Talk:Ghost

Rewrite

I rewrote a few parts to present a somewhat wider view of things. In the course, I deleted the reference to the belief in afterlife as espoused by some major religions. This seems purely coincidental to me, especially since non-religious people have no less of a tendency to report ghost sightings, at least in my experience. Certainly most orthodox religious leaders will reject ghosts as being part of "pagan" superstition. Talking about superstition, maybe this term should feature in the article? Soundray 19:47, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nice work! I felt uncomfortable with the after-life reference myself, and tried to play it down. Maybe somebody would like to wax lyrical about the theological aspects of ghosts in a separate article/chapter? (a la 'Ghosts in Media', 'Ghosts and Religions') Evahala 06:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Open Minded Analysis

'It seems possible that, sometimes, the telling of ghost stories might have been a way for secluded communities to scare off intruders. It is also conceivable that, when unsuccessful, this tactic could have been backed up by more or less elaborate setups with members of that community playing ghosts.' (sounds like Scooby Doo)

This is a neutral analysis?! Where is the logic, not to mention evidence, for this argument? A disgruntled scientist? For the meantime, parts of my original addition have been restored, but I agree, my original contribution was anything but neutral - but "neutral" is not an adequate descriptive word for the current state of this encylopedic entry. Both sides of the argument have to be equally represented, and currently this is not the case.

Further improvement is needed.

The fact is a majority of the infomation we "know" from science were themselves not the simpliest explantations. Occam's Razor is very flawed, as what is "simple" is a very subjective form of criteria. The current scientific theory of reality, is just that, a theory that in itself rarely depicts reality as simple. The existence of ghosts in my opinion is not all that conflicting with scientific theories, just conflicting with those who blindy accept all scientific orthodoxies and subjective dogma such as Occam's Razor and blindy rejects anything remotely challenging to the simplistic views of the universe.

Alasdair - Occam's Razor doesn't say "the simplest explanation", it says out of explanations that both describe the same phenomenon equally well, you take the explanation with the least unexplained phenomonena - IE the "simplest".

Ghost monk image

I removed part of the caption reading "Critics say the picture looks suspiciously like the slasher in Wes Craven's Scream trilogy of horror movies." This stuck me as implying the image had possibly been influenced by the films. As the image predates the films this is impossible. If the comment is instead somehow suggesting the 'slasher' was influenced by this image, then it is out of place in this article.

Suggestions for a more appropriate caption?

I was just about to say this. It is more likely that the films were influenced by the picture. The caption is utter rubbish. Even if the photograph is a fake, how could it have been influenced by a series of films which weren't around until several decades later? 82.109.88.66 12:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "Scream mask" used in the movies was inspired by/based on Edvard Munch's series of paintings depicting a character known colloquially as The Scream, which, having been made in 1893, predates this photograph. I am not altering the caption, but please be aware that although the movie obviously didn't influence this hoax, Munch's painting probably did. Russell 17:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

What is this crap? "The frequency of 18 hertz is known to cause the human eye to vibrate, which can make pale forms appear in the peripheral vision. High concentrations of electromagnetic fields, be it natural or man-made have also an affect on the human brain and perception, causing them to "see" hallucinations or have a errie feeling about a certain area. When removed from these areas, the presence goes away" Please cite a reference. The only references I found are from paranormal "researchers" that cite a NASA study (19770013810)

o http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/08/1062901994082.html?oneclick=true Says that ultrasound could provoke it but they doesn't name out a specific frequency

o http://ntrs.nasa.gov/ doesn't turn any document on that number o http://www.the-bureau.org/Conclusions.htm <-- "researchers" that cite a NASA study

This kind of article contribute to wikipedia reputation as a dubious source... The only article that turns up is this: (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=search&limit=25&offset=0&mode=simple&order=DESC&keywords=infrasound+human%0D%0A)

1. Infrasound Pierce, F. G. NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) NASA, Washington Proc. of the Ann. Conf. of NASA Clinic Directors, Environ. Health Offic. and Med. Program Advisors date], p 100-107 , 19710101; JAN 1, 1971 Infrasound, sound frequencies from 2 to 20 cpc, is defined and its effects on the human body are analyzed. Subjective symptoms of infrasound include fatigue, irritability, insomnia, headache, lack of ability to concentrate, and loss of equilibrium. No conclusive results were reported. Accession ID: 73N17085 Document ID: 19730008358

If you're gonna dispute an article at least have the balls to sign your disertation, so we know who the hell to argue with! 80.177.152.156

It does sound dubious. Poorly cited source...however, there may be a connection with binaural beats. -- 69.18.22.215 02:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this section's been removed anyways, so I went ahead and removed the dispute tag. If anyone still contests this go ahead and say so. byped 18:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral?

Isn't this article a bit one-sided? It explains superstitious belief in ghosts, then an analysis of skepticism towards ghosts, along with scientific evidence to disprove ghosts' existance. This is fine with me, but shouldn't there be some information about scientific research in favor of ghosts' existence. I've been doing a bit of reading here and there, and the evidence does exist. I don't have enough resources or information to write it myself, however I'd appreciate it if someone could look into it.

I believe there's a good enough degree of evidence for their existence as well, and after reviewing this article, it totally misses the in-between view that ghosts exist (with verified sightings) but there are those interested in the real science behind their existence. For example, ghosts of not only live beings have been seen, but also inanimate objects, which calls into question whether they are "spirits." Secondly, ghosts always seem to have something to do with a presence of a peculiar magnetic field. I theorize that ghosts are naturally "recorded" events that play back under certain circumstannces. All the real ghosts I've heard about act like recordings--i.e., they don't interact. They just play back the same every time, not unlike a broken record. &mdash; Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 03:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

The article needs improvement, that's for sure. The first two sentences in the article are mostly redundant. The ghost monk picture is a highly controversial one, no source information or it's story at all in the article, and it's probably one of the most famous pictures ever taken. Other pictures should be added that aren't as controversial. But my main beef with the article, is that it's written under a visual-centric tone. I wasn't sure if I was reading the apparition article, or the ghost article..."Sometimes they do not manifest themselves." Sometimes? heh, so wrong. Visual manifestations are not the only way of experiencing ghosts, and probably not even the most common way, and a human-like figure is not always the case if and when they do manifest. Ghost experiences can be associated with the other senses, such as smell, sound, being touched, sensing their emotions, sensing their thoughts, or even just being aware of their presence. And Stevie, I doubt inanimate objects have spirits. It is most likely a spirit masquerading as an object, or perhaps people are seeing what some call "thoughtforms," but the latter is beyond the scope of this article. As for what you say about them seeming to be associated with magnetic fields, it's because they are; they're electromagnetic in nature when they manifest onto the physical. And I disagree with your opinion that ghosts are only recordings and don't interact. Yes, their primary behavior seems to be "recording-like", but that doesn't negate that they are Earth-bound spirits, and that they can and do interact. - FistOfFury 10:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Becket's ghost

Okay, so there's a link from here to there but there's no mention of his ghost on his page & no elucidation of it here. Could someone complete the cross-reference by supplying more detail either here or there? Please? I have no idea about it. --Duemellon 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The photo

OK, so where is the photo from? The image description page claims it's in the public domain and gives a link to a website, but that site either does not exist or was down. Is it supposedly PD from being old? When was it taken? Who took it, etc. etc. etc. DreamGuy 18:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should be deleted due to lack of "certification" about its orgin and methodology. Jclerman 18:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welll... if it can;t be certified as to it's public domain status, yes... but somebody here must know where it came from... I suppose I can ask the uploader at some point. Somebody else might know too. DreamGuy 23:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The caption "reputed" reads better than the earlier one, but I still think that one has to know as much detail of the origin of the image as possible. Good luck in your search! Jclerman 23:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Becket's Ghost

I have come across a very old postcard with an image of a "ghost" on a pillar labeled "Beckets Ghost 156." Just wondering if this is what you are talking about as I have no history to this particular postcard adn am very interested in finding out more about it. If you know anything please post here 28 November 2005 Beth

Pseudoscience category removal

I think this tag should be removed. Ghosts is not a science, and has never been portrayed as a science, so the tag in inappropriate. Individuals may have claimed the existance of ghosts through unscientific and fraudulent means, but the at does not make "ghosts" a science or pseudoscience, only the person.

The only possible application of the tag is to smear people who believe in ghosts.

I do not "believe" in ghosts myself, so have no agenda here. --Iantresman 16:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "Ghosts is not a science, and has never been portrayed as a science" This is false. Ghost studies have been poprtrayed as scientific endeavors by any number of people. Spiritualist mediums, ectoplasm, etc. DreamGuy 19:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So 'Ghost studies' are not ghosts. And 'any number of people' are people, not ghosts. --Iantresman 10:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You aren't making sense. "Ghost studies" are not ghosts, but they study ghosts... I mean, come on, duh. People try to study ghosts, have theories about ghosts, chase after ghosts with scientific equipment... Give me a break. So if I had an article about, say, reading palms, it shouldn't be put in the pseudoscience category because it's an article about reading palms and not about studying the reading of palms? DreamGuy 15:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Ghost studies" and "Palm reading" may well attract a pseudoscience tag. But "Ghosts" and "Palms" can not. Likewise, UFOlogy might attract a pseudoscience tags, but UFOs also can not. To overgeneralise that everything to do with ghosts and UFOs is pseudoscience is quite unscientific. --Iantresman 16:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Pseudoscience tag again on the grounds of:

No reply to my previous comment
Ghosts, per se, are not pseudoscientific in themselves.
While the study of ghosts may be pseudoscientific, a study may also be scientific, and depends on a researcher, not on a ghost
In general, there are no claims that suggest anything inappropriately scientific about ghosts, beyond a general "belief".

--Iantresman 18:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it, because it was already well explained. Ghosts are per se pseudoscientific in themselves, just like UFOs and so forth. Studies of other things can be scientific, but studying ghosts is psuedoscientific. DreamGuy 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Request for Comments: Removal of Pseudoscience tag

Wikipedia Request_for_comments page

I propose (user:iantresman) that the article on Ghosts (and UFOs) should not carry the Pseudoscience tag, and am soliciting comments. I should mention that I do not "believe" in ghosts, nor subscribe to the UFOs/little green men camp. However:

According to the Pseudoscience article, the definition is "any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific". ie. It does NOT apply to a noun.
Consquently, ghosts or UFOs per se, are not pseudoscientific in themselves. They are merely symantic designations which carry no judgement, nor improper claims.
If we presume that ghosts and UFOs are intrinsically pseudoscientific, it implies that they can not be genuinely scientitifically studied. That would mean that to even consider their study would make someone a pseudoscientist, and that does not make sense.
I accept that some people do study ghosts and UFOs and make unfounded claims; but this would imply that the study may be pseudoscientific, as long as the claim is made according to the original "pseudoscience" definition.
I believe that the designation of ghosts and UFOs as pseudoscience comes across as pseudoskepticism, and, that it may appear as a perjorative tag designed merely to rubbish people who "believe" in ghosts and UFOs/little green men. Belief in itself is not grounds for pseudoscience.

Please Support or Oppose, together with a comment, and sign and date by either adding "--~~~~" (if you have an account), or your name and date if you don't.

Support - For reasons given above, --Iantresman 09:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Ghosts is already tagged with Paranormal phenomena. That's a more specific term than Pseudoscience. By DreamGuy's argument, everything in Paranormal phenomena should also be tagged Pseudoscience. What if we just make Paranormal phenomena a subcategory of Pseudoscience? That should satisfy both parties. GRuban 20:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Category:Paranormal phenomena is a subcat of Category:Parapsychology, which is a subcat of Category:Pseudoscience, so Paranormal phenomena should not be made a subcategory of Pseudoscience. It is already in that chain.--Srleffler 00:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is ludicrous, the [Parapsychology Unit] at the University of Edinburgh will be delighted to know that "Paranormal phenomena", and all "Parapsychology" is implicitly labelled Pseudoscience. Again, that is pseudoskepticism at its worse. --Iantresman 08:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What, a pseudoscientist upset that he's been labeled as performing pseudoscience? Say it isn't so! DreamGuy 22:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - for the same reason as GRuban (or rather, for the reason Srleffler gave). Using Category:Pseudoscience for Ghost is like using Category:Animals for Fox (which already is in Category:Foxes, which is in Category:Canines, which is in Category:Carnivores, and so forth until Category:Animals is reached). --Hob Gadling 17:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose removal of pseudoscience tag, as it is being done out of misguided notions of what the words mean as well as clearly hoping to violate the NPOV policy. DreamGuy 22:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide more specific details? --Iantresman 22:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support per taxonomic hierarchy reasons given by Srleffler. Also, while some aspects of ghosts and claims about ghosts touches on pseudoscience, ghosts are really more about superstition, folklore, psychology, and literature. To me, pseudoscience is more about things like bogus claims about science and technology -- perpetual motion, Lysenkoism, Scientology e-meters, stuff like that. Herostratus 07:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It doesn't seem that ghosts area claimed to be science by anyone, so pseudoscience doesn't fit. "Paranormal phenomena" is much more appropriate. --jackohare 00:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Support', for taxonomic reasons given above by Srleffler, and because we're dealing with the noun, not the formal study of that noun. - Dharmabum420 00:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments: Result

The RfC has been running for nearly two weeks, with no comments for four full days. Bar DreamGuy, the comments are unanimous, and DreamGuy has not responded to the opportunity to detail his criticism, although he has been active on Wikipedia during this time [1].

Consequently I am removing the Pseudoscience tag for the reasons given. This is endorsed by 6-to-1 in favour, and represents a healthy consensus. --Iantresman 11:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your reasons for wanting it removed were totally disputed. Further evidence showed that it's already in the category by virtue of being in a subcategory. Thus the consensus disputed your view that it should be removed for your reasons given. I did not feel the need to respond, though now that I see you made a statement at the bottom making deceptive comments about what the results were. Ghost is still listed under Pseudoscience, it just is in a specific subsection instead of being at the top. Thanks for playing though. DreamGuy 06:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your right to disagree. But my reasons were not disputed, an alternative reason was given; they are not mutually exclusive. I also I disagree with the "sub-category" argument. Categories are "sets", and not hierarchical chains (although they can appear that way). By I digress. --Iantresman 10:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infrasound

It looks like the sentences on infrasound are more defensible than they were before the changes referenced in the "Disputed" section above. Still, I think they could use a reference in the article itself. Anyone have a copy of the NASA article? Anyone know how to reference the National Physical Laboratory experiment that the first link in the "Disputed" section describes? --Allen 01:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ again, the reason I put the disputed tag in june 2005 is because I couldn't find any source for the statement that frequency under 20hz can produce hallucinations of ghosts. As I said back then as well I checked up those terms on google and came up with paranormal websites which were giving this as a reference: NASA study (19770013810).

o So I looked up google to find where they publish their researchs. And I found such site, it was http://ntrs.nasa.gov/. So I searched the number 19770013810 and it didn't return any results. So I decided to search for the keywords "infrasound AND human" and the search returned this: " 1. Infrasound Pierce, F. G. NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) NASA, Washington Proc. of the Ann. Conf. of NASA Clinic Directors, Environ. Health Offic. and Med. Program Advisors date], p 100-107 , 19710101; JAN 1, 1971 Infrasound, sound frequencies from 2 to 20 cpc, is defined and its effects on the human body are analyzed. Subjective symptoms of infrasound include fatigue, irritability, insomnia, headache, lack of ability to concentrate, and loss of equilibrium. No conclusive results were reported. Accession ID: 73N17085 Document ID: 19730008358 " If you read the last paragraph it says "no conclusive results were reported". So the statement is still disputed for me. There is a requirement to cite sources on wikipedia, so I did the work... I tried to find sources which said that, and said sources were referencing a NASA study which doesn't exist. So I plan to delete that statement just like I did long ago for lack of sources. Actually if someone could format my paragraphs I would appreciate it, especially the reference part... I don't know how to format... QBorg 19:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain my position a bit better. I personally don't believe in ghosts. But I don't think it's ok to tell peoples who believe in ghost that ghost sightings are caused by some low-frequency sound and cite a vague NASA study to back up that claim. Especially when said NASA study doesn't exist and that one with the same keywords say it didn't find any conclusive results. QBorg 19:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't know the citation for the study itself by Lord and Wiseman, I'll just cite the Sydney Morning Herald article. --Allen 02:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I surrender ;) QBorg

Ghosts

All this crap about people trying to escape pergatory or unable to find their way to the afterlife....

the only places in the "afterlife" is Heaven and hell one way or the other...no middle, no trying to change which direction your going after you die, no second chances...you have enough time to figure that out while you on earth

Ghosts are spirits conjured by Satans power through a medium or someone who makes a contract with the devil. this entity has litlle power over the phisycal world. Not many people can see (and some will not admit because of fear of being thought crazy or not understand wht they are seeing) into the spirit relm.

A ghost is more of a demon with lesser powers./..A demon can posses people and is often unthought of in little things. Compulsive swearing, lots of migrains, smoking problems, drinking problems and other behaviour problems can be posession. A demon cant take over the full conciousness of a person unless that person wants it to.

Although there is little scientific proof for any of these things i believe that most of these facts are correct. {unsigned, but by User:138.130.157.18)

Hi... these talk pages are for discussing how to make the articles better. They aren't just for personal thoughts on the topic. Might I suggest you look for some forum that discusses ghosts, or a blog of your own to post your thoughts on? DreamGuy 03:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

There is only one outbound external link to Obiwan's Paranormal Free Ghost Website. Why should his personal site be listed and no other sites with good information? All other external links to resources have been deleted. Some good links to external sources that provide evidence of ghosts should be included, as well as websites that provide evidence against ghosts. Might I suggest the addition of the following links for evidence in support of Ghosts as they provide over 1000 pages of information: Angels & Ghosts (http://www.angelsghosts.com) Int'l Ghost Hunters Society (http://www.ghostweb.com) (unsigned, but by User:LDuplatt)

We're looking for encyclopedic sites and ones that are not promotional. Obiwan's at least had a variety of info without being spammy. Frankly, pretty much all the links we've had here were just low quality sites. The two you listed don't seem all that good to me, and have been frequently spammed to this site (under the above name and anon accounts), so I don't think we should reward them for their spamming. DreamGuy 03:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a link is placed, does not mean it is spammed or "spammy." Angels & Ghosts and International Ghost Hunters Society have some of the largest collections of evidence in the way of ghost pictures, videos, stories, evp, etc on the web. Both provide technical and spiritual insight to the topic, as well. Obiwan's front page is selling a t-shirt for God's sake, and is no better. If you list one, then list others; otherwise you are being biased and one can only assume you have affiliations with Obiwan's personal webpage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LDuplatt (talk • contribs) .

Do you have reliable sources to back what you said about these two sites, or it is just your opinion?? LDuplatt, please sign your comments with four tildes (~). --Perfecto Canada 01:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LDuplatt in comments elsewhere said he moved the website in question to a different server, so it's clear that he is putting the link there topromote his own website. Clear spam. DreamGuy 02:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first address the comment that I moved a website to a different server: you must have mistaken me with someone else, for that claim by DreamGuy is in total error. I do own one of the websites in question, but have never moved it to a different server, nor have I claimed to do so. Perhaps, DreamGuy is thinking of another website...

Angels & Ghosts receives submissions monthly from all over the world of ghost pictures, stories video and evp. The website has well over 700 pages of documented information. While there is advertising, it is to help cover the costs of computers, hosting fees, bandwidth for the pictures, etc. This month alone, over 40 ghost pictures (most with a story behind it and comments from us) were posted; three new ghost stories; two evps, etc. I do not have time to count the sheer amount of evidence provided (and we have to sift through an awful lot each month), but if you have the time -- explore the website and come to your own conclusions. Currently, we receive over 20,000 page views per day.

Dr. Dave Oester's Ghostweb.com is truly scientific (although he too runs ads, sells products, etc.), as Dave is a full-time ghost hunter travelling the U.S. He provides a huge volume of books, pictures, stories, etc and is considered to be one of the foremost experts on ghosthunting. He is the founder of International Ghost Hunters Society which has a huge membership, and seeks to instruct proper ghost hunting methodology. Simply, visit his site and see for yourself.

My point is that Obiwan's site, Oester's site and A & G all collect evidence of ghosts from viewers and provide their own research/ideas/conclusions for free. A & G is one of the few websites that has coupled biblical passages with ghosts, and therefore is unique in its perspective from a spiritual standpoint. Oester's site has some of the best scientific thought presented. While some websites allow users to view ghost pictures if they pay an annual fee (Ghost Study for example, who claims to have the largest free collection, yet charges a fee to see "more"), all content on Angels & Ghosts is free for all to explore and is ever-growing. If you include Obiwan's, then you should also include Oester's and A & G. LC Duplatt 13:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC) LC[reply]

uh

uh what wiki-p-p-p-p-projcet this belongs to? E-Series 19:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]