Template talk:Paranormal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

This template is meant to link up main articles related to paranormal beliefs. It may be a good idea to remain minimalistic here. Please don't spam. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


How does this template work in terms of the preexisting Template:Parapsychology? Which entries belong in one, which belong in the other, which belong in both? -Verdatum (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology has a narrow scope of phenomena they study (See: Parapsychology#Scope), and avoid many topics that are paranormal (paranormal having a broader definition which includes phenomena not explained by science). This may help [1].
Also, while the parapsychology nav should include many obscure articles related to parapsychology, there's just way too many when it comes to Category:Paranormal. I'm hoping this template can be minimalistic and cover highly notable topics or topics that are categories unto themselves, for example Ghosts, Forteana and Parapsychology. All of those are encompassing of many topics.
There may be some duplicate entries between the paranormal sidebar and the parapsychology footer, but it's not as redundant as it may seem. If you look at psychology, they have both a sidebar and footer covering the same information in both.
I didn't want this navbox to be obtrusive, so I made it where it could be collapsed and not compete with other templates or infoboxes. That's why it's a sidebar versus footer bar. It can be tucked away in a "See also" or "Further reading" section and not dominate the page.
I'm still working out which articles to include and which articles are too narrow, with the intent of being minimalistic. It's a work in progress. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Parapsychologists are very picky about what they study. I think this navbox is long overdue. I like the collapsable feature. Also, different articles can display an approprate image, if desired and if one can be found. 5Q5 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Science, Paranormal and Limitations of Science[edit]

Science is dependent on reproducible registration by human sensations. We all know that science has alot of limitation in what we know! About human life and death itself we are not knowing many things. And we must accept that science is the name of continous search and change. For all these reasons I feel we should be cautious about denying existence of otherside of the nature which remains unexplored and we should leave that to our future generations. May be some day we know them all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmanku (talkcontribs) 22:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep it simple[edit]

Keeping it simple would be just a list of articles. That is useful. Having the articles and the skeptical ones makes it a "ya but this is why they are all false" kind of billboard. Tom Butler (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting the opposing POV makes it violate NPOV. It should cover all significant sides of the subject. There are far too many articles listed. It's not supposed to be a duplication of the contents of the Category. This old version looks much better. It should also show the Category. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
If you insist on including skeptical then balance it with science and reasons for conflict. Otherwise lets delete the whole thing.Tom Butler (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
We can't include everything in one navbox. I have reverted to Brangifer's version as I think it is best -- balanced and not too big. But if this does not suit others I am not against deleting the whole thing. Johnfos (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to delete the whole box then. Saying this is paranormal and this is what the skeptics say is just another forum for conflict. While they may not be real, the rest of the story is told by the science articles and sociological dynamics of emergent ideas.

Meanwhile, I am taking it back. Your decision that the box is too big seems arbitrary.Tom Butler (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Scientific literacy[edit]

I have added Scientific literacy to the "Related articles on Social change and Parapsychology" section. A major issue for people interested in these subjects is the lack of guidance from mainstream science. Except for a handful of academically trained researchers in parapsychology, there is virtually no culture of science leadership within the frontier subject community. In the sense intended by the National Science Foundation, improved education would probably change the character of how these subjects are viewed by people in the frontier subject community. Tom Butler (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition to template[edit]

I would like to add Orb (paranormal) to the template, if this is acceptable. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

UFOs not paranormal?[edit]

After adding this Navbox to a large set of UFO related articles (as well as other woo items), another editor deleted all the UFO ones claiming the topic is not Paranormal. This despite me pointing out that WikiProject Paranormal flagged the articles, and the Navbox itself has UFOs in its list. Please see the discussion here. Anyone care to join in the argument on that page? If not, the Paranormal boxes will likely stay off. RobP (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Near Death Experiences[edit]

Dear all, I submit request for removing near death experiences from Paranormal Navbox. The main reason for saying this is that there are pretty solid mainstream scientific explanations showing that "an NDE is a subjective phenomenon resulting from 'disturbed bodily multisensory integration' that occurs during life-threatening events" see [[2]]. A solid publication supporting this is: Blanke, Olaf (2009). The Neurology of Consciousness. London: London: Academic Publishers, 2009. pp. 303–324. ISBN 978-0-12-374168-4. If you wish I can provide more publications.

The other argument is that near death experiences are very frequent. If you check under the "Prevalence" section, on the [[3]] page you will see that a selective study in Germany found that 4% of the sample population had had an NDE - and another 2005 telephone survey in Australia concluded that 8.9% of the population had had an NDE.

So, both due to their frequencies as well as to the availability of mainstream science explanations, I believe NDEs should be removed from the template.

Your thoughts? Josezetabal (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As with my comments regarding UFO articles directly above (to which I added the banner - and then had it removed by someone claims they are not real so don't deserve the label - as they also have mainstream science explanations - I think the deciding factor is not wether a concept IS paranormal, but wether paranormal believers THINK that it is. If your criteria were used, the list of "paranormal" labeled items would be exactly (or nearly) zero, and ghosts, Bigfoot, ESP, etc.should all be removed. RobP (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank-you RobP for your reply. When you say "but wether paranormal believers THINK that it is" you mean the majority of population right? Because obviously this should not be influenced by a few wikipedians. Do you agree? Now, where is the data showing that the majority of the population thinks NDEs are paranormal? As for the non-paranormal claims - there are solid articles from mainstream science - see below list :
  • There is nothing paranormal about near-death experiences: how neuroscience can explain seeing bright lights, meeting the dead, or being convinced you are one of them. Dean Mobbs, Caroline Watt Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Volume 15, Issue 10, October 2011, Pages 447-449
  • Attributional style in a case of Cotard delusion. McKay, R. and Cipolotti, L. (2007) Conscious. Cogn. 16, 349–359
  • The body unbound: Vestibularmotor hallucinations and out-of-body experiences. 6 Cheyne, J.A. and Girard, T.A. (2009) Cortex 45, 201–215
  • The out-of-body experience: disturbed self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction. 7 Blanke, O. and Arzy, S. (2004) Neuroscientist 11, 16–24
  • Direct determination of man’s blood pressure on the human centrifuge during positive acceleration. 8 Lambert, E.H. and Wood, E.H. (1946), Federation Proc. 5, 59 Nelson, K.R. et al. (2007) Neurology 68, 794–795
  • The Physiology of the Tunnel. Blackmore, S.J. and Troscianko, T. (1988) J. Near Death Stud. 8, 15–28
  • Complex visual hallucinations: Clinical and neurobiological insights. Manford, M. and Andermann, F. (1998) Brain 121, 1819–1840
  • Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions. Blanke, O. et al. (2002) Nature 419, 269–270
  • Reduced dorsal prefrontal gray matter after chronic ketamine use. Biol. Psychiatry 69, 42–48 Liao, Y. et al. (2011)
  • Dying to live: Science and the near-death experience, Grafton Blackmore, S.J. (1993)