Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Paranormal This page falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. Horror This page is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 8.

WikiProject Paranormal
General information Main project page talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk Departments Assessment talk Collaboration talk Newsletter talk Peer review talk

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2020-09-05 (This list is outdated.) General: Recruit new members from frequent Paranormal page editors (be polite!), rework categories/categorization within project scope Article Requests: General: Paramahamsa Tewari, Oliver Crane,aum Quanten Motoren, Falls from the sky, Horizon Project, Ron Amitron (also known as ET Ron), Alla Vinogradova The Scole Experiment Ghost Box/Franks Box (Ovilus) Bermuda Triangle: Flight 441 disappearance, Peter Jensen disappearance, Pogo 22 disappearance, Witchcraft disappearance, Cryptozoology: Feline humanoid, Mark A. Hall, The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization Ufology: UFOs and the National Security State, Skylab 3 UFO incident Clean up: General: Agartha, Aura (paranormal), Crybaby Bridge, Jerome Clark, Lo!, Psychic detective, Spontaneous human combustion Ghosts and Apparitions Ghost (too many long quotes) Bermuda Triangle: Bermuda Triangle (massive citation sourcing, and expansion of reports) Cryptozoology: Almas (a proposed hominid), Ebu Gogo (needs sourcing citations), Monster of Glamis, Skunk ape Parapsychology: Monroe Institute Ufology: 1976 Tehran UFO incident, Paul Bennewitz (for POV issues and readability), Black budget, Brookings Report Television: Sightings (TV series), Haunted Lives: True Ghost Stories (for POV issues and readability), Haunted History, Haunted Homes, Haunting Evidence Expand: General: Curse, Energy being, Fairy Mounds, Iara (Brazilian river siren), Three on a Match (superstition) Cryptozoology: Entombed animal, Ogopogo, On the Track of Unknown Animals, Phantom kangaroo, Relict hominid (needs to be expanded, split or deleted) Ghosts and apparitions: Enfield Poltergeist, Ghost lights and all subsidiary pages, Ghost ship, Rosewood Center, Willard Library ([1] [2]) Ufology: Communion (book), Exeter incident, Exotheology, Venusian. Falkirk Triangle Unexplained derelicts and disappearances: High Aim 6, Kaz II, MV Joyita, unexplained aspects of the disappearance of Phobos 2 GA Nominations: Ufology: Battle of Los Angeles, Flying saucer

Exploring the Paranormal Mysteries of Portal Fernández Concha

Greetings, fellow enthusiasts of the unexplained and the mysterious,

I'm delving into the fascinating history of Portal Fernández Concha, a building that stands as a testament to Santiago's rich cultural and paranormal tapestry. This location is not only an architectural marvel but also a hotbed for paranormal activity, making it a perfect subject for our community's expertise.

Why Portal Fernández Concha?

1. Variety of Paranormal Phenomena: The building is rife with reports of unexplained noises, such as marbles rolling in the dead of night, and sightings of apparitions, including the eerie "Hat Man" and the spirits of those who met tragic ends within its walls​​.
2. Historical and Cultural Significance: Beyond its paranormal aspects, Portal Fernández Concha is a microcosm of Santiago's societal evolution, housing a diverse array of residents from different walks of life and historical periods​

• .
• Community Interest: The building is a focal point for local legend and has been included in paranormal tours, indicating a high level of public interest and engagement with its mysteries​

1. .

Collaboration Invitation

I invite you to join me in expanding and refining the Wikipedia article on Portal Fernández Concha, with a focus on its paranormal aspects. Your insights, research skills, and passion for the paranormal can help us create a comprehensive, balanced, and captivating narrative.

How You Can Help:

• Research and Verification: Help in gathering and verifying accounts of paranormal activity, ensuring we rely on credible sources and eyewitness accounts.
• Contextual Analysis: Provide analysis on how these paranormal phenomena fit within the broader context of Santiago's cultural and historical landscape.
• Article Enhancement: Contribute to improving the article's structure and content, ensuring it meets Wikipedia's quality standards while captivating readers' imaginations.

This is more than just an article improvement project; it's a chance to explore the intersection of history, culture, and the paranormal in one of Santiago's most enigmatic buildings. I look forward to your contributions and insights as we delve into the mysteries of Portal Fernández Concha together.

Thank you for considering this collaboration. I'm excited to see where our combined efforts will lead us in uncovering the stories hidden within the walls of Portal Fernández Concha.

Best regards, TraceySear840 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Doty

Howdy! I've been editing Wikipedia for a few years, but most of editing activities have focused on WP:AVIATION. I've recently started perusing some UFO literature, and I've noticed that Richard C. Doty comes up repeatedly in a variety of sources, but he does not have a WP:BLP article. (The bluelinked article is a placeholder redirect I created after a recent RfD discussion revealed that there is a Richard L. Doty article on Wikipedia and consensus emerged to redirect Richard Doty there. End of sidetrack.)

I'm thinking about creating an article but my major concern is sourcing, particularly given that Doty seems to have acquired an unsavory reputation in the UFO community, mostly relating to Paul Bennewitz. As this is a BLP article, I'm cautious of giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE views, or using information that has been debunked since its publication, which seems to happen frequently in ufology. To this end, I'd welcome any input on the following potential sources, in no particular order:

• Project Beta: The Story of Paul Bennewitz, National Security, and the Creation of a Modern UFO Myth by Greg Bishop. Seems to be the most in-depth source of info directly relating to Paul Bennewitz, and it's published by a reputable company. My main concern is whether it's up-to-date and whether its content is disputed.
• UFO Highway 2.0: Revisiting the Hidden Expanse by Anthony F. Sanchez. Possible red flag: clearly self-published; Strange Lights Publishing seems to exist primarily as a vehicle for Sanchez's work, and openly describes itself as such on its website. (At least it's forthright.)
• The Trickster and the Paranormal by George P. Hansen. Possible red flag: published by Xlibris USA, reputed to be a self-publishing service with minimal editorial oversight. Furthermore, excerpts on Google Books seem to use lots of weasel words, although they are extensively footnoted.
• Mirage Men: A Journey into Disinformation, Paranoia and UFOs by Mark Pilkington. The documentary based on this book alerted me to the topic. Author seems legitimate, book published by a major, well-reputed house. Main concern is whether the information is up-to-date.
• The Unidentified: Mythical Monsters, Alien Encounters, and Our Obsession with the Unexplained by Colin Dickey. Author seems legitimate, book published by a major, well-reputed house.
• UFOs and the Deep State: A History of the Military and Shadow Government's War Against the Truth by Kevin D. Randle. Prolific author, reputable publisher, but some of his claims are disputed, particularly with regard to Roswell.
• The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the Extraterrestrial by Jerome Clark. Seems well-researched and reasonably objective (I have it in front of me) and the publisher is reputable, but it's also over 25 years old, so I'm concerned it's not up-to-date.

I'm aware that Doty himself is co-author of Exempt from Disclosure and that he's discussed in Alien Harvest by Linda Moulton Howe, but the first is clearly a WP:PRIMARY source and the second seems to be one as well, so I'm cautious of relying on them for anything remotely controversial.

Feel free to suggest additional sources or anything else that might be helpful. Additionally, as I'm new to this field, please let me know if there's a better place to post these questions. Thanks, Carguychris (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great project. I don't know if we can have a standalone BLP, but we certainly find SOMEWHERE to cover all the notable content about Doty, who is pivotal figure to 20th century UFO folklore.

The biggest roadblock is finding documentations about who "the real Doty is". Lots of books cover his notable UFO claims, but it'd be really important to pin down every autobiographical claim as well, rather than naively repeating a seemingly-innocuous claim.

For example, do we really even know if he was in the Air Force?

In terms of books, Project Beta and Mirage Men are both very high-quality sources as to the role he had played in cattle mutilation and UFO folklore, the stuff that we really should cover somewhere. Randle is fringe, but often notable fringe. Feoffer (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:List of reported UFO sightings § Context

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of reported UFO sightings § Context. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Cryptid" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Cryptid to the article List of cryptids has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 6 § Cryptid until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project Source List

Recently, a number of sources have been added to WP:RSP specifically to address their use in UFO-related articles (e.g. News Nation, Popular Mechanics, The Debrief, Journal of Scientific Exploration, etc.). In addition, there are currently at least two active RfCs that are getting into areas that will start to clutter RSP (specific authors). ActivelyDisinterested advanced an idea for a project source list, which seems like a good one and could be effectively operationalized as a short section on the project page that simply aggregates a list of those sources that have gone through an RfC, and the outcome of each. In that way RSP wouldn't be cluttered with sources that, while otherwise warranting RfCs due to prolific use and discussion, are really only relevant to this niche area. Does that seem acceptable or objectionable to anyone? Chetsford (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Sgerbic (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to limit yourself to sources that have gone through a RFC. If you look at WP:VENRS, WP:ICTFSOURCES, or other project lists, they contain sources that have been discussed at the project level. Any editor who disagrees with an entry can always discuss it here or at RSN. It would be helpful for such a list to include reliable sources as well.

The RSP is not an authoritive list, it has no more authority than the consensus behind each entry. The same is true of any project list. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People sure treat it as an authoritative one. It isn't in technicality, like how we have IAR but do not actually IAR, but that doesn't change the fact that it is basically treated, including by many scripts used by people to justify removals of sources regardless of context, as a "good and bad source list", regardless of context. Codifying it does give it more authority in how people consider it. And, I don't think this wikiproject has discussed any sources, from what I can see. Not inherently opposed to a list of course but it would be nice to avoid the rules creep that comes with this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"People sure treat it as an authoritative one", they do but I've no idea how to dissuade them. It's were most of the stupid takes about the RSP come from. The RSP is not policy or guidance, but with or without it the consensus's it logs would still exist and CONSENSUS is policy. The RSP does a poor job of getting that distinction across, and simplifying it to colour coding just makes it worse. "Any yellow coloured source is bad" is a particularly annoying take.

"I don't think this wikiproject has discussed any sources", that's part of the point - it could discuss sources.

As to IAR, I see it all the time. What we don't do is just ignore the rules, as that's not what IAR says. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a system is what it does. If it is impossible to dissuade those who are interpreting it "incorrectly" and that is the main interpretation, then that is actually its purpose. It is, whether we like it or not, a good and bad sources list.

I mean I doubt that will happen but, sure, I guess. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's being redesigned, which may help. Of course the script that rely on it are a different issue. The scripts aren't under the control of those who maintain the RSP.
The purpose of this thread is meant to be creating a source list for the project, we've drifted rather far from the topic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The RSP is not an authoritive list, it has no more authority than the consensus behind each entry." While true, a centralized list indexing the consensus of recent past discussions fulfills an important role in economization of time on articles that frequently see a rotating cast of new editors cycle through. This is particularly salient in the UFO space in which some new editors have a quasi-religious commitment to certain ideas and a deeply held belief that those who disagree are part of a sprawling coverup. Having a wikilink (sometimes) spares us the need to type thousands of words over a period of days or weeks and to deal with escalating acrimony, like threats of sexual assault. [3] It's not a silver bullet, but it's a minor help. Chetsford (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections to the initial proposal, I did it here. Feel free to change it up. Chetsford (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible interest ...

Of possible interest to this project, I have initiated an RfC related to Avi Loeb and UFOs here. Editors may wish to opine in favor or disfavor of Loeb's reliability as their individual sententiae incline. Chetsford (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Flight 19

Flight 19 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]