Jump to content

Talk:Ghost/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Ghosts in Spanish culture

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. I have been starting a series on ghosts in different cultures, see template below, in the hope that editors who actually know about the subjects will find the articles, mutter uncomplimentary remarks about me under their breaths, and then fix them up. That seems to be starting to happen. The Brits don't qualify of course, because they are not very important, their ghosts are sort of boring and they have more than enough coverage in the main article.

I realize that the above is facetious and perhaps offensive. I confess that I find British, and more generally European ghosts relatively uninteresting since the beliefs are so primitive, but perhaps that is their charm. The Europeans seems to have jumped straight from primitive folk superstitions to a fully developed monotheistic religion with no intermediate stages, and the ghost beliefs preserve the early savage culture. There certainly is room for an article on the subject, or maybe two. I suspect that northern and southern Europe have rather different beliefs. It is worth looking into. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I got this brainwave that if I checked the other language wikis linked to Ghost I would get a good start for new articles on ghosts in different cultures. Spanish seemed like a good one because it seemed to have a lot of content. Google translate to the rescue, with some cut-and-paste and manual clean-up. Then I looked at the result: lots of stories but no sources. None. I checked La Silbón and found a couple. I am sure there are more. Is there anyone out there who speaks Spanish and can stop this one going to AfD? More people speak Spanish than English. It has to be worth salvaging. Please. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately my high school Spanish has never been used. It would be a shame if your efforts were in vain. I know that in Mexico belief in ghosts is a very important part of their culture. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of starting a separate article on Mexican ghosts because the culture is so rich, with a blend of very different pre-colombian beliefs (Mayan, Aztec etc.) overlaid with Spanish and carried forward into the Day of the dead. There are sources for that in English. But for the reports of apparitions in castles in Spain, I am lost. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I did a start on Mexico, but am not at all satisfied. I did not find the sources I would have expected. Maybe editors who know something about the subject will improve it. Never mind. Malay ghosts seem really interesting, rather gruesome. I will try add a bit more to that one. 350 million people have to be relevant. But there is still a huge gap on Africa. That is where we all came from, and is incredibly diverse. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've lengthened my close of the RfC

It was way over-extrapolated.

Gwen Gale (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That RFC has been superseded by more recent discussions in any case, where consensus was found against inclusion. Cenarium (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I lengthened my close because I was asked about it today. It seems there were wider worries than inclusion in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there are wider worries: widespread disruption caused by a single user with occasional help by a few others who are equally clueless. Hans Adler 14:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Always the cheerful little flower, aren't you.... Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
wp:DNFTT --Ludwigs2 15:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
My completely uncivil tone is simply a response to your continually insulting tone. I.e. "Clueless" above. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
"Clueless" is an appropriate description for an editor who edit wars for reinsertion of an absurd off-topic paragraph that was removed for a WP:SYN violation, with the ludicrous edit summary "text doesnt specifiy Jane, only Channeling. She -is- a channeler, right?" which actually admits it is a SYN violation.
If you don't want to be called clueless, don't choose clueless friends, don't lecture editors with a clue, and don't edit war against editors with a clue when they are right. It's as simple as that. Hans Adler 20:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

*I had a check for a significant amount that came back marked NSF, and it is a bad memory. I can't see why anyone would argue in favor of it. I'm against it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ghost#Biblical references & Judæo–Christian belief

There is a source being used in a misleading manner. It is the opinion of one person being presented as the belief of Christianity:

This is problematic, considering the Christian church generally doesn't believe in ghosts, as stated elsewhere on this talk page. One author can't speak for the church. -- 67.164.212.248 (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The information has been modified with respect to this request, keeping in mind the references that support the statements, which are given in the citations. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 08:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This section should probably be moved down into its own main section, out of the "History - Antiquity" section, and renamed "Abrahamic religions". It is a fairly complex subject, but as far as I can tell Judaism, Islam and Christianity have similar views. I read somewhere a statement by an Islamic scholar along the lines of: "Ghosts could exist, because God is all powerful and could choose to have the spirit of a dead person revisit the world of the living. But a ghost only exists through the will of God. You should not fear ghosts: fear only God". I would guess that similar views are expressed by Christian scholars, but that there is a range of opinion. Certainly the article should cover the views of the Abrahamic religions on the subject, but not under "History". Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection in moving the section but I disagree with renaming the section "Abrahamic religions" until information that contains Muslim views is inserted in the section. Until then, the section should retain the title "Judæo–Christian belief." I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The section does need more content and a broader viewpoint, although the overall article is already at the high end of Wikipedia:Article size. There is a historical and cross-cultural thread, and then there is modern opinion. The Talmud contains ghost stories with Babylonian heritage. Early Christian and Muslim thinking was influenced by animist and polytheist concepts from the Middle East, Greece and (with Christianity) the Celtic and Germanic peoples. Those ideas evolved as the theologies became more sophisticated, and the different sects now have sharply defined opinions. I am not sure where to make the break between history and current dogma, although I am sure there is a natural break somewhere. I feel poorly qualified, and am more interested in other subjects, but perhaps will start an article on Abrahamic ghost beliefs that can be summarized here. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

English Terminology

The section on "English Terminology" is inappropriate in a general article on ghosts. It could be expanded to include Chinese terminology, Japanese terminology, Malay terminology and so on, but that would be silly. It would wind up as an incoherent list of hundreds of names for different ghost concepts around the world. Obambo? Alphabetic? I propose to move this section out to a separate article called "British ghost terminology", and replace it with a link from this article. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd rename it Etymology which is a standard heading in many articles. Most other names will appear under the relevant geographic, historical or cultural description. I think it is fine as is. See vampire for a comparison. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Vampire article has the same problem. Maybe it works if it strictly limited to European-style vampires. But then you add Manananggal, Pontianak (folklore), Penanggalan and so on, and you get into a massive list. Not that there is anything wrong with a list-style article, but it would flood out the main article. Maybe a list-style article called "Ghost etymology"? Could be fun. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I take your point. I prefer to think of it as a rather nebulous cluster, with material that is closer to the classic concept, and some that is further away. Etymology relates to the name, which is in this case ghost and how it is derived. Some similar terms are also discussed. The key is to avoid reduplication when an article starts to get biggish. I got a bit carried away with vampire and it turned into a bit of a magnum opus, but I think all the material is integral - every article needs some context....I am now remembering such things as My Life in the Bush of Ghosts etc. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What I would really like to do is start an article on "Ghosts in British culture", something like that, that would give more detail on the different types of British ghost, origins and evolution of beliefs, haunted places, apparitions, literature, movies etc. This would be consistent with other articles such as Ghosts in Chinese culture and Malay ghost myths. My guess is it would grow into a large but rich and interesting article. The English etymology section would belong there. The difficulty is that it would introduce a fork with Etymology and other parts of the main Ghost article, mostly In the arts. I hate forks, but could foresee a huge fight over summarizing content in this article. I would also like to expand this article, mostly in the Typology section, to give more examples of similar ghost concepts around the world. The expanded typology would have links to detailed articles on specific types of ghosts in different cultures, but within an organized framework. I think that works better than a raw list of words and avoids bias towards one particular country. There is a risk of original research creeping in, but I would not worry too much about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The huge amount of knowledge means one could write for a very long time without doing any OR. Just about all the big articles I have worked on have several daughter articles. No dramas there :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I prefer to work up from the detail and see where it leads, not to decide on overall organization too quickly, and if I don't get distracted would like to look into West African ghosts, maybe Zulu ghosts, and maybe African-American ghost influences before coming back to this article. The Haida and other North-West American cultures seem to have interesting ideas, not yet well covered. I am very much afraid of ghosts in Hindi, Tamil / Malayalam, Bengali cultures etc. It may be impossible to straighten them out into any coherent form. But ...

I am sort of moving towards the idea of typology sections like (maybe these are not the right titles):

  • In the rebirth cycle
  • In the underworld
  • Visits from the underworld
  • Haunting ghosts
  • Malevolent ghosts
  • Vampire ghosts

Probably the wrong titles and groupings, but the idea is to discuss similar ghost concepts around the world.

I am extremely hesitant about putting the {{Ghost beliefs}} navbar onto Dreamtime - maybe you have a view on that? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Why is there no mention of Casper the freindly ghost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.121.228 (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring archive pages

Kslotte (talk · contribs) recently refactored the archive pages. If there is consensus, and it's verified that any links pointing to the moved sections were correct, it may be reasonable. Otherwise, it should be reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 5 was very long (250kB) compared to the earlier archives. So I did split later part of Archive 5 content into Archive 6 and Archive 7. Old threads from this page was put into Archive 8 to make this page lighter for navigation and editing. And, no links to Archive 5 has been broken. I assume this is OK to everyone? --Kslotte (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

The English word ghost continues Old English gást, from a hypothetical Common Germanic *gaistoz. It is common to West Germanic, but lacking in North and East Germanic.

Really? What about Old Norse gestr and Gothic gasts (both meaning stranger, later guest)? Are they not derived from the same Proto-Germanic root? They certainly look like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanatha (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Oxford English Dictionary's etymologies for the 2 words it does not seem there is a link between "guest" and "ghost"

Molybdomancer (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a Proto-Indo-European link between ghost and guest [1] but it goes way back, say five, six thousand years or more (200+ human generations). Lots of words link up if one can dig back far enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that this is the case, and the reference.com link you provide does not appear to support it. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Massive cut

I just cut out a lengthy quotation from the Christian Bible. This quote would be completely appropriate in an article on Ghosts in Judeo-Christian Culture. I feel that it is not at all appropriate in the general article on the subject, which should present a balanced view of ghost beliefs around the world, and may be highly offensive to many of our readers. A quotation of equal length from the Koran or Vedas would be equally inappropriate. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ghosts in English-speaking cultures?

This article seems a bit slanted towards a English-language viewpoint, particularly the sections on Terminology, Renaissance to Romanticism (1500 to 1840) and Victorian/Edwardian (1840 to 1920), which is not surprising since this is the .en Wikipedia. However, it does not do justice to Anglo-Saxon and Celtic ghost beliefs. Any objection to my starting an article on Ghosts in English-speaking cultures, similar to Ghosts in Chinese culture? The new article would begin with some of the content from this one, which would be summarized here. It would then be expanded to provide a more complete view of British/American ghost lore, free of the constraint to present a balanced global view of ghost beliefs in general. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Wraith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.49.69 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no objection, I may soon start a page for Ghosts in English Literature, starting with content from this page. That could be a first step towards an article that gives a more complete view of Anglo-Saxon ghost beliefs. Scotch, Irish, American etc. ghost beliefs as recorded in literature may be covered in a short section towards the end of the new article, if needed. Waltzing Matilda and The Cremation of Sam McGee could be included as a nod towards the colonies. I believe that an article freed from the constraints of a global view could have real potential. Thrawn Janet. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Science/Pseudoscience?

See: Talk:Ghost/pseudoscience

So, I don't want to start another free-for-all, but I'm a bit surprised that nowhere in the lead does it mention that scientific evidence for ghosts is scant and not accepted by mainstream, modern scientific consensus at all. Is there a reason that perspective is lacking, somewhere in the lead? Ocaasi c 22:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that it's mentioned anywhere in the article anymore. This article has become a forbidden type of POV fork because it refuses (not "neglects", since this is very deliberate) to cover all aspects of the subject, most notably by complete deletion of all previous content documenting its reception in the scientific and skeptical communities. It presents the fringe POV as normative, without any opposition, which is a violation of UNDUE and FRINGE. It's basically a sales brochure. BTW, if I've overlooked something, then please point me to the wordings. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey yeah. Well that'll be a case of trawling through discussion and archives to see how that came about, and where the consensus discussion was. Casliber 20:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This might be possible, but of course it would need a good source and it could easily increase the undue weight problem. Currently belief in ghosts as a real phenomenon seems to have undue weight in this article. E.g. I can't see a valid reason for taking the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall as the lead picture, rather than some more typical painting. I guess the stairs photo makes more sense elsewhere, e.g. in the spiritism section. Giving a lot of weight to the sceptic response to belief in ghosts would increase the weight put on the belief further. Hans Adler 00:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Before I respond to your concern, I want to make sure I don't misunderstand anything. Above I requested that anyone "point me to the wording" in this article where the "reception in the scientific and skeptical communities" to belief in ghosts is mentioned. So where is it mentioned? You say that such mention "could easily increase the undue weight problem", so there must already exist a major weight problem right on the tipping point worth mentioning, and its existence apparently disturbs you. It would also concern me! So where is it? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If possible, let's avoid the past dispute. I don't want to use the NSF. I have no particular interest in calling 'belief in ghosts' pseudoscientific: pseudoscience is presentation of something as scientific which is not scientific; it doesn't apply to mere nonsense or plain mysticism/gnosticism/religion.
So, rather than conflating representation as science with mere lack of scientific evidence, I'm interested only in noting that no scientific evidence for ghosts exists which is accepted by the scientific community, simply the scientific consensus that there's no evidence for ghosts.
(A specific mention about 'pseudoscience' would only be appropriate in a section on paranormal scientific research, e.g. EVP.) --Ocaasi c 04:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your last sentence....such ghost hunting research is being done all the time, including as TV programs, yet there is no mention in the article of such activities being pseudoscientific. Why not? Simple answer....because some time ago editors who should have ensured that happened allied themselves with believers who took over writing the article and let them eliminate any mention of the word pseudoscience because they don't like the word itself. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't buy this. In the grand scheme of things this "ghost hunting research" is at least as marginal w.r.t. to the overall topic of "ghosts" as is creationism w.r.t. the overall topic of the Genesis creation myth. If you look at that article, you will see that creationism is confined to one section, Genesis creation myth#Creationism, and that the scientific assessment of that particular nonsense is also confined to that section. As is required by WP:UNDUE, there is nothing about this topic in the lead, and there is nothing elsewhere in the article.
That's also the right approach for this article. The topic is adequately framed as described in WP:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Adequate framing. There is no more need for scientific debunking outside the limited contexts in which the article deals with pseudoscience than there is for such debunking in the Genesis article outside the creationism section.
The comparison is also illuminating for another reason. The Genesis creation myth is just that, a creation myth. It started as a sermon that adapted creation myths from other cultures by making Jahweh (the Jewish God) the main player. There is no reason to believe that people at the time actually believed in this myth as something that was true in a scientific sense. Certainly not its author. (I am not just making this up. This is in fact what I learned in religious education, and I am pretty sure that it's what mainstream theology says.) Creationism as a pseudoscience only started gradually in the 19th century, when a lot of people including scientists who knew, or should have known, better, decided to trust the Bible rather than the hard evidence on questions such as evolution and plate tectonics. Creationism and ghost hunting are pseudoscience, Genesis and ghosts are not, they are just beliefs. Hans Adler 06:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
BR, if possible, can we avoid any reference to past disputes here, or other editors. If we can keep the debate limited to specific proposals, policies, and sources, it should help.
Hans, Ghost Hunting research is indeed marginal, but has an increasing presence in popular culture and on many televisions shows--like four or five shows on basic cable that run every single week. Really. But more importantly, while the topic of ghosts doesn't need to be called pseudoscience in general, that doesn't mean we can't state that there's no accepted scientific evidence for ghosts or that ghosts are considered a paranormal phenomenon with no scientific support. That is not inconsistent with ArbCom, I don't think, or with Undue. This doesn't mean dropping the debunk-hammer through the whole article, but it's still an important addition. Ocaasi c 07:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"like four or five shows on basic cable that run every single week" – This may be part of the problem here. I take it that you are talking about American television. I am pretty sure that for most of the world and in particular most of Europe this is not true. Creationism is also so rampant in the US that some editors are tempted to mention it in the lead of Genesis creation myth just so that they can debunk it. But we still don't do it, because in a worldwide context it's just not worth mentioning at that point. Hans Adler 08:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
That would certainly be appropriate in that section. Currently it's only two paragraphs, one of which is of dubious quality. There is no mention in the lead, which violates WP:LEAD. Of course the current section is apparently of great enough weight concern for it to have been mentioned, and we don't want to tip this thing away from the current presentation of the belief in ghosts as perfectly normal and realistic. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how this is a weight problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
No. Following WP:UNDUE and WP:ARB/PARA is not a violation of WP:LEAD. I actually agree that there is a problem, but that must be addressed by removing the undue weight currently given to belief in ghosts as in belief in relativity theory. The real topic of this article is the much more notable one: belief in ghosts as in belief in gods. Religion and folk beliefs are not a priori pseudoscientific and there is a broad consensus that they don't need debunking. (I would love to have some proper debunking in the Miracles of Jesus article, but it's not going to happen and I accept that. By the way, that article is not solving the problem well, either.) Hans Adler 06:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hans, belief in ghosts as gods may be an important part of several 'eastern' cultures and religions, but the 'ghosts as ghouls' aspect is much more predominant in 'western' culture and popular culture generally. We should cover both of these concepts in this article, and clearly disambiguate them in the introduction, using appropriate scientific disclaimers where the content has the suggestion of paranormal activity rather than religious belief. Ocaasi c 07:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, it appears I wasn't clear. By "belief in ghosts as in belief in gods" I meant to define use of the word "belief". "Ghosts as gods" is definitely not what I meant, and I actually assumed the ghosts=ghouls identification. (Which, as you indicate, may in part be a western cultural bias.) Hans Adler 08:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Ocaasi, BR - without specifically disagreeing with the suggestion, I want to point out the difficulty here. 'Ghosts' is a metaphysical/spiritual concept that predates modern science by at least a century (and arguably by a millennia). Belief in ghosts does not by any means imply or require any odd scientific notions, and the only place you actually get anything relating to science at all is with those groups/people who try to demonstrate the existence of ghosts scientifically - or in a rough form with some of the late 19th century spiritualists. I mean, there's no scientific evidence that angels, demons, God, the human soul, love, beauty, or honest politicians exist either; should we be adding caveats to all of those articles as well? As long as we are careful not to suggest that ghosts do exist or that the theories about them are valid or scientifically accepted, we shouldn't have to go out of our way to say that they don't exist. Best if we just remain clinically detached from the whole ontology of it.
That being said, it's been a long time since I read this article, so there may be some unsavory drift to it that I'm not aware of. I'll read it over again. In the meantime, is there any place were you are particularly troubled by what it says? --Ludwigs2 04:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
"Arguably" by a millennium? I don't understand this. Ancient Roman ghost stories are very similar to modern ones, and the ghost of Jesus appeared to his disciples. And I am pretty sure that historians know ghost stories that are several millennia older. It would be surprising to me if they didn't feature in some cave paintings. Hans Adler 06:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any but one objection to the current wording. As a whole the article is a very interesting presentation of the subject from the POV of believers, and covers its history in many different cultures. I think it's pretty well written and very informative. I wouldn't want to see any of that changed. My objection to the article as a whole is that it's exclusively written from the POV of believers. That violates NPOV, UNDUE and FRINGE. We're not supposed to do that.
It's Hans Adler who thinks there is already a significant enough weight problem that anymore mention would be improper. At least that's what I got out of his comment, but he hasn't clarified it yet. If you take a look at the scientific skepticism section, that's the only mention that there might exist even one person who doesn't believe in ghosts. Otherwise belief in ghosts is presented very neutrally as a totally normal and acceptable thing.
There is zero mention of the mainstream position in the lead. I consider that to be a problematic violation of WP:LEAD. That's my second objection, but it's more to the "lack of wording", than to the current wording. This is a sin of omission.
BTW, the NSF ref is still used....but only to present the Gallup Poll statistics, not to use them in their context, which was in a section devoted to expressing strong concerns about pseudoscientific beliefs. ("Ghosts" is not a "belief", but they are the object of belief. The NSF considers "belief in" ghosts to be a pseudoscientific "belief".) So it's apparently okay in this article to use the Gallup statistics reproduced in a RS (the NSF), while ignoring the context in which they were used, IOW taking them out of context. Refusal to mention the context is OR, misuse of a RS, and a "reverse SYNTH" violation by selectively eliminating the part that is the main subject because exactly "that part" goes against the beliefs of certain editors.
Let's not get into a discussion of whether "ghosts", or even "belief in ghosts" is "truth" or not, since that question is explicitly defined as OR here and is totally irrelevant. Instead we're supposed to let RS reign supreme by applying "verifiability, not truth". Period. Anything more or less is OR and selective POV editing (by refusal to use the personally uncomfortable portion of the RS) based on certain editors' beliefs of what is the "truth". Thus our content is currently based on their beliefs, rather than on what the RS says. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm "According to the Gallup Poll News Service, belief in haunted houses, ghosts, communication with the dead, and witches had an especially steep increase over the 1990s." That's precisely what Gallup said. And it's not particularly hard to see, given that it's said in the title (Americans' Belief in Psychic and Paranormal Phenomena Is up Over Last Decade), repeated in the third sentence ("The results suggest a significant increase in belief in a number of these experiences over the past decade, including in particular such Halloween-related issues as haunted houses, ghosts and witches."), repeated in a section heading ("Belief in a Number of These Phenomena Is up Since 1990"), repeated again in the first two sentences of that section ("Belief in several of these experiences has not changed significantly over the last 11 years. For seven experiences tested, however, there has been an increase in belief of more than five percentage points"), and supported by extensive data. There is no reason to mention the NSF/NSB at all in that context. But the context in which they did use the source was to support the following statement: "Belief in pseudoscience increased significantly during the 1990s and into the early part of this decade (Newport and Strausberg 2001) [...]". This sentence is in a section "Belief in Pseudoscience", so it's clear that they are taking paranormal (for which there is good Gallup data) as a proxy for pseudoscience (for which presumably there was no data of similar quality). But the focus is clearly on belief and how it changed. The real problem is that we are not presenting the full story, because the sentence in the NSB report continues: "and then fell somewhat between 2001 and 2005", pointing to this graphic. Hans Adler 07:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Quick thought, just from reading the lead. I think adding something to the second paragraph like (off the top of my head): "Aside from their place in spiritual and religious ideology, ghosts have captured the popular imagination through stories, movies, or other cultural media, and this has led to activities such as seances or pseudoscientific investigations into hauntings ostensibly designed to verify their existence, though no generally accepted scientific evidence has yet been produced." would something along those lines work? --Ludwigs2 05:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
That would certainly be a step in the right direction, but previous attempts have been fought tooth and nail. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Ludwigs, I like that. Although I'm sure we can find a source somewhere that says ghosts have never generally been accepted by mainstream science. But your specific suggestion is less of an OR issue, since it is related to paranormal investigations. They're not necessarily pseudoscientific--they can use valid techniques and can avoid jumping to conclusions or ignoring confounding factors/alternative explanations if they're very careful--so I'd even be ok leaving out the word 'pseudoscientific' as long as we keep the 'no generally accepted scientific evidence' part. Ocaasi c 06:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that proposal but continue to think that the stairs photo must be moved further down. It sets up a ghosts as pseudoscience context and stresses the ghosts as paranormal aspect in a way that is just not appropriate. Hans Adler 07:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hans, it is appropriate for a certain prominent aspect of what the topic of ghosts entails (also, it's much harder to find a picture of the other kind). We shouldn't hide either aspect, but just separate them, or properly describe them. For example, "Ghosts are traditionally a religious belief in god-like spirits of loved ones who have died, more generally a spiritual belief in the souls of the deceased which linger between the world of the living and a permanent afterlife, and most recently a paranormal phenomenon described as spirits that are stuck in limbo and 'haunt' the place where they experienced a tragedy." Rewrite it however you like, but all of the facets deserve mention, unless you want to fork the article into separate pieces. Ocaasi c 08:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not a sufficiently prominent aspect that it should dominate the article by being represented with a picture next to the lead. What can be photographed exists. Therefore by presenting a photograph of a ghost we are making a statement that ghosts exist. That's totally wrong. That's like putting a painting of a flat Earth at the top of the Earth article. Not using any picture is always better than using a misleading picture. An article about something that does not exist does not necessarily need a depiction of that something. The photo is excellent for illustrating the pseudoscience that exists around ghosts, so it's a perfect fit for the section which discusses that. Hans Adler 08:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with moving or removing the picture (or even just retitling it to point out that it is a likely hoax). However, we're going to be hard-pressed to find a picture about ghosts that doesn't annoy someone. I personally dislike using anything related to the ghosts in Hamlet or A Christmas Carol (this isn't a theatre-artsy article); stills from ghost-type movies will get the same objection from others; images of actual purported ghosts or otherwise 'scary' places will get Hans' objection. I don't know of any famous paintings or such involving ghosts. maybe one of these from commons would work? [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I'm particularly fond of the last. --Ludwigs2 16:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


Quantum Entanglement: Plausible Connection to Ghosts

Current scientific laboratory works show the existence of at-a-distance interactions within biological tissues due to quantum entanglements. Since quantum entangled biological tissues of the brain are a mental manifestation, laboratory testing using techniques of observing quantum entanglements must be used. Current experimental techniques that exclude quantum entanglements as a controllable parameter, assume that remote manipulation of elements for a person's subconscious mind is not possible; however, this assumption more recently has been found to be false.

High correlation in telepathic testing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbdunn (talk • contribs) 13:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Princeton University's Global Consciousness Project shows an observable connection at-a-distance between people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project

Current investigations are exploring the consequences of quantum entanglement within the brain:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18371-brain-entanglement-could-explain-memories.html

Besides the fact we don't use our own articles as sources, none of the links mentions ghosts. See WP:NOR. Sources for this article must discuss ghosts. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Germany

ghosts in germasn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.164.187 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ghosts in English-speaking cultures

I took a deep breath and launched this massive fork from the main Ghost article, since nobody had objected to the proposal (see above) for several months. I have tried to keep it strictly to culture-specific language, beliefs and artistic depictions. I would like to extend the new article, which I think has great room for growth now it is talking more narrowly about ghost beliefs and depictions in the English-speaking culture rather than trying to give a global view. But before doing so, any views on the correct way to remove duplicate material from this article? Any concerns? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The division by language is hardly appropriate. Post-modern culture after 1970 is not in any meaningful way connected to the English Middle Ages, it is a worldwide phenomenon. --dab (𒁳) 08:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ghost lore is not yet uniform around the world. Concepts like Dorje Shugden or Pontianak (folklore) do not have Hollywood equivalents. Anandabhadram was big in south India, but did nothing in the US. Vice-versa with Ghostbusters. I was thinking of introducing a degree of balance. There are articles on ghosts in other cultures - Chinese, Tibetan, Malay, Mexican and so on. The English-speaking cultures also merit an article. The tentative Ghosts in English-speaking cultures article has a large "See also" section that indicates how it could be expanded. A fair amount of the material in this parent Ghost article, which should give a global view, is very specific to English-speaking culture, particularly the section on "Terminology" and most of "Depiction in the arts".
My concern, and the reason I have hesitated to develop Ghosts in English-speaking cultures, is that the editors of the English Wikipedia are overwhelmingly English-speaking. There is a real risk that an editor will come across this article and find there is no mention of, for example, A Christmas Carol. They add it in, and the article has begun to reacquire its Anglo bias. Worse, there is now a fork. Theory tells me that English speakers deserve their own article. This parent article should give a balanced global overview of the subject. Just not sure how to deal with the inevitable forking. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Section on Scientific Evidence?

I think this page should have a paragraph on the science of ghosts. There is a lot of evidence that they do exist, including many, many witnesses of course (of all walks of life.) There is a section on skepticism, I see, but this only uses science against the reality of ghosts. I think a section dealing with both the evidence for, and skepticism of, the issue would be more reasonable. Thank you. Neurolanis (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already an article about "Ghost hunting", so perhaps all the discussion on science and pseudo-science can be taken there, and leave this page to folklore. Eastcote (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

there is ample discussion of Spiritism and what have you. This is on topic, but the point is that we must not treat this as a current-day "controversy", as nobody in their right mind would consider this an open question today. It is a mistake to assume that this topic neatly divides into pseudo-science and folklore. The topic is in fact one of anthropology, and one of the most basic topics of religion. The belief in ghosts inherent in the human mind is fundamental to the development of organised religion, and fundamental even to much of mythology, and by extension of fiction in general. If you think that "fiction" is of secondary importance in the study of human culture or behaviour, you should ask yourself what percentage of your owb spare time activity is concerned with fiction. For most people, this is a very substantial fraction (either video games, or pop culture, or television, or literature, or theater, depending on taste and education, but fiction throughout). To dismiss this as either "pseudo-science" or "folklore" misses entirely the vast importance of this topic for all of human culture.

The problem arises when editors attempt to discuss the "truth" of ghosts in materialist terms (which is extremely naive, but which is a venerable topic in itself, mostly limited to the 19th century) while it is in fact a topic of anthropology, psychology and religious studies. --dab (𒁳) 08:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ghost

The term "ghost" can be used in many ways ..Talk about this with some one else — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.4.233.8 (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Chinnery.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chinnery.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I also fail to see the notability of this image has been explained. The image description says One of the most famous ghost photos of all times,it shows that a "mom" Ghost is sitting in the seat just behind the driver. I fail to see anything of the kind in this photograph. There is something remotely similar to a head, but I am not even sure I am seeing the same pattern intended as the 'ghost'. If this is a "famous ghost photo", it is not very impressive. There is some online chatter about this image, but nothing reliable. Google books comes up with two hits, an "encyclopedia of clairvoyance, channelling, and spirit communication" of 2005, and a book on "hauntings" of 1989. So while the image apparently has been discussed in print, it is by no means remarkable or notable. --dab (𒁳) 07:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Amulets in Islam?

"Therefore, Muslims defend themselves against ghosts through amulets, knives, and needles, which are considered reliable means of protection against evil.[88] However, in cases in which the ghosts had already caused harm, Muslims may seek clergy who are purported to have the power over ghosts.[88]"

I think it's a tradition, not really originated from Islam. Amulets are forbidden in Islam. Well, I am a Muslim. We defend ourselves by reciting Koran and zikr, instead of using amulets. However, many people in my country, Indonesia, use amulets. I haven't changed it because I haven't found any trusty reference on the Internet. Actually, I've found a source but I'm not sure that it is reliable.ArNauval (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be correct in what you are saying, that use of amulets against ghosts is a cultural, and not a religious, practice. The reference given in the article appears to have been used inappropriately. The page referenced specifically states that these beliefs are not common to every Muslim, but are culturally specific. The page even describes these ghost beliefs as "pre-Muslim". The way this is written up in the article is misleading, and the article implies that such beliefs are common to all Muslims, which they are not. I am therefore deleting this portion of the article. Eastcote (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

when is a ghost not a ghost

the new application of an old model of the univers in its explanation of the hawkin paradox and the counter arguments has sudjested that ghosts as such dont exist but has given a sudgestion as to what ghosts are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.114.141 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2012

to add two traditional ghost's illustrations

Zacharia11128 (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Nothing to do. You didn't specify which illustrations you have in mind. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

the illustrations are the same of the italian version - the newest..

Zacharia11128 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 May 2012

I want to insert a new illustration Zacharia11128 (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done This request contains no clear instructions for what you want done; it's impossible to complete as written. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 04:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

All of the material in the section was created by the banned sockpuppet GreenUniverse. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

In traditional belief and fiction, a ghost is the soul or spirit of a deceased person or animal that can appear, in visible form or other manifestation, to the living. A ghost of someone alive is called a doppleganger (ref: Sibenkäs by Jean Paul 1796-7) 195.194.187.132 (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2012

[2] Prjk2468 (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 02:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

DO THE GHOSTS EXIST IN TODAYS WORLS?

DO THE GHOSTS EXIST IN TODAYS WORLS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.14.82 (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, that is if you subscribe to a Christianity, and you accept the Scripture as truthful. However, this is not the correct page to ask such questions. Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, and reask there. PS, don't capitalise all letters in your sentences, it is read as yelling, and no one like being yelled at. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

By culture -> Africa?

I note that there seems to be no section on ghosts in African belief. I am not myself an expert on the topic, and so have little to offer, but instead leave this here in the hopes of attracting the attention of someone who might be able to rectify this lack. 196.210.135.14 (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well... maybe it's because there are no ghosts in African belief. At least for one group.
Anthropologist Laura Bohannan wrote a famous (and entertaining) paper about explaining Shakespeare's story of Hamlet to the Tiv people in Nigeria. The paper was called "Shakespeare in the Bush". You can read the full version here. Highly recommended reading, both for education and pleasure.
In that story, Bohannan relates how the Tiv elders have no belief in an individual afterlife. They refused to accept the concept of a "ghost", preferring to interpret the spirit of Hamlet's dead father as an "omen sent by a witch" instead. And they objected to the assertion that the ghost of Hamlet's father talked, asserting "omens can't talk!" Then comes this rather funny exchange:
"What is a 'ghost'? An omen?"
"No, a 'ghost' is someone who is dead but who walks around and can talk, and people can hear him and see him but not touch him."
They objected. "One can touch zombis."
"No, no! It was not a dead body the witches had animated to sacrifice and eat. No one else made Hamlet's dead father walk. He did it himself."
"Dead men can't walk," protested my audience as one man.
I was quite willing to compromise.
"A 'ghost' is the dead man's shadow."
But again they objected. "Dead men cast no shadows."
"They do in my country," I snapped.
That's the only bit of information I remembered during my college years about ghosts in African belief. The Tiv people may not be representative of every group in Africa, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ghosts and the 4th dimension

Clifford A. Pickover's 1999 Surfing Through Hyperspace Oxford University Press briefly talks about how the 4th dimension was used to explain ghosts beginning in the 17th century with Cambridge Platonist Henry More but it was Johann Karl Friedrich Zöllner in the 19th who really pushed the idea of ghosts being four dimensional. Don't where exactly this would fit but it is important.--216.31.124.113 (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ghost

Can we update this article?

Raptor 12 (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can. It is a wiki aftr all. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it right that a serious article about ghosts in different cultures gets an external link to a silly spoof website about a pretend castle (the castle of Pulyn y aleg = pulling your leg, complete with talk of welsh bagpipes )? Might be amusing to whoever linked to it (no doubt the creator of the website) but it reflects badly on this page! I'd delete the link myself but I can't because this page is locked up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.124.129 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Quite an elaborate hoax website, with references to it on other websites across the net. It's been a link in this article since Sep 2010. Almost hated to delete it. Eastcote (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! 79.71.114.103 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica

MichaelDowling (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)I have had the 1976 printed volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica. [3] There was no section in the books on the subject of ghosts. I have seen much more recent issues of the printed series and again, no mention of ghosts anywhere. Would the exclusion of this topic actually put a rest to the debate on whether they are real or not?

Dude, I don’t think that the purpose of this article is to “put a rest to the debate” about ghosts. I think that this article is intended to describe the concept of a ghost. 74.133.117.36 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

By culture -> North America?

just found a few ghost stories on http://americanfolklore.net/folklore/native-american-myths/. Does that site contain anything useable for an encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.153.17 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

Usually ghosts are the souls of dead humans who most likely have a problem letting go or have unfinished business on earth and once they have finished their business the will disappear from the earth and cannot return. Chickennuggets23 (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: You have made no edit request in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ", so it is unclear what you want added or removed.
Furthermore, you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What is a ghost

A ghost is an emotion bent out of shape to fix the wrong that was once done and will repeat itself until the wrong is corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.162.191 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014

This page needs a better 1st ghost picture here's the link of a picture i think should be put on: bubblews.com it is a freaky purple ghost hope you find it

3/07/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zah6100 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015: Add information about Edison being a patient of Edgar Cayce and constructing a seance machine.

Association for Research and Enlightenment claims that Thomas Edison invented a device to contact ghosts. The group claims that its founder, Edgar Cayce, engaged in a psychic session with Edison, and that Edison used this session to help him gain knowledge to build the machine. Source: Venture Inward ARE January 2015 pages 19-22 Thomas Edison's Lost Reading: A Machine to Contact the Dead It is documented that Edison was a client of Cayce's. Source William Birnes and Joel Martin The Haunting of Twentieth Century America Forge 2011 page 159 ECayce187 (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  17:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there a mainstream source, one independent of the ARE? Paranormal and fringe groups love making all kinds of claims about famous people that don't seem to have any outside evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The book Father Ernetti's Chronovisor by Peter Krassa has a chapter about Thomas Edison's machine to contact the dead, Chapter 19, titled Thomas Edison's Device to Contact the Dead. Pages 137-141. Thomas Edison said, " "I have been at work for some time building an apparatus to see if it is possible for personalities which have left this earth to communicate with us.", in an interview with the American Magazine. The Complete Idiots Guide to Ghosts and Hauntings by Tom Ogden published in 1999 on page 28 also says that Edison was working on a machine to contact ghosts. --ECayce187 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC) A newspaper article about a different scientist who believed in ghosts from the time stated Edison was building a seance device in passing at the beginning, "Ghosts and Phantoms Exist, Says Scientist Avers Haunts also abound Flammarion insists that soul lives after death and cites proofs by special cable to the journal Paris-The announcement that Thomas A. Edison is working on an instrument with which he hopes to establish communication with the dead..."The Milwaukee Journal October 10, 1920 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19201010&id=H8kWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=biEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4343,4487616 --ECayce187 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Father Ernetti's Chronovisor is hardly mainstream, as it credulously assumes the existence of an Akashic field, which is fringe science at best (magical nonsense at worst).
Complete Idiot's Guide to Ghosts and Hauntings does not connect Edison to Cayce.
The news paper article does not connect Edison to Cayce either. The article isn't directly about the claimed announcement regarding Edison.
Do you have any mainstream works by academia (particularly accredited historians) that explicitly says Edison met Cayce and was inspired by him to work on a ghost machine? That's what our guidelines would consider reliable (which we want), and not original research (which we do not use). A source that says Edison met Cayce (which has yet to be produced) but does not mention the machine is not sufficient (we cannot combine two sources to arrive at a conclusion neither source states). A source that Edison worked on a ghost machine would be allowed to introduce just Edison and his machine into the article -- but not Cayce. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And hey, who can blame them? On the surface, it seems somewhat plausible that the miracle of technology, which provides so much for the living, might also offer some kind of connection to the dead. Heck, even crusty ol’ inventor Thomas Edison wanted to build a telephone to the afterlife. (Imagine the roaming charges!)http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27438294/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/ghost-gadgets-fallible-fun-whole-family/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ECayce187 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

18% of the USA's population have had contact with ghosts, or at least allege to have had it, according to a Pew Research survey. Michael Lipka wrote an article about this on their website, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/30/18-of-americans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/, on October 30, 2013. 18% of Americans say they’ve seen a ghost

By Michael Lipka18 comments

On Thursday evening, many American children will encounter costumed ghosts as they roam the streets in search of candy and other treats on Halloween. Before bedtime, to avoid nightmares, some parents may try to reassure their kids that ghosts are not real.

PF_13.10.31_Supernatural_310px (1)But not all of those parents may buy their own reassurances: Nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (18%) say they’ve seen or been in the presence of a ghost, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center survey. An even greater share – 29% – say they have felt in touch with someone who has already died.

Claude Fischer, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, explored Americans’ persisting beliefs in some supernatural phenomena in a recent blog post.

“As we approach Halloween, note that most American adults in the 21st Century say that they believe in life after death and in the devil,” Fischer wrote, citing data from Gallup and other sources. “Over one-third say that they believe in the spirits of the dead coming back; about that many also say they believe in haunted houses.”

Despite the influence of modern secularism and science, he observed, “the magic has not totally gone.”

Does going to church help keep ghosts away? It’s impossible to say, but people who often go to worship services appear to be less likely to say they see ghosts. Just 11% of those who attend religious services at least weekly say they’ve been in the presence of a ghost, while 23% of those who attend services less frequently say they have seen a ghost, the Pew Research survey found." Could this survey data be worked into the article? ECayce187 (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Over 80 percent of Americans support "mandatory labels on foods containing DNA" -- I repeat, four out of five Americans support labeling food that contains DNA, something that is contained in all living material. There's a reason polls aren't listed at WP:Identifying reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It does not mean the belief is correct. But it show how widespread the belief is. Could it be added for showing how widespread the perhaps mistaken belief is?--ECayce187 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2015 (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.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Edison's seance machine

Venture Inward, the magazine for Edgar Cayce's cult Association for Research and Enlightenment, has published an article in its January 2015 issue claiming that Thomas Edison invented a machine to contact the dead. Could information about this be added to the article based on that source, or since its associated with ARE, is it not reliable? --ECayce187 (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

See Electronic_voice_phenomenon#History. There's no evidence in reliable sources that Edison invented any machine, and any conjecture is based soley on Edison's response to a comment in Scientific American. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A source for a possible new subsection named Depiction in the arts#Middle Ages

http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/tmr/article/view/15358/21476 --Hienafant (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Shorten Lead Section

Just a suggestion - I think two sentences in the Lead Section can be shortened a bit. I have bolded the words in each sentence below that I think can be deleted.

1. Descriptions of the apparition of ghosts vary widely from an invisible presence to translucent or barely visible wispy shapes, to realistic, lifelike visions. 

      - Additionally, the word 'ghosts' in this sentence does not need to be linked because it will just bring you back the exact same page.

2. Ghosts are generally described as solitary essences that haunt particular locations, objects, or people they were associated with in life, though stories of phantom armies, ghost trains, ghost ships, and even ghost animals have also been recounted.[2][3] 

     - Keep all of the links in this sentence but get rid of 'ghost' in front of the words trains and ships so not to be redundant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Mv (talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great, I'll do that right now. WikiEditorial101 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

valueless "actually"

"Some ghosts are actually said to be demons in disguise"

We could put "actually" in front of every assertion in this encyclopedia because, yes, it was actually said by someone, but the usage of "actually" seems to be a way to imbue more significance to something that really has no more significance than any other.

I would call it a "Weasel" intensifier.--23.119.204.117 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and done! WikiEditorial101 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct citation error

The issue DoctorJoeE (talk): the citation you source is showing "Cite error: The named reference CSICOP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).". -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

My mistake; citation fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

removed infobox as parameters therein are useless and uninformative

Aaaand here too......I removed the infobox as it was useless to the point of being misleading.

  • It was classified as a Legendary creature - we-ell it sort of is in a very broad sense of the term, but as much as Bigfoot or Nessie is really. Or a unicorn..or minotaur...Arbitrary.
  • It was sub-classified as undead - true I guess.
  • Similar creatures are completely arbitrary - why not banshee or poltergeist..?
  • err...yes....they are cosmopolitan..no surprises there....

If someone has any ideas on how to make a useful infobox I am all ears. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparition

An apparition isn't the same as ghost. Apparition is something more general that appear to people (someone created an apparitional experience article on this) that isn't necessarily the soul of the dead, or necessarily explained at all. Same goes for other words like phantom or specter.--Kiyoweap (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Possibly the best thing to do is remove the bracketed bit in the lead and expand in the etymology section about slight differences then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for Mexico Section--Natsz72

Hi! This is a great page with very interesting information. As a ghost lover, I would like to offer a friendly suggestion. In Mexican culture it is tradition to honor the dead with altars on Dia de Los Muertos (day of the dead). This decorative altar is complete with sugar skulls, the deceased's favorite foods/drinks, a photo, and flowers. The purpose of this altar is to welcome ancestors as their spirits "visit" the earth on Dia de Los Muertos. this is a common practice among those of southern Mexican descent and perhaps you might like to include it in your article. Best, Natsz72 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

It is said in the text, that the English word ghost is unparalleled in North Germanic. However, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian has the word gast. Creuzbourg (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for GA

Hi all, I think this article is ready to be nominated for WP:GA. Anyone having any views? Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

proof of existence

Is there any proof of an ghost's existence Tejus Dhabhai (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR(s)-this entire discussion is WP:FORUM violation - why was it not immediately shut down/hatted? 50.111.48.57 (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
There is currently absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to indicate in favor of the existence of any kind of ghosts or spirits. The majority of modern scientists nearly universally agree that ghosts do not exist. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a very strong statement that comes across as editorializing, in my view, especially since the remainder of the article treats the potential existence of ghosts more leniently. Also, the term "scientific evidence" is itself open to interpretation. As a result, I'd suggest softening the statement (but using the same reference) to say something like..."Although the scientific community as a whole has yet to endorse the existence of ghosts as a reality, less scientifically rigorous sources suggest that this form of paranormal phenomena may in fact be real." WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
There are three major problems with your suggestion: 1) The phrase "as a whole" implies that many reputable scientists consider the existence of ghosts a likely possibility, which simply is not true. The existence of ghosts is not an open dispute among serious, professional scientists. 2) The use of the words "has yet to endorse," especially the word "yet" in particular, implies that they will endorse it eventually, but they just have not done it yet. We cannot predict that and, given the near-unanimous scientific consensus that the existence of ghosts is physical impossible, it seems a highly unlikely possibility indeed. 3) Giving equal voice to non-scientific arguments about the existence of ghosts would clearly violate WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, and WP:SPOV. We cannot make it sound as though scientists and pseudoscientists who hunt ghosts have equal claim to the truth. Obviously, real scientists take priority over pretend scientists who conduct their "research" by hunting ghosts in old houses. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, why bother subjecting supernatural phenomena to science, particularly those impossible to falsify (as is the case here)? Why not stick with natural explanations for mysterious happenings (like those in "haunted houses") instead of entertaining the possibility that ghosts are at work? It seems some people want to have such phenomena "proven" (more like "strongly supported") by science, instead of leaving it to philosophy/theology. GVO8891 (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The concept of an afterlife that does not influence this world is well within the field of theology. The concept of an afterlife that affects this world in any way results in scientifically testable claims. That's the key difference. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, why bother with those impossible to falsify. I'm not saying just anything deemed supernatural is immune to falsification (YEC, anyone?). My point was that we should not use science to verify supernatural phenomena, but we can ignore the possibility of supernatural causation in any unexplained situation, thereby leaving testable notions of ghosts/souls/afterlife out in the cold. GVO8891 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Well the fact that even police agencies admit to having cold cases solved by the paranormal-https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530082/Who-gonna-call-The-police-actually-officers-dealt-277-reports-supernatural-activity-three-years.html- I would say there is evidence of the supernatural. That's not even recounting my own experiences (I was with others), or the stuff in the realm of theology/metaphysics/philosophy. Also, many scientists are religious or at least acknowledge a God or other extra-dimensional beings, such as Stephen Hawkings-https://www.theodysseyonline.com/mystery-shadow-people. 137.118.103.153 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and I can find articles about people who claim to have seen Jesus in a taco, or that a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeds. Still not proof. Nor does believing in God mean you believe in ghosts (in fact they're inversely correlated).--Ermenrich (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is not a reliable source by any measure. The police can and do make mistakes.
The Odyssey piece you misquote does not say that Hawking believes in that stuff. He did not mean "shadow people" in the sense that that article takes it, but just a statement that there's a lot of matter out there that we simply can't see (that's all "dark" matter is) and some of it may be living.
At any rate, you would need professionally-published mainstream academic sources on the matter. And as I explained previously, being religious (in general), believing in God, or believing in an afterlife that does not affect this world is completely unrelated to the scientifically testable idea of ghosts. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hyperbolic sources won't cut it, including the Daily Mail ("widely criticised for its unreliability, as well as printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research").
Belief in God and/or an afterlife ≠ belief in ghosts anymore than belief in biblical literalism. I myself don't believe in a testable afterlife, or even that an afterlife can be tested. If someone wants to propose an afterlife that can be tested, then go ahead and investigate, see if it comes up to snuff. Just don't expect me to hold my breath over it.
If someone wants to believe in ghosts, they most certainly can do so. But if they want ghosts to be considered objective reality (i.e. part of science), then we do indeed require reliable sources for this article. GVO8891 (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Johnson & Carlyle on ghosts

From Borges's lecture: "Johnson had a peculiar temperament. For a time he was extremely interested in the subject of ghosts. He was so interested in them that he spent several nights in an abandoned house to see if he could meet one. Apparently, he didn’t. There’s a famous passage by the Scottish writer, Thomas Carlyle, I think it is in his Sartor Resartus in which he talks about Johnson, saying that Johnson wanted to see a ghost. And Carlyle wonders: “What is a ghost? A ghost is a spirit that has taken corporal form and appears for a while among men.” Then Carlyle adds, “How could Johnson not have thought of this when faced with the spectacle of the human multitudes he loved so much in the streets of London, for if a ghost were a spirit that has taken a corporal form for a brief interval, why did it not occur to him that the London multitudes were ghosts, that he himself was a ghost? What is each man but a spirit that has taken corporal form briefly and then disappears? What are men if not ghosts?” Ghirla-трёп- 21:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

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

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


Lead section

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)


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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2021

50.75.214.26 (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Ghosts are fake

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Ithane" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ithane. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Ithane until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Ghosts existence

Do ghosts really exist and how can we see them? Will they harm us ? 2409:4063:6D99:CA6B:BDFC:820A:AC7A:8698 (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Fw:Ghosts

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

Yes, this edit removed cited text regarding falsifiability, which your explanation did not cover. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello 14.136.188.170 (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Ghosts look for jessica 14.136.188.170 (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ghosts in video games

Maybe add a section about ghosts being in video/horror games for the media sections, like mentioning Boos in Mario, or The different ghost types in Phasmophobia WhoTheFluer (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I would support this as ghosts have seen a revival in videogaming as an arts medium, especially due to games such as the mentioned Phasmophobia which also sparked other projects in return. Argacyan (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Fiction tag

Owen250708, you added a tag to this article today indicating that it "may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction." Which specific part of this article do you think fails to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction? The article appears to make clear that what is being discussed is a concept that has no scientific evidence for its existence, but which has existed in a wide variety of cultures and belief systems throughout human history. It discusses the (lack of) scientific evidence for ghosts, ghosts in the mythology of various cultures, ghosts in the mythology of various religions, the changing aspects of ghostlore in various historical eras. I do not see anywhere in the article where it asserts ghosts are "real" or fails to make clear that stories and beliefs are being discussed, rather than hard facts. I'm going to remove the template. If there is a specific section of the article that you think fails to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction, please replace the template in that section, rather than for the whole article. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

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)
  1. ^ a b "A Faraway Ancient Country". Lulu. Retrieved 2010-03-27. if we have ghosets, then where do we put them in the Christian universe? While they are tied to the earth, they are no longer living on the material plain. Heaven and hell are exclusive places, so it's extremely unlikely that people come and go from these destinations as they please. There must be a third state in the afterlife where souls linger before continuing their journey.
  2. ^ Choi IS (2001). "Carbon monoxide poisoning: systemic manifestations and complications". J. Korean Med. Sci. 16 (3): 253–61. PMC 3054741. PMID 11410684.
  3. ^ Encyclopaedia Britannica, issue 1976, 1975
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghost/Archive_10&oldid=1223188010"