Talk:Fringe phenomena

Haunted sites in England

w:Reportedly haunted locations in the United Kingdom - Anyone know how to do a transiki? The list article at Wikipedia has a 'travel guide tone concern on it so... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This has the potential to seriously hurt the credibility and reputation of Wikivoyage

I am very skeptic about this topic. First of all, it describes something in its title which by definition does not exist ("next to, outside the normal") because explained phenomena are by definition "normal" and those few phenomena that are a) observable and b) truly not explained will become part of "normal" once the explanation is found. However, most of the phenomena in the latter category are not ghosts or ghouls but dark matter or how anesthesia works in detail (two much more fascinating questions than crop circles or haunted houses imho).

At any rate, discussing this runs into danger from two sides: Exposing frauds should be our duty, but is nowhere near part of our mission. And as many gangsters are intent on making money with gullible globs who believe in ghouls and ghosts, they may not like our exposing of frauds. Now any way of taking about the "spooky" and "unexplained" that does not mention the very understandable and easily replicable phenomena that are almost always found out to be behind this stuff would rightly be seen as promoting pseudo-science and nineteenth century seance mumbo-jumbo, which is so not part of our mission, I cannot begin to describe it. Now I am not saying ax this right away, but I need some persuasion that the risk of harm to our reputation ("Those guys believe in fairy frauds exposed by photographic findings ages ago") is worth it for something that if anything is at the fringes of our ever expanding mission to be the best and most complete travel guide the world has ever seen. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

My personal view is that Wikivoyage should be skeptically neutral as to the "existence" of certain phonemena, but if they are something that the traveller might have an interest in, should be included in the interests of being comprehensive. The stuff I put under Occult Esoterica was mostly to do with documentable history than anything fringe as such.

I agree this might need some more disscussion. No objections to a re-title, or rewording.

I hadn't put things like the Bermuda Triangle in because much of the lore associated with it is single sourced and rather badly at that. :( 17:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you at least be open to a title change to Fringe phonemena? That would allow for a much wider scope. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess where I come down is, if reputedly haunted houses are interesting enough for people to want to visit because of that, they're fair game for a travel topic. However, I would prefer not to seem to be supporting such claims. What do you think of the tone of the Cryptozoology article? Is it worth emulating or still lacking in sufficient disclaimers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

With the cryptid article, there is at least some way of applying biological field-research tactics, You might want top put a link to something on Rare Wildlife, which whilst not strictly Cryptid in the true sense, may as well be to non-academics ( Snow Leopoards. Monitor Lizards were thought to be dragons, until a film crew found out what they really were for example.)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere, I have a copy of the book, which was published alongside the old ITV series "Myeterious World" that has a lot of Fringe Phonemena sites listed in it. And before anyone asks about Tunguska, I count that as a meteor, and not in the academic community at any rate fringe. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Side point, but monitor lizards are really common. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Well I meant the Giant one's Attenbrough found in Indonesia, but noted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Komodo dragons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ghost hunting...

Swept in from the pub

Whilst there's no empirical scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts, I was wondering where I should put things like Ghost walks in UK cities, or the better know alleged haynted houses and sites. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You could create an itinerary if it's a specific self-guided tour or a travel topic if you just want to highlight so-called haunted sites in a specific country/area. I would focus on the places though and not on how to hunt ghosts. How to hunt could briefly be covered in one heading, but focusing specifically on the how is not travel-related, while focusing on haunted places (where it is, who is said to haunt it, what sort of things do people either see or experience that "prove" it's haunted, etc) makes an excellent topic. If the building/place is of enough fame or there are other reasons to visit, you can of course also list it in the city article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I had simmilar queries about crytpzoology tourism, casual Nessie hunting is a known thing for some visitors to the Highlands :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC) (This is my alternate account)

I might create a general topic of "Paranormal tourism" , if there is someone that's able to cover stuff beyond the UK. In any case I'd like to get started on it so it can be brought to a usable staus by the end of October :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've started an outline at Paranormal tourism , it would be appreciated if the other Wikivoaygers were able to assist, or help put in things that are nationaly or internationaly well-known ones. I've linked a few existing articles that seemed to be relevant, and depending on how the article expands, might consider splitting off the "Ghost" aspect.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

We need a better banner. Is there some mysitcal looking stone circle that could be used? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

VFD discussion

Per the credibility concern noted on the talk page and the fact that since it was created there doesn't seem to have been much progress made on this, compared to the other articles started at the same time.

Nomination as article originator, from alternate account. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• delete as per your comments. We might also wish to have a look at Cryptozoology Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If the cryptid material was reformulated in a way as to mark it as "fringe" I may be more inclined to keep it, given that rare-wildlife is an area of serious biological research. That said an article on Rare wildlife that's known to exist (even if rare) might be more acceptable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't feel strongly about this, but it seems to me, travel to reputedly haunted places and the like is a valid topic, and the article does have some content. ShakespeareFan00, if you don't like the amount of progress, why don't you plunge forward with the changes you'd like to see? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The concern is that the article could become a magnet for cranks as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Cranky edits can be reverted. As for the Cryptozoology article, I think it's fun and the topic isn't treated as if it were science. The only thing that bugs me about it is the title, but we can discuss that at Talk:Cryptozoology. I see that I found the name OK when it was a change from "Cryptobiological travel". Anyway, if you have a better suggestion, that talk page is the place to make it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per Ikan. Powers ^(talk) 15:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Fringe phenomena ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

N.B.: the original title was Paranormal tourism. Powers ^(talk) 20:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Question - Is everyone satisfied with this result, so that we can close this Vfd entry by consensus? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I would still rather have this deleted as I do not want even the appearance of this wiki supporting unscientific mumbo-jumbo (and debunking it is neither our core mission nor likely to win us many friends in some corners of the web that like to try and vandalize wikis) but I guess the harm will be mostly minor and I do not want to stand in the way of what everybody else seems to agree on. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• If there's any appearance that we're supporting mumbo-jumbo, why can't that be solved with appropriate edits to the article? We needn't debunk everything to not seem to support it, right? Isn't there a way to thread the needle? "Haunted house" tours are very popular in some places, so they're a reason for travel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, I do understand Hobbit's concerns. On the other hand, there are likely travelers interested in this topic too, both people who believe in ghosts and such and people who check out places for the lulz (for instance, what would Loch Ness be without Nessie, or Area 51 without all the UFO stories?). ϒpsilon (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

And if a British Historic House or castle doesn't have a Ghost legend, then they are missing out. (tounge in sceptical check) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per Ikan. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, possibly rename I think the description at the top should be clearer so that the awkward caveat about literary locations and relgious locations do not need mention. While some religious sites are directly related to occurrences linked to spiritual texts that non-believers and/or historians might dispute, many religious sites and events are indisputably real, such as martyrdom sites and other places associated with real religious figures or events where religious people were involved, as well as religious structures. Religious/Spiritual tourism is not all related to unprovable phenomena. Literary and folktale-related or inspired sites seem clearly out-of-place just by looking at the subheadings and to me don't need mention except that we used the term "folklore" in the heading which can sometimes include folktales.

As far as the "dangers" of having articles about ghosts/hauntings are concerned, I don't think it matters at all whether ghosts are real or not for our purposes. It's a legitimate travel topic that even skeptical or non-believing travelers often partake in to varying degrees. It also relates to Dark tourism in some respects. I think it would be worse not to mention them. If we take a stance on ghosts, would we then take a stance on religion to promote a "Wikivoyage-approved religion" or any other topic deemed "controversial"? We tell travelers what places are known for and why people visit, which is not the same as providing a guarantee that each location has true historic/scientific backing for everything said about it. It's fun to travel to places where legendary events "took place", even if you know or suspect those events never really took place. From what I've seen, we only take stances when the topic is not related to travel (like the former "Marriage in China" article), has serious legal ramifications/could harm the traveler, some rare morality issues that often also relate to the legality issue (we don't have a guide for "pedophile travel"), or "slippery slopes" where travel benefit does not outweigh the downsides. I don't see this as falling into any of those categories. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What is dark tourism? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Dark Tourism encompasses any tourism related to the macabre. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Fringe_phenomena#Known_scams_and_fakes

Swept in from the pub

Any well known ones to mention here? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of them. All of them? I think the whatever their name fairies that were endorsed by Arthur Conan Doyle deserve mention... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Cottingley Faries, are infamous. I was however in terms of the article thinking more in terms of scams used to part the traveller from funds ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh

Swept in from the pub

I suggested over at w:Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard in the List of reportedly haunted locations in Bangladesh section, that maybe some of the material in the dubious article over there might be more appropriate here. Anyone want to chime in? John Carter (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Provided it is focused on areas that travelers would be interested in visiting and not just on dubious claims of hauntings, a mention Fringe phenomena would be an appropriate location. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Provided that the focus is on what a reasonable traveller may be interested in. Wikivoyage does not as I understand it exist to help "promote" any specific paranormal claims. There were concerns expressed about credibility in the a VFD, see the article's talk page.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

How to expand this?

Still needs an expanded Stay Safe/respect section perhaps, especially given the concerns about the Urbex example.?

Mostly UK centric at present, maybe needs some one from outside the UK to Comment? (Scandinavia for example has Troll legends which I don't know much about), but not sure if those are best here or in that regions article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Less negativity/promotion of "skepticism", More fun?

The topic of "fringe phenomena" is interesting, but the tone in this article is extremely off-putting to me. Why is it written from the perspective that the topic is stupid or that a right-minded traveler should believe it's stupid? Why does it seem to encourage the readers to NOT believe that any fringe phenomena could possibly be real? Why does it not even entertain the idea that any of this could be real or evn admit that not everything is known? I'm not suggesting we lie or get touty, but I don't think it's necessary to be so hostile towards the topic (and by extension hostile towards readers who are actually interested in it). Right now, the "hoax" section feels redundant with how most of the descriptions already essentially claim them to be fake. I think the article needs to focus LESS on skeptics and non-believers and MORE consideration needs to be given to travelers with genuine curiosity, travelers who are open to the idea that it could be real, travelers who believe in the phenomena, and travelers who want to have FUN. Most people who are interested in these kinds of places are one of those kinds of travelers. Our article should reflect that. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The language used in the article was in response to earlier concerns (see above on the talk page.). Wikivoyage can't promote wild claims because it has to be 'fair' to the traveller (who might be skeptical, or alternatively gullible). However, being fair also means that perhaps the language needs to be more nuanced.

The intent with the Hoax section was an attempt to move 'known' documented hoaxes away from the items that were still unproven either way. This was also the intent when i recently copy edited the 'illusions' section. I would hope you agree that a Phonemena can still be interesting even if it's been given one or more explanations.

Wikivoyage is a wiki, so plunge forward in trying to balance the language. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, so it was originally too touty of everything being real? I guess we need to find something in-between the extremes then. I would say it's the opposite of "fair" for us to have an official stance against specific phenomena or all of them, especially in an article meant for people with an interest in it. We should not concern ourselves with "gullible" people. There is no harm in someone believing that hauntings are real versus not real, and if we truly believe that talking about fringe phenomena is endangering "gullible" people and that it is our job to protect "gullible" people, we shouldn't have the article. But since we do have it, we shouldn't use it as a platform for advocacy against the topic.

A phenomena loses most of its intrigue if it's proven that there is in fact no phenomena at all. If our explanations imply or state directly that it's all fake and that only "gullible" idiots believe it, I imagine that is going to turn off most people who come to the article to find those sites. They probably don't want to be insulted, just like I imagine a religious person being turned off by descriptions of their religion as being for "gullible" morons. Who is this article for if we take the stance that those who are interested in any way other than to laugh at how ridiculous it is are "gullible" or stupid? I would argue that this stance goes against "the traveler comes first". We shouldn't create articles that mock the very travelers that the article caters to.

While I find stories of hauntings and such interesting, I have never actually taken a tour of such places, so I have no firsthand knowledge to contribute. I'd have to do some research to see how this sort of thing is usually presented to see how it could work with this article. For example, the article's description makes crop circles seem to be wholly debunked as fake. I know that some have been faked, but I would need to see if there are any that remain mysterious in order to add balance or even to determine if that section CAN be balanced. Phenomena with more proof of being real or lacking significant proof that it is not real should reflect that, then we should reflect that nuance. But even with all of this said, I don't want to add fake nuance in cases where there really isn't any. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I took a stab at balancing the "Haunted sites" section by adding general information about hauntings but also added scientific explanations in the second paragraph which I think are of interest. I think it reads in a much more neutral way, but opinions and edits are welcome. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I got the same feeling as you, reading part of the article before reading your comment above. The section you edited seems fine to me. I think we need to remind travellers of the possibility of site owners (or other people) just scamming you, risks involved with that – and risks caused by the phenomenon itself, fake or not (such as seeing nightmares afterwards). Perhaps a paragraph or two in the Understand (and in Stay safe) could handle most of that, in the spirit of "there are scammers and strange optical phenomena, so not all the reported phenomena are truly paranormal" (cf Savukoski#Korvatunturi fell). –LPfi (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@ChubbyWimbus: I was actually considering moving some of the 'explained' ones to their own article, alongisde the noted 'illusion' attraction ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Fringe_phenomena#Illusions_and_hoaxes

Swept in from the pub

Short but I think this could be expanded with some other generic phenomenon types that have been explained.

Mirages and the Brocken Spectre were 2 major ones I felt may be something readers of this site might ask about.

I like some other Wikiovoyagers take a 'skeptical' view towards the paranormal.

If there's enough material, I'm willing to consider 'Illusions' as a more generic travel topic, outside of the Fringe article...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi ShakespeareFan00, that's a really interesting page, will work on it when I get the chance. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 10:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)