Talk:Time slip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The full text of Moberly and Jourdain's An Adventure was available somewhere on the net last year but (spookily) I can't find it now. If anyone does come across it, could they add a link to the article please? Many thanks Ghughesarch 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Versailles incident a costume party?[edit]

In his biography of the aristocratic and decadent French poet Robert de Montesquiou, Philippe Jullian says that at the time of Moberly and Jourdain's excursion to Versailles Montesquiou lived nearby and frequently gave parties in the grounds where his friends dressed up in period costume. Moberly and Jourdain might have inadvertently barged in on a gay fancy dress party where Edwardian spinsters may not have been all that welcome. No ghosts at all! Xxanthippe 23:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that I understand that that possibility was looked into in the course of the Society for Psychical Research's (or a later) investigation, and the dates didn't fit. Ghughesarch 08:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
One of the two women returned to Versailles a year or two later and reported hearing violin music coming from an unknown source. She asked the grounds staff about it, they said no musicians were scheduled. -- (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Jullian's book was published in 1965. If you will find the reference to the Society of Psychical Research it can be added. Xxanthippe 09:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[1] - I appreciate that's only a blog but it does match my recollection - that the de Montesquiou party had happened some years before the events of "An Adventure". This site: [2] also covers the controversy, without coming down on one side or the other. Certainly Moberly and Jourdain also claimed significant physical differences in the landscape round the Petit Trianon, which would not be explained as being down to a fancy-dress party, however decadent.Ghughesarch 11:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"The de Montesquiou explanation does not, however, account for the changes to the landscape around the Petit Trianon which Moberly and Jourdain reported." This view was not expressed in Jullian's book and appears to be an editorial comment. Such comment has no place in a Wikipedia article. Please find a reputable primary source for this view (like "It has been suggested by X that...etc.) or transfer it elsewhere. Xxanthippe 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is fine to say that Jullian put forward de Montesquiou’s parties as an explanation for the events described in “An Adventure”, however, to leave the Wikipedia reader with the impression that Jullian’s suggestion satisfactorily explains Moberly and Jourdain’s experience is quite wrong. It is a self-evident matter of fact, rather than a non-neutral piece of editorialising, that Jullian’s “explanation” has flaws, particularly in respect of the changes to the landscape which Moberly and Jourdain reported.Ghughesarch 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Furthermore, and more importantly, it was later discovered that the supposed "fancy dress party" had taken place in 1893, seven years before the two women visited Versailles." Philippe Jullian, in his book, says that Montesquiou was in the habit of giving many parties, not just one party. Unless a citation is given for the quoted statement I shall remove it. Comments anyone? Xxanthippe 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics section a bit in universe, used {{fiction}}[edit]

This page may confuse readers because it doesn't clearly indicate that this phenomenon is widely held to be fictional. The only way it shows that the claims are not Definitely true is by using the word "report(s)". This sounds like the "reports" are plausible, a start would be to use a more skeptical word like "claim(s)". I have added a {{Fiction}} tag for the time being. Thinboy00 02:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"A time slip (also called a timeslip) is an alleged paranormal phenomenon in which a person, or group of people, travel in time, without the aid of a time machine.
As with all paranormal phenomena, the objective reality of such experiences is disputed."
Ghosts, for example, is not tagged as fiction, surely the first section of the time slip article, quoted above, is quite sufficient? The phenomenon is not, as far as I am aware, held to be any more fictional than ghosts, little green men, ley lines, spoon-bending or whatever. Are you being excessively sceptical? I'm removing the tag for the time being.
There is a difference with the other “fiction”-tagged articles (eg. Hogwarts, in that they are examples of places, characters or ideas whose origin is in works presented as, and acknowledged to be, fictional. Time slips, including the cases mentioned in the article, are presented as fact - like other disputed paranormal phenomena - in the sense that the reports of witnesses are assumed to have been made in good faith, regardless of how unlikely they may seem in the light of current scientifically accepted mechanisms, rather than being works of the imagination and admitted to be so.
Ghughesarch 11:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I still think of myself as a new user. If you feel that this is best for the encyclopedia I really can't argue.--Thinboy00 talk|contribs 10:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT fictional. You can find people sharing their own personal accounts of this phenomenon on lots of blogs, website forums, etc. where they are sharing stories which they clearly believe are true accounts. Now, if you personally choose to believe it must NOT be real, or you personally think all of these people were lying or mistaken, that's your personal opinion. But that is beside the point, which is that real people have reported in good faith that they actually believe they experienced it, as opposed to telling each other, "here's a story I made up, please enjoy my FICTIONAL item." I hope you can appreciate the difference. Some people think the moon landing was fake, but it is still not flagged as "fiction" just because those people think it should be. (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Disputable assertion[edit]

The article says that accounts come "largely from the twentieth century" suggesting (perhaps unwittingly - although one cannot help but wonder about the purpose of such a remark) that ther might be an exterior (cultural?) influence at wotk.

The truth is, accounts of such events (just not using any single, generic name such as "time slip") have been a recurring phenomenon for centuries, probably millenia. (They can be found if searched for specifically.) The most important, however indirect, piece of "evidence" that demonstrates the long historic tradition of such perceptions, are folk tales from many different cultures, in which events involving the distortion of time are a recurring theme.

This should definitely be included in the article.


QUOTE: "this phenomenon is widely held to be fictional"

The fact that your specific environment (of which the readership knows nothing) presumably holds them to be fictional does not, by any means, justify the adjective "widely", my dear. ;)

There is no evidence for such a "widely" held (dis)belief.

On the other hand, there IS firm evidence that there are environments in which such events are widely held to be indisputable.

So, which evidence are we going to believe - and why? Or why not?

There may be no evidence cited here on whether or not the skepticism of such an event is widely held, but why claim that these occurrences are indisputable facts merely based on where they were reported from? Why jump to that conclusion and claim it to be sensible when it's even more extraordinary than the simple claim that you're questioning? Julianrocksit (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Julianrocksit

Let's clarify the difference between "fiction," "reports" and "proven to be real" as it applies to this particular subject. Fiction: Writers have used this in stories (yes, they have). Reports: Real people have reported this experience in good faith, believing it really happened (yes, they have). Proven to be real: Everybody knows exactly what it is with no doubt whatsoever (NO!). An encyclopedia is not limited to reporting only things whose existence has been thoroughly and excruciatingly proven to the personal satisfaction of all die-hard skeptics everywhere, nor should it be. The words "phenomenon" and "unknown" and the overall tone that this is something generally unexplained is sufficient to prevent anyone from being grossly led astray or horribly confused. Mmkay? (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Simpsons/Gisbys Was That a Hoax?[edit]

One thing that bothers me about the Simpson/Gisby incident is this: why did they not notice there were no toilets?

I am guessing that in France, around the late 1890s, there would not be regular toilets in a rural inn. However, I do not know when toilets were installed regularly so I am looking into that in the toilet section of Wikipedia.

Does anyone have a thought on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ([[User talk:|talk]]) 08:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know if that TV special is viewable online? How big was the hotel they described? --RThompson82 (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The entire episode of Strange but True (the Vanishing Hotel case is the second one examined, with interviews with the witnesses) is on youtube and is directly linked from the article, however part 1 is here: part 2 here: Ghughesarch (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained disappearances versus time slip[edit]

Would a time slip look like for an external observer always like an unexplainded disappearance? May all unexplained disappearances be time slips? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Confused or misunderstood Observations[edit]

One time walking through the City Park in the Centre of York England, I was past by a Squad of authentically dressed Roman Soldiers. If I was impressionable I may have thought this a 'Timeslip', in fact they simply models walking to an exhibition of Roman Culture in the City. The incident in Versailles is explained by some observers as a similar misunderstanding by the two English Ladies stumbling onto a Festival of some kind. The incidents in Bold Street Liverpool, which have only be reported by a handful of people also could have a similar explination. One witness was a Police Officer who said he found himself in Bold Street with cars from the 1950s. This can easily be explained by a group of Vintage Car owners calling in to a Cafe, dressed in the clothes of the day.Johnwrd (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

To put it generally, the fact that a phenomenon is unexplained does not mean the next plausible explanation offered is correct.Bmcln1 (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute[edit]

I have recently disputed the content of the beginning of this article in regards to the statement "As with all paranormal phenomena, the objective reality of such experiences is disputed". This statement appears to be somewhat inaccurate, as, when one looks back at the corresponding paranormal article, you will notice that the respective article does not promote the idea of the reality of this phenomena, as much as this article. The bottom line is that the statement is inconsistent with the "superior" article. The other article [paranormal] is not only more realistic, but is also more well-backed by reliable references[3]. In fact, if you look at other serious study, you will see the same thing – no evidence of the existence of this phenomena. The evidence is at best weak. There is no debate regarding this subject among serious researchers. This does not mean, however, that it is never researched, such as by skeptic organizations, given the off-chance that something unusual is discovered in the future. If I explain that scientific evidence is currently contrary to this, then I am accused of pushing a "view". The problem with that way of thinking, is that it is misguided. Science is not a "view", per se. Science is based on facts and evidence, and cannot be categorized as such. All in all, considering that (as the other [paranormal] article states) these beliefs are contrary to existing knowledge, they are virtually disproved, however, due to the scientific norms, that you cannot prove a negative[4], we [Wikipedians, in this context] need to end with saying that it is "unlikely", which is what the other, better referenced article states (in different words). A couple of other editors (see page history) for some reason refuse to buy it. I've initiated a discussion and I hope to see that someone can assist me in the process of sending my point across. Thanks. -- IRP 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of any reader of this article who wishes to see the "backstory" to the above post, and contribute to this discussion, I attach what has been going on on my talk page over the last 36 hours (for what it's worth, I tend to take the view that Wikipedia is not here to push "Science's" view of matters). If it wasn't disputed, it wouldn't be paranormal; if it wasn't paranormal, it wouldn't be disputed. The suggestion implicit in the above post, that only skeptical ("scientific") investigations are worthwhile, beggars belief. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC):
With that comment, you are criticizing the other article. The other article explains as I did, and this article is inconsistent with the other. Thanks. -- IRP 00:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Good luck with imposing consistency on Wikipedia.Ghughesarch (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you may be confusing what you consider to be "reliable sources" (the term you used in your description of your most recent edit to the article, and which I take to mean your interpretation of scientifically reliable) with what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source, as explained at WP:RS Ghughesarch (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
You may be opposed to instating consistency, but it is critical. One article cannot (even partially) contradict another. I have looked back at the reference used in the "superior" article, which was placed for a reason. The statement that it is "unlikely" [in different words] was backed by a reliable reference. The statement that it is "debated" may have been a decent remark, but was unreferenced. -- IRP 00:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to inquire about your recent revert to my edit here, as the previous version (before my edit) was much more inaccurate than the new version, due to strong evidence against these alleged phenomena, let alone the fact that the previous version was not backed by reliable sources. May I kindly ask for you to reconsider your revert? Thanks. -- IRP 00:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Disputed" is far more accurate and succinct than the lengthy variation you have added, which goes out of its way to push a particular (skeptical) view. If you can come up with "strong evidence" against these phenomena (i.e., stronger than "science says it can't happen, therefore it doesn't"), then I suggest you provide it. A link to one loosely US government science site which expresses scientists' concerns about belief in the paranormal (however justified they may be, but without referring to Time Slips in particular), is not enough to justify the edit you made. I suggest (and I'm not deliberately being offensive here, merely trying to point out the extent to which one world view may collide with another in matters such as this) making the same edit to ghosts or god first, as both are, after all, alleged paranormal phenomena with a rather larger following than time slips. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Take no offense, but what you appear not to be acknowledging though, is the material which was already written on the paranormal article (in fact, that particular reference is cited there). That article explains that science essentially disproves this concept, primarily due to the fact that it is probably physically impossible for these alleged phenomena to occur. Regarding God, you also apparently misunderstood the concept. We did not say that science disproves God. For the most part, that is a separate discipline (some scientists may argue for or against his existence, however, there is no significant [dis]proof), as that is indeed debated. However, paranormal phenomena "in this world", if you will, is categorized as pseudoscience. Thanks. -- IRP 01:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC), modified 01:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article you cited relating to time slips in particular. So it may be relevant to the paranormal article, but not to this one, "alleged", "disputed", plus the link to paranormal is quite sufficient. But I note you say "We did not say that science disproves God" - who are "We" in this context - who do you claim to represent? And note that I also asked for some consistency here (and also used god, not God, there is a difference) - what have you to say about the ghosts article, or, for that matter, reincarnation, or the Loch Ness Monster? And why are you not editing those articles too? Ghughesarch (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
PS - '"probably" physically impossible for these alleged phenomena to occur' is not remotely the same as 'science essentially disproves this concept'.Ghughesarch (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The article references back to the other article, paranormal, by stating "As with all paranormal phenomena"... This means that the same idea applies to all paranormal subjects. In regards to your other comment, "we" includes myself, and anybody else whom researches the respective subject. I was emphasizing that none of us have said that science disproves God. Back to what I was saying. Serious study refutes these beliefs. The only actual "debate" is occurring in the lower levels of research (pseudoscience). Again, serious, properly-done study indicates these beliefs to be essentially impossible. There is no good reason to "debate", as the conclusion has virtually been reached. No intention for derogatory language, however, the individuals debating this are arguing out of ignorance – simply making arguments out of a lack of information. Skeptics will simply remain in the non-belief state until these claims are proven at least beyond reasonable doubt. This is for good reason, as the evidence is at best weak, and highly prone to error.

Regarding your second comment, yes, they are very close if not the same. Essentially, meaning, for the most part and probably, meaning most likely. Hope this is clear. Thanks. -- IRP 01:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But nothing you have said justifies singling out that particular article for the edit you made. For the moment, the article (with its caveats and links) is quite clear about the extent to which credence should be attached to the anecdotal evidence (I note that paranormal, while pointing out that much evidence is anecdotal and thus irreconcilable with scientific method, does not go on to dismiss out of hand all such claims, a more balanced view of "probably" and "essentially" than the one you seem to be espousing). It is, I believe, not Wikipedia's purpose to go further than that, and require that every article on matters not accepted as possible by science should be tagged in the lead paragraph with some sort of disquisition on its scientific impossibility - that is pushing one particular view - that of the scientific community as it stands at present - at the expense of all others. The qualifiers "probably" and "essentially" make such a tag invalid, anyway Ghughesarch (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
What type of evidence do you have for the existence of these phenomena? Do you have anything to tip the scale against the refutation? If not, then it is virtually completely on the negative side. Thanks. -- IRP 02:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that if you research the concepts of science, you will notice that it is designed to be irrefutable, which is why it is the best way to approach these extraordinary claims. -- IRP 02:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For now, I have removed the original statement as unreferenced. I politely ask for discussion prior to any further changes. Thanks. -- IRP 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of discussion that really belongs on the talk page of the particular article.Ghughesarch (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. Please see the respective talk page where I have initiated a discussion. Thanks. -- IRP 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


Someone should add Journeyman to the list on pop culture. (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Other incidents[edit]

I tried adding this to the main article but it was removed. Perhaps here?

1963 Wesleyan University (Lincoln, Nebraska) incident[edit]

Does anyone else think this ought to be mentioned in the article? Here are some pages describing it. I've also read about it in two different books.

--RThompson82 (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Disputed - NPOV, FRINGE[edit]

Per FRINGE, this is grossly inappropriate as written, where the in-world viewpoint is presented in Wikipedia's voice.

Who are these "skeptics" mentioned in the lede, and what sources support the statement? --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The word 'skeptic' is, as usual, flimflammery added as a pretence at neutrality, actually aimed at marginalising the opinions of anyone but the chronically credulous. I think the word needs to be added to our weasel menagerie AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Topic appears to be the plot device[edit]

If that is the case, the article should reflect it. I've removed the external links section completely as the entries were too removed from the topic and appeared chosen specifically for their fringe viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion and new version of article.[edit]

This is the version of the article that was nominated for deletion. It mostly referred to the term as a paranormal phenomenon and consisted largely of original research. The consensus of the deletion discussion was to delete and redirect to Timeslip (disambiguation). After that Valoem asked for it to be restored and userfied at User:Valoem/Time slip. Valoem rewrote the article to be about the fictional plot device. He then took it to Deletion review. The result there was to restore the rewritten, refocused article to mainspace. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I did not see this discussion before my reversion to the disambig. page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)