidence before you could edit things digitally. ...................... ......................

Also worth noting that there are several conflicting scientific explanations which can't all be true. I.e. 'Explaining away' should be distinguished from 'explaining'. There have been many materialistic explanations for ghosts in the past 300 years which are just as bizarre (salt residues etc) as the spiritualist explanations. Explanations are fine, but which ones are true? They can't all be. 'Science' covers a multitude of sins. In the past meteorites were an affront to scientists who could not give credence to notions of thunderbolts, so explained them away as lightning hitting rocks and making them explode into the air. Anybody who held the bizarre notion that rocks fall from the sky was dismissed as a deluded charlatan. We don't know everything. Even wikipedia editors are not infallible guides to absolute truth...As for evidence, there are many kinds of evidence, such as legal or historical evidence which are taken as true on the wikipedia and elsewhere, even if they are not 'scientific'. To write about George Bush, you don't need a scientific theory about him (bad example, I know.....). Colin4C (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

SK1993

How was what I added an "unverified claim"? Did you notice that there was a source referenced for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioElectric (talk • contribs) 10:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ghost in a Shell?

What does Ghost in a Shell, a Japanese manga/police-thriller have to do with actual ghosts? And why is it listed in the 'See Also' section?