Talk:Ghost

Ghost was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 10, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghost article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 3 months

Ghost is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 11, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 5, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Folklore Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Paranormal

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity High‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam High‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Spirituality Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Parapsychology (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mythology High‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Occult High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Horror Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (Dec 2005–July 2006)
Archive 2 (July 2006–Aug 2007)
Archive 3 (Sept 2007–Oct 2008)
Archive 4 (Nov 2008–Feb 2009)
Archive 5 (March–Dec 2009)
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8 (Mar 2010)
Archive 9 (2010)
Archive 10 (2010)
Archive 11 (2010)
Pseuoscience (2006–2010)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Chapter 6 Summary & Analysis Williamazing (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghost/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) 23:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about an interesting topic. Unfortunately, I simply don't believe that the article, in its current state, meets the good article criteria. I'll give you a chance to change my mind and rework the article, but in all honesty, I think it is unlikely it will pass. Probably the best thing the review can accomplish is to list the problems with the article in its current state so that it can be rewritten and eventually nominated again. I hope you find this worthwhile.

The problems start with the lead, which states, "The overwhelming consensus of science is that ghosts do not exist. Their existence is impossible to falsify, and ghost hunting has been classified as pseudoscience." That makes no sense; it is actually self-contradictory. If something definitely does not exist, that means that its existence has been falsified. If the existence of something is impossible to falsify, that means that it is impossible to show that it does not exist, not that it does not exist. Either the statement that "overwhelming consensus of science is that ghosts do not exist" must be removed or the statement that the existence of ghosts "is impossible to falsify" must be removed; it appears senseless for the article to make both those statements.

I also note that significant portions of the article do not appear to be cited at all; that definitely won't do for a good article. I'll provide more comments soon, discussing the article at greater length. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second of the six Good article criteria is that an article be "Verifiable with no original research", which includes containing "a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline". Unfortunately the article quite clearly does not meet this criterion. Sections of the article that lack sufficient (or, in some cases, any) citations include the "Terminology" section, several subsections of the "Typology" section ("Ghosts and the afterlife", "Fear of ghosts", "Common attributes", "Cultural", "Locale", "Ancient Near East and Egypt"), and at least one subsection of the "History" section ("Ancient Near East and Egypt"). In the "By culture" section, there are insufficient citations in several subsections ("European folklore", "Indian subcontinent", "North India", "Bengal and East India", "Tibet", "Austronesia", "China", and "Japan"). This is just a partial list of the problematic areas. In order to resolve this issue, you would have to either add a very large number of supporting citations, or remove a great deal of article content. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

The six Good article criteria are,

1. That the article be "Well written". The article does not consistently meet this criterion. Much of it is adequately well-written; some of it is not. There are a number of passages of what I would consider poor writing. Though I have made some edits at the article, I have not ventured to try to improve these passages.

2. That the article be "Verifiable with no original research". Unfortunately, as noted above, the article clearly does not meet this criterion. Much of it is uncited.

3. The article be "Broad in its coverage". The article more or less meets this criterion at present, although some parts it could stand to be expanded. Unfortunately, I think it is likely that much article content will eventually have to be removed due to its being uncited, so I would not say that the article securely meets even this criterion.

4. That the article be "Neutral". I would like to say that the article meets this criterion, since much of it does seem reasonably neutral. I am not truly satisfied with it, however. See the points above about how the lead seems to contradict itself.

5. That the article be "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." The article does seem stable.

6. That the article be "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". I believe the article meets this criterion.

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, if you wish, I can place the article on hold so that you can make an effort to improve it and bring it closer to meeting the good article criteria. If you do not wish me to do this, however, then there is really nothing I can do but fail the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With no response from the article nominator, I regretfully have little choice but to fail the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

Is the lead section too long? Mr.LT (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just removed half the lede. This is not acceptable and I'm restoring it. If you think it should be shortened you need to discuss that here first so that we keep important information.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, only scientific views were removed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking i have never experienced about ghost i real but i am not sure if it is real or fake but at any chance it is real i dont want to experience any of such things in my life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.91.40 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost photography

I am thinking of adding a section here about ghost photography. History and explanations. I thought I might find this topic somewhere on Wikipedia but have been unable to find anything. Let me know if I am missing it or if you have suggestions for adding the new section. Thanks. Alhill42 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the amount of information I am finding, would it be better to have a separate page? Input is appreciated. Alhill42 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It already exists: spirit photography. Or if you mean the modern ghost hunting variety, see orb (paranormal). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie Thanks so much! Getting the wording correct is important. I didn't think of that alternative. That is helpful. I will be adding to the spirit photography page.Alhill42 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts

I noticed that you had deleted my edit on the Wikipedia page of Ghosts. I did not say there was proof, I said that there isn't any proof and scientists have claimed this. I will edit another citation for further information. MountainLaurel88 (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for using the Talk page (article Talk is preferable to User Talk to bring in wider input). This edit wasn't an improvement as it implies there is some distinction between proof and "real proof". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fw:Ghosts

You also said that the edit was unexplained, when it clearly was explained. MountainLaurel88 (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this edit removed cited text regarding falsifiability, which your explanation did not cover. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]