Talk:Poltergeist

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Baldvegan123 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Laurenharper02, Allig11.

Neutrality

Since the article is still problematic, I've gone ahead and also added the Weasel-tag to the Hypothesis section. For the contributors that often edit this article, please heck the guidelines on WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV to see why this article, but especially the current Hypothesis section isn't conform Wikipedia standards. Typehigh (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed most of what I think is uncited, unsourced, original etc... Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the removal of those paragraphs was valid. There are still some weasel-words remaining (skeptics, some people say, etc.) but at least the biased texts are gone. Typehigh (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the article be rewritten in more "paranormal" point of view than the current, which only consists of folklore tales. There should be a clear distinction between the phenomenon that was named "poltergeist" in today's scientific research methods vs what was historically denoted as "poltergeists". Shadiac (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The "paranormal" sources are not generally usable on wikipedia, generally because they're pure crap. A poltergeist -is- a folklore tale, despite what some random uncredentialed para-whatever says. Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a myth almanac. Every phenomenon listed here should be explained in a maximally scientific p.o.v., if such is possible.

I don't entirely agree with your conclusion there. It's like including articles on fictitious characters such as Queen Dido or Captain Ahab. If a writer expects me to understand an allusion to Dido or Ahab or poltergeists, and I'm not very familiar with the Aeneid or Moby Dick or folklore, I turn to the encyclopaedia for a brief but informative explanation. Even though the subjects are fictitious, people may want information about them. To understand an allusion to Ahab, for instance, a reader may need to know that within the fiction in which he appears he had a peg leg and was obsessively hunting a white whale, and that in the end he was killed by it, and what his ship was called. The fact that Ahab is fictional doesn't mean that no general reader without access to specialised references may want to find out about him. Treating folklore as true would expose an encyclopaedia to ridicule, but brief explanations of what is meant by "pixie", "redcap", and "poltergeist" in general writing is, I think, just the sort of thing than an encyclopaedia is for. Agemegos (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, please watch your language.Shadiac (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the scientific view, they dont exist. There, we're done. Please dont try to introduce your view of what a poltergiest is or isnt. Please feel free to introduce good on-topic reliable sources. If you think I'm removing good on-topic reliable sources, the reliable sources noticeboard is here|... (btw, "watch my language" about 'crap'? really? ) Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's too much emphasis on pseudoscientific aspects, not enough on folklore and tradition which is the primary aspect of the subject. We should adopt a historical, global, neutral point of view, and so not present a pseudoscientific viewpoint of folklore and tradition. The French article is quite good, I recommend working from it if possible. Cenarium (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What about the theory that poltergeists are actually highly troubled teenagers with no knowledge of their abilities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.129.197 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In danger of becoming a purveyor of folklore?

There seems to be much talk of "Skeptics", and "Believers" in this article and very little concern with science. Does this sort of folklore angle belong on Wikipedia? Perhaps we should remember that science is not interested in emotional investment or points of view but simply with what is true. If poltergeists are ever proved to exist then they will become part of science. Until that time arrives - which becomes ever less likely as the centuries roll on - they are myth and folklore. It seems to me to be a stain on any encylopedia which asserts otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PinThetford (talk • contribs) 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Until something is proven by science it is myth and folklore? So then, every hypothesis is both myth and folklore? That's not to say that we ought to assume the truth of something before we know it, but we ought not dismiss it as you have.

Frankly, I don't believe or disbelieve anything about poltergeists. There are enough reports of them from credible people to remain open minded. In my opinion, the article, in its present state, doesn't reflect that. It presents a number of very dubious scientific explanations for the phenomenon. All those explanations presuppose that the phenomenon exists (but not that it has a supernatural cause), but they seem entirely implausible as explanations. It'd be better just to call those who've reported the phenomenon liars.

Does anyone seriously think that ostensibly sane people are imagining objects flying around their house? The illusion explanation seems weak. The trickster explanation would work in some cases, but it fails in many others. Until there are more convincing explanations, I think we ought to treat the positive possibility more favorably. At the very least, explicate some cases and both the elements that we can, and that we can't, appeal to ordinary events to explain.

"There are enough reports of them from credible people to remain open minded. In my opinion, the article, in its present state, doesn't reflect that."

"Reports from credible people" is the wrong category. The crux of the matter is: people hear things they cannot explain. That is a normal thing, not a para-normal one. The paranormal aspect comes in when somebody has delusions of grandeur and thinks he is so extremely smart and knowledgeable that he can explain every natural phenomenon. Parapsychologists tend to suffer from that affliction. The logical conclusion from the "extremely smart and knowledgeable" assumption is that the phenomenon must be supernatural. You seem to agree with those people, and the article not reflecting your opinion is a desirable thing. Instead, it should and does reflect the facts - without the additional "extremely smart and knowledgeable" assumption.

Also, the explanations named in the article are not required to convince you, or fail to seem weak or implausible to you. The are only required to be found in the high-quality literature. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ALL European nations?

you sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathsofnaftaline (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused

In one place it says 'poltergeists have traditionally been described in folklore as troublesome spirits or ghosts which haunt a particular person, hence the name', yet elsewhere it says the word is derived from 'making noise' and 'ghost'. So how does haunting a particular person relate to the name?Ed Addis (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The name and the association you mentioned have no relation to each other. Poltergeists are named as such simply because their primary behavior is creating disorder (like noise). Historically, they often do their business in the presence of a particular person, but it doesn't mean they should be called "stalkergeists" or something. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've pulled "hence the name", since it doesn't make sense. If someone feels that strongly about it they can revert me with an explanation. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong plural

The term Poltergeists is wrong.The correct plural of Geist is Geister. --> Poltergeister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.62.0 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you think science or paranormal?

I am not sure where to place works of Physicists Pierro Brovetto and Vera Maxia. While it is well sourced (on arxiv) and they are respectable scientists, their idea is maybe a little bit excentric since they suggest that "poltergeist have for origin a reduction in strength of molecular bonds due to an enhancement in polarization of vacuum which decreases the actual electron charge" and that the cause are trnasformation in the brain of young womans. So maybe if someone else suggest I will move it in the paranormal section because it is to far from more down to earth view of Persinger and Turner where the origin of poltergeist are seismic activity, geomagnetism and ball lightning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundergodz (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

New section

What about a separate section from paranormal, for spiritualist view and religious view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundergodz (talk • contribs) 01:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Michael Persinger

Persinger's parapsychological research on poltergeists has never been replicated by the scientific community, his views are considered fringe if not pseudoscience by critics. Thundergodz keeps adding mention of Persinger but the sources are fringe i.e. Persinger, M. A.; Cameron, R. A. (1986). "Are earth faults at fault in some poltergeist-like episodes?". JASPR 80: 49–73. The JASPR is the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, this is not a science journal. Goblin Face (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: the sources being used for insertion of this stuff: the JASPR is definitely not a reliable source of scientific views, the Tony Jinks book clearly argues a sympathetic view of parapsychology, and James Houran is a well known parapsychology advocate whose book, although academic in nature, presents parapsychology and mainstream science on an equal footing. While some of this may be suitable for the "paranormal" section of the article, it doesn't belong in the "science" section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all Persinger talks about two hypothesis: seismic activity and geomagnetic field. I think we all agree that seismic activity can go to the scientific section? Only one team attempted to replicate Persinger's results but get negative results. No one else tried. Persinger's idea would not be pseudoscientific if even the skeptic Richard Wiseman use her but it can be fringe. I have many sources of correlation between geomagnetic field and paranormal, ghost and haunting experience: http://www.richardwiseman.com/research/ghosts.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17924055.400-little-house-of-horrors.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22229671 http://www.zen118739.zen.co.uk/parasearch/research.html (it is skeptic source not paranormal) http://books.google.fr/books?id=0g9JAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT110&lpg=PT110&dq=persinger+poltergeist&source=bl&ots=suNqNWwKjL&sig=exRqdjbIGLuXnhSKdG1Qx9L3NB0&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=LU6cU5XUPITXPKfdgcgC&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=persinger%20poltergeist&f=false (french) and other sources are of paranormal origin but the problem is that poltergeist aren't mentioned explicitly altough I think that they are considered the same as haunting experience. Persinger's idea in collaboration of Wiseman are present in many paranormal-related articles and in other languages (french, russian...), we could put them too but with a critical note that his experiment wasn't replicated. Until we get to a consensus I propose to put the article at the version of 14:35, 14 June 2014‎ by LuckyLouie.Thundergodz (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Here also "Discovery of Electromagnetic Anomalies at Two Reputedly Haunted Castles in Scandinavia" http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-60054205/discovery-of-electromagnetic-anomalies-at-two-reputedly + they tried to build a haunted room but apparently negative results (but it shows us that Persinger's theory is taken seriously) http://www.wired.com/2009/10/scientifically-haunted-house — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundergodz (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"poltern" meaning

I am german and know the language VERY well. And I know, that "poltern" is not just "making noises", that would be "Geräusche machen". It actually is - as I tried to edit - making loud, maybe annoying sounds like rumbling, rocks that fall on the ground or woodplanks that are thrown around. Despite defining "poltern" more clear, it also fits to what ghosts usually enjoy to do. So it would be fitting, if you let me (or someone else) do that edit. Thank you

84.131.189.161 (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This Article not properly researched and does not mention all the possibilities.

What is ignored in this article and what a even a cursory search revealed is that most cases of poltergeism involve young girls at puberty that have excess energy and unable to control it or properly channel it. The excessive energy and frustration is then used to create psychic and telekinetic havoc in their environment. See for example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054842/Enfield-Poltergeist-The-amazing-story-11-year-old-North-London-girl-levitated-bed.html This would predict cessation of poltergeist activity by temporarily taking the girl away from the house during which time activity should cease. The suggested remedies would be to channel the girl into strong physical activities, soccer playing, dance classes, swimming competitions, learning piano with training exercises, whatever her preferences are, and getting home she would be too tired to spook. 76.171.150.240 (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC) R.A.

The article already refers to that hypothesis: "Parapsychologists such as Nandor Fodor and William Roll wrote that poltergeist activity can be explained by psychokinesis." It is not as detailed as you described it though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Brovetto and Maxia

The "quantum poltergeist" theory by Brovetto and Maxia presently in the Poltergeist#Unverified_natural_phenomena section may have been an April Fool's Day article by New Scientist -- or in the least, so deliberately offbeat as to be of dubious value [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I always wanted to remove it, in fact I did but I was reverted by another user who added it. I don't have a problem with the New Scientist as a source. It's just their explanation is just too fringe like and just sounds like a joke. There is no evidence of a follow-up piece etc. I am not sure what to make of it. I would recommend for it to be removed. Goblin Face (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a circa 2008 paper that never got any traction except in parapsychology bibliographies (including this one). Obviously a tiny minority view, so it doesn't belong here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology journal link added to EL?

I have removed insertion of a link to an article in a fringe journal (the American Society for Psychical Research) which states that "rapping sounds" made in seances are both "unexplained" and attempts by spirits to "communicate". WP:ELNO requires us to omit links to factually misleading information. The biography of the author, Dr Barrie G. Colvin, is (for Wikipedia's purposes) irrelevant. What matters is the source he was published in, i.e. a journal that Wikipedia widely considers unreliable because it represents a tiny WP:FRINGE view that has no impact outside the fringe bubble. Compare for example the Impact factor of the American Society for Psychical Research and a mainstream journal such as the Journal of Immunology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the "fringe journal" to which you refer is published by the Society for Psychical Research (based in London), not the American Society for Psychical Research.

Anybody interested in learning more about this dispute may do so by clicking here and here.

Alderbourne (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The Society for Psychical Research, is not considered an academic or science journal, is not a reliable source to be citing on Wikipedia. Unless there is notable coverage in reliable secondary sources that discuss the said article piece, then that journal is not usually cited on Wikipedia. JuliaHunter (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Youtube

• (I'm Macqdor) My links are from a case currently being looked at by well respected names in the Paranormal community. Individuals and organizations in both the US and UK. This Wiki page seems centered only on UK Poltergeist related cases. Majority of the links and references come from the UK. Why not global accounts? Do you want the names of the organizations investigating and vouching what I've posted?
• Macqdor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has re-inserted unreliable links to YouTube videos on the article many times. I have warned him once for doing this. I ask this user to please make a case on the talk-page here why these YouTube videos to be included on the article. It is nothing more than advertising. JuliaHunter (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Poltergeist. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608034151/http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=14726&sec=39&con=52 to http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=14726&sec=39&con=52

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) 22:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Added information to article

I modified the introductory paragraph by adding more details about what exactly a poltergeist is. I feel like originally there was quite a good bit of information being left out and it didn't accurately depict just how much a poltergeist can entail. I also added two subsections to the famous cases section by giving brief descriptions of two of the cases listed. This will make it easier for readers to quickly get information without having to be redirected to different articles and read a lot more informaiton. Another section I added was about Ed and Lorraine Warren, since they are two widely known experts in the field I thought it was vital to give information and background on them as well. Feel free to let me know your thoughts on my revisions and if you think they need to be edited again or not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldvegan123 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your contributions. Regarding these edits: [2], [3], [4], [5], you may not have been familiar with part of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, namely WP:FRINGE, which dictates that we give less, if any, weight to ideas and concepts at odds with mainstream/majority scientific thought. That is the reason this article (and all our other articles) lean heavily toward debunking and skepticism and away from superstition and the supernatural. (Regarding Ed and Lorraine Warren, they do not represent mainstream scientific thought, they are considered self-proclaimed "experts" and not independent reliable sources of fact) So claims that spirits of the dead and/or demonic entities exist, did something or can do something, etc. can only be treated as claims and not fact, and descriptions should not be written credulously. Depending on the source, we'd use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, for example, "According to John Smith, poltergeists are spirits...", or "In 2013, John Smith claimed a demon threw him down the stairs...", etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)