Talk:Ghost Hunters (TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Show Highlights in episode listings?

Now, Seicer, I wonder if you think it's appropriate for this article that we are now adding "Highlights" to the list of shows. Such as "Shadowy figure caught on film." Could be a person with a hooded cape was "caught" on film, on purpose. See what I mean? And, is it really necessary. I feel a couple people want to turn this into an ad for the group/show. This, to me, seems like more of that. VX 08:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It does raise some interesting issues. If this were a cartoon show, it would be reasonable to describe plot summaries such as "a glass breaks for no reason" and "a crew member is attacked by an unseen force". But the Ghost Hunters show purports to be factual. Some critics would contend that those descriptions are highly sensationalized, and heavy doses of hyperbole added. It would be great to hear all other perspectives and opinions on this. LuckyLouie 16:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There may be a solution to this dilemma. Some quick web surfing reveals that the Ghost Hunters SciFi channel web site contains episode summaries which appear to be somewhat cleansed of hyperbole and speculation. Example: "While Jason sleeps in room 401, he hears a closet door open and notices a glass has shattered." In my opinion, this would be preferable to "A glass breaks for no reason". LuckyLouie 17:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So then "highlights" are something done in other articles, right? If so then this is going to be kind of fun working on how to word them. VX 17:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Possible orbs caught on film." I thought this gang debunks orbs and calls them all specks of dust caught on film..... VX 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh man, this is a can of worms: "Video crew member is attacked! Injured by unseen force!? Come on people. VX 17:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As we are discussing this, Ira is adding more inappropriate content... VX 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello! About the above, a Military Medical officer found his injuries to be REAL! What do you want?

And your reflection edit was silly, removed a viable piece of information about the unrelated psychic thermal footage, which of course you can't explain away so you don't try, and childishly reformatted the layout of the schedule, so that sections appeared floating off on the right on their own. Plus, wording the thing to read 'the gang makes a mistake' is not the kind of 'neutral' wording or professional readout you should be tring for. This is a place for information about the show. It's not as though they didn't try to get the locker to reflect in the show. So saying 'unexplained reflection' is a good compromise between the people who think it was an apparition and the folks who think it is just Grant's reflection. Why do you need TOTAL victory to feel that a NEUTRAL point of view has been arrived at? --Ira-welkin 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ira you are out of control. My point in changing that cute little notation, most of them, was that they are completely biased. We could sit here and change them back and forth all day and I give a damn about a medical officer examination--they are not appropriate if from the wrong POV. You are using this to move the article back in your own personal direction and I am out of here until we get this under control. I know you are unable to control yourself, so that means a third party. I've long become bored with your little antics. VX 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From a statement made by V17361

If you want to see biased views, look at what you are doing right now. Ira, we've finally changed the Ghost Hunters article to an appropriate NOPV piece. You keep trying as hard as you can to turn it into TAPS personal advertising campaign, which is not what wikipedia is about. VX 17:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You percieve information about the show presented in the same context it is in the show for purposes of an index of show topics helpful to someone who was interested in identifying episodes by number based on hearing about the show or seeing it in the past as being an advertising campaign? In an article about the Dick Van Dyke show, would such an episode index be considered 'biased' if it said 'Rob loses his wedding ring and tries to find Laura a used car," istead of 'A man named Dick Van Dyke claiming to be a different person in a soundstage repeatedly made it seem as though he was concerned about a ring which was not his but was in fact actually a 'prop.'" I am not saying that I think Ghost Hunters is as fictional as the Dick Van Dyke show, only that to be totally 'factual' all articles about Books, TV Shows, Movies, Myths, etc, would have to take a tone that totally dismissed every aspect of the thing that they were discussing. Fair and ethical analysis of such works can not be biased against it as a premise. Even if one believes in the work TAPS is doing, the editing, direction, and presentation of 'Ghost Hunters' AS A SHOW makes it a PORTRAYAL, a fictionalized account, just as any documentary is. Documentary's about animals? They make it seem like a story. Because when you FILM it, EDIT it, etc, it IS a story. 'Ghost Hunters' episodes are storys ABOUT investigations. What happens in those stories, as they are presented, is the content of the 'highlights' section in the episode guide, which anybody curious about the show could easily find helpful in episode identification, were they for or against TAPS. --Ira-welkin 17:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you get paid for this type of thing? This isn't the Dick Van Dyke show. If you want it to be like the Dick Van Dyke show then the article is going to end up looking COMPLETELY different than it does now? Shall I get started making those types of edits? VX 18:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You use edits as a threat and cling to the notion that I must -work- for the show. The fact that you just said you don't give a damn about facts says it all. If there are facts FOR GH, you feel that it is biased, and the wrong tone, and should be taken out. There's plenty of unbaised ways to say the information about the Army Medical Officer. I want to tell everybody right now that if you go back in this article to a point before it was erased in a section called 'Statements' you will find a very unbaisedly worded, factual account of the entire thing. Maybe facts are not called for here in an encyclopedia. I will not argue that that section should be brought back. But I just think that the unwillingness on some people's part to accept that some of the facts DO support something that you do not agree with has made this a battleground instead of a presentation of facts. --Ira-welkin 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright. You can't talk to me of bias on the discussion pages while you re-word everything to say 'Jason SHOWS Up with burn marks,' 'EXPLAINED reflection,' 'DEBUNKED BY SKEPTICS.' That isn't even in the episode, let alone PROVEN just because YOU believe it! I stopped myself numerous times from putting in information from outside the show that would expand upon the believability of TAPS in this section. Not only because it would start to weigh the article down with bias, but because these episode guides are presented from the context of the show. The wording, as was indicated above, can and is being changed to make it 'neutral,' as in 'this happened and this happened, this was seen to occur.' NOT as in 'the fake footage was found to not prove ghosts exist.' You don't understand. --Ira-welkin 18:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thought I could add something fun to the page like show highlights but that's just freakin impossible with you people. I think you guys need ti chill the F++k out, maybe leave Wikipedia for a while and cool off - go enjoy summer or something, maybe mow the lawn. Cyberia23 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not being "unchilled out" and having just read the far-out cool and funky rant you just blew a fuse on, maybe you might want to consider a break from this yourself? ;) VX 00:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims

To tide the anger spewing from both sides on this issue, I added Unsubstantiated claim. to each episode highlight if it has not been proven. Debunked has also been entered into the highlights as well. And as I will add one last time, let's keep this at a neutral point of view. Going further, please keep your personal rants out of the discussion page and keep it on-topic. It is also good nature to indent your statements so that we can see who you are replying to. Seicer 18:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great system. Because it allows the information to be presented as it was in TAPS, while displaying the fact that these statements can only be taken at face value if you trust TAPS. This prevents harsh conflicts in wording that arise when one side of the argument is striving to strip legitimacy or to add validity to the views presented. I also hope that I have not been overly personal. --Ira-welkin 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What gave you the idea that allowing the information to be presented as it was in TAPS, while displaying the fact that these statements can only be taken at face value if you trust TAPS, is a good format for its wikipedia article?

Based upon my experience coming here, to this article, as a newcomer to wikipedia, I suspect this is nothing more than a creative way to get hyperbole back into the article. Either remove or change the way you wrote it, or take out the entire listing of Seasons 1 and 2, is my suggestion. It looks ridiculous as it is now.

Now I am off again to figure out how to indent. For some reason I am not finding it an easy thing to learn. VX 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't get the idea. It was Seicer's idea. He changed it. You'll have to ask him. He knows more about wikipedia than me. He's been here longer. --Ira-welkin 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want the episode listing to be removed, we can make a seperate discussion based around that. Some television shows have episodes, but not all. To indent properly, take a look at the Discussion source. Seicer 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it seem logical that to meaningfully state that something is debunked that a clear description of what the allegedly debunked activity or evidence must be in place? To jumble together the attempted description of what was on the show with alternate theories on what happened, including that the entire show is false, creates a confusing and meaningless mishmash of questionable statements. If the alleged activity is worth debunking, and having independent parties conduct frame by frame analysis, isn't all of the original information presented therefore relevant? If every frame is important, isn't all the information given with it in the show important? Some of these frame by frame analysis sites have something to point out, and are done tastefully. Others leave out key pieces of information because it goes against their theories, something that they claim to believe is 'psuedoscientific' and would harass the Ghost Hunters themselves for doing. I think that having a resource like this is helpful. It also helps the reader to sort things out, and see that none of the fantastic claims can be completely verified. Only the injury to the audio man Frank DeAngelis comes closest. And that still leaves room open to doubt, as someone might still be willing to get smashed in the face very hard by their equipment bag, somehow force themselves to cry for half an hour straight, if they were a very good actor and could stand pain. It -could- be falsified, even though there is overwhelming evidence to show that it is not. And so the 'unverified claim' tag helps to present the content and claims of the episode along with the idea that it might not be true. --Ira-welkin 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I did, I just looked at what you did to indent and copied, thanks Seicer.

Yes, let's discuss that. VX 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ira. I have some advice. Why don't you put up a website of your own? Or a blog? (They are free and pretty simple to maintain) You can call it "In defense of TAPS" or whatever you like. It would be a great way to air your views, cast doubt on the doubters, and say whatever you want. I am suggesting this because I see that several times within this discussion, you have tried to start a debate regarding the material found in individual debunkers and skeptics websites (listed in the external links). Wikipedia is not the place to debate this stuff. But your website/blog would be. As long as it's relevant, the Ghost Hunter wiki page could even add it to the external links. It's just a suggestion. I hope you'll give it some consideration. Thanks. LuckyLouie 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove Episode Listings?

Rather than leave the point, counter-point back into the article, as it is now, let's either take out the recent "highlights" or remove the entire List of Season one and two episodes, which lend little to the article. We could have it state that there are such and such numbers of episodes and leave it at that, keeping the article in the proper NPOV format. It is NOT in NPOV format right now because of the recent additions. VX 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ira you said, Does it seem logical that to meaningfully state that something is debunked that a clear description of what the allegedly debunked activity or evidence must be in place? To jumble together the attempted description of what was on the show with alternate theories on what happened, including that the entire show is false, creates a confusing and meaningless mishmash of questionable statements

You opened up a can of worms with the advertising, again. We need to take it back to the NPOV. VX 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your most recent argument, above, is that it has nothing to do with writing an article about the show. To leave in comments about what the group found during an episode, is from your POV. Thus it needs to go. VX 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my POV, it has to do with the context created by the show, and what FACTUALLY exists AS that show.

Why delete a rich resource of information about the show just because it tells about the content of the show? It's obvious that you don't believe in the show, and that's fine. The information is all presented as though it is potentially not true, but merely what is purported to -be- true by the show. What exactly is your qualm? You do not like any section where specific information about the show's contents has a place? What is so unbiased about it?

It says 'they claim to have caught this,' which is total fact. It then says 'Unsubstantiated' showing that it is not completely verified scientifically. But it is still the content of the episode. So people can tell which episode is which. And this is biased somehow? How and why? I am just mournful that you seem to think that this is such a bad state of affairs! --Ira-welkin 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Constant accustations of 'advertising' are absurd, and reveal bias in my opinion. I think that your latest edits, 'attributed to paranormal activity,' are very good and that kind of revision I believe will help you feel that this section meets your standards. That is helpful and I appreciate it, as I'm sure does the whole wikipedia community. --Ira-welkin 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ira, I'm not "accusing" you of advertising, I'm simply pointing out that you are writing as an advertiser would. You are. Even in here, above, you say the content you put in is a "rich resource of information about the show." It once WAS a rich resource, but now, with your highlights, it's NPOV again, and I call it advertising, because I recognize it as such as a writer/reader. Where to begin with answering your questions about bias. You've been at wikipedia longer than I; surely you recognize NPOV, only now you are calling it "as seen from the show's perspective." From the show's perspective is not appropriate, it's quite simple.

I don't care if you think my "accusations" are absurd. I am merely trying to keep the article in the proper format. VX 19:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, just to help out, 'NPOV' is what wikipedia is aiming for, Neutral Point of View. It is Good. I was defending the entire EPISODE GUIDE as a 'rich resource of information,' when you started talking about just putting the number of episodes in. 'What more is needed?' you said, obviously not caring about potentially thousands of people either with or against the Ghost Hunters who might want that information. That is what I meant. Sorry if thinks like free access to information make me feel emotions, which of course is a sign of 'advertisement.' ;) --Ira-welkin 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you could try to move away from the emotional and the bickering. You've accused me before of being "biased." We all have biases, and certainly we can easily see yours, no matter how you frame what you've done. I care about the readers as much as any writer/editor and this argument is not productive.

If what you had put in was NPOV, or even an appropriate POV, then why have the phrase, "unsubstantiated claim" after each entry? Unless you think that is fine, and you truly believe it is; in which case I have to disagree. I think it is a nice touch to include each episode in each season (but then I wonder for how many seasons will this really FIT), but now, with the NPOV "highlights" I find it unacceptable. That is all. Now can you address that, without the bickering? Thanks, I think that's what the community here might appreciate. VX 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: When you tell readers there are episodes they can read more about, that is sheer information. When you tell them what is okay to think about the episode, that is advertising. It's like when a TV ad tells me it's still okay to wear bell bottoms, they do this by advertising. I am particularly sensitive to it, and can see it easily. Only when I am clinging to a perspective do I need others to edit for me. VX

Well, as I said before, Seicer made those changes, and though I agree with them I will leave it for him to explain to you why he did it. I think it would be a shame to eliminate the new material, as no one else holds the objections that you do, or sees from the same view. But you will need to wait to hear from him. And others. Ever since LuckyLouie opened the door to debate only a few have got to voice their opinion, and I think it is fairly clear what the opinions of those who have already expressed their views is. --Ira-welkin 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you continue to point out that people have opinions about what they contribute. Of course they do. I also know who added the "unsubstantiated content" and I understand why he added that to every one of your contributions. You seem to think that is okay and I find that incredible as I found it unbelievable that you and Cyberia thought the article was in great shape prior to LL and I fixing it up to put it into NPOV--the only POV that is acceptible at wikipedia. If you want to include your opionion or editorial about the show, write a piece that can be included in the reference section of the article like we have for the skeptics.

You keep seeming to say that opinions are important. Opinions are NOT important as regard the writing of this article. Your new additions are completely and totally inappropriate for this article and I find it difficult to believe you cannot see that. Do you? VX 20:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you and I are at odds over this. You think it's good to put the "highlights" in and then leave them as it is, since we had to add a "tag" of sorts in order to have it comply with wikipedia standards after you contributed what you did.

I think it makes the article look stupid. Maybe we need a third pary, one who has no ego involvement. VX 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The question seems to be "shall we keep 'show highlights' in the episode listings?". OK, how can we reach consensus on this question? Would a straw vote on this issue help? I have a guess that user VX would vote to REMOVE, and user Welkin would vote to KEEP. (please, jump in and correct me if I'm wrong, guys) My vote would be to REMOVE. My reasoning is that there is a link to the SciFi Ghost Hunters page where both highlights and details of each show are kept. If a reader wants to know details of each episode, they can go there. Also, because the issue of the TV show's credibility is so hotly debated, we are going to end up with neither side truly satisfied with how the highlights are written here. So let's remove the subject of all the strife. I'd hate to see "DISPUTE" boxes all over the GH wikipedia page, but that's where we're headed if this keeps up. So anyone and everyone is welcome to cast their straw vote. Let's see where that leads us. LuckyLouie 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; I would vote to remove what I consider advertising. Especially now that I know the information is out there in one, easy-to-use location. It would require the wiki article have only ONE reference link, and that is perfect. Plus, we lose the point, counter-point, and NPOV content. VX 21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The episode list is not the problem around here. It's been here since the get go, and since I took the time to create it I will highly protest it's complete deletion. Other televison shows on Wikipedia have episode lists. This one is no different except that it has a bunch of psychos editing it. Cyberia23 21:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, whether other articles have it isn't the issue. The issue is whether it's appropriate. Could be the other articles need editing too. What other articles are you referring to, if you don't mind, without the ad-hominem? Could be the only reason for not having on in this article is to prevent the editor/authors from adding inappropriate content in a separate/subsequent column. VX 00:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Show Highlights - Vote

Since there is debate on whether or not to keep the 'Show Highlights', let's put our votes here and a short reason why. Seicer 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove: There is already information related to the SciFi Ghost Hunters page. It is essentially a duplicate here. It will also remove the controversy and keep it at a more NPOV. Seicer 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove:. My reasons already stated above. LuckyLouie 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote to remove. VX 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Take out everything. --Ira-welkin 05:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Came home late/early and checked in. VX 10:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

UM, You're not deleting the whole damn thing! Thats complete BS. I spent the time originally to make it so I'll fix it. I removed the highlights section since you're all a bunch of whiners who can't freakin see eye to eye on jackshit. Cyberia23 21:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry but he's right. Childish city! --Ira-welkin 21:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be a dick to people, but sometimes I can't believe what lengths people go to around here to achieve their agenda and how trivial BS is argued to death. I swear 90% of Wikipedians are probably bed-ridden parapalegic gimps with a laptop mounted to their chest with nothing else to do with their lives that mess with people all day and completely ruin the fun of Wikipedia, nonfreakinstop, 24/7. If you're one of these people, then do us a favor and click the powerswitch to "OFF" on your lifesupport machine and quit wasting valuable air. Oh, and even though Wikipedia may define a Neutral Point of View, I'm sorry to say such a concept DOES NOT EXIST. Words are thoughts of an individual put to sound. They are ALWAYS an INDIVIDUAL'S IDEA, no matter what form it takes. Might be strange to see the world like this but take a moment to think about it (might be impossible for some, so try your best). Cyberia23 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

V17361 has never contributed to an article that wasn't about the Ghost Hunters or TAPS, even his posts on my or his talk page mostly revolve around the subject of TAPS and GH. Why this ardent, persistant, constant meddling in something you are oozing with disrespect for? Why not contribute to articles about something you do like, not taking away, singlemindedly, from something you disagree with? --Ira-welkin 23:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is from the article on Paul McCartney's band Wings: 'Over the years, this has remained one of the most memorable of all Bond songs and is always an exciting part of McCartney's concert performances (often played to fireworks).' Should we take it out because it says that the song is 'exciting at concerts?' --Ira-welkin 23:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not all jump to conclusions here. I only asked for a vote and a discussion, but this required no action. As it stands, any work can be reverted, but let's not get into an edit war. A discussion is what is needed first, and a compromise can be reached from that. Let's not get too hasty. Seicer 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's nothing more unhelpful than a single party overstepping their bounds, thinking that they have the sanction of the majority of the community, to push their agenda to reduce available information on things that they don't like, and to do so rashly, misinterpreting information left and right along the way, ignoring other information, and above all showing a marked disdain for the right of the wikipedia community to have access to verifiable, factual information. I agree. --Ira-welkin 00:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but there already was a discussion and you two were outvoted. The amount of time someone contributes is appreciated but has nothing to do with what should be included or not. Edited to add: The work it took to bring this article into its current format was immense, by the way, yet nobody had to think about it or take it into consideration when deciding something completely different, like a specific edit, like we've tried to do here. So the fact that Cyberia did a lot of work on the TV listings shouldn't factor in. As IRA told me, if you don't want your work mercilessly edited, don't bother.

We decided this content, the listing of each episode, for one thing, cannot continue if GH is going to be around for ten years. Plus, it belongs and is already ON their website, which is where it is appropriately located, rather than at wikipedia. Now, if every article, or even many of them, that are part of wikipedia's Television project, have listings of each episode, then maybe it is appropriate. (wouldn't you know if you knew enough about wiki to do all these things all the time?)

Of course then we had to start messing with it to get NPOV content in. If the listing is going to continue to be used in an inappropriate manner, with links that don't belong and comments to boot, then we need to take it out asap. No matter how many votes are cast. We can settle this in a calm manner, or we can get mediation involved, again. VX 21:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So Ira, "a single party" did NOT "overstep their bounds" but you have, when you started doing advertising in the listing. As for what I contribute to or don't, I personally like contributing to your articles and have found many necessary edits to your writing and content, so I am performing a service whether you personally like it or not, and you should be ashamed of the way you have behaved. As for the talk page, anyone can just go read them to see what that is about. VX 21:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ira-welkin wrote:

This is from the article on Paul McCartney's band Wings: 'Over the years, this has remained one of the most memorable of all Bond songs and is always an exciting part of McCartney's concert performances (often played to fireworks).' Should we take it out because it says that the song is 'exciting at concerts?' --Ira-welkin 23:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment: if you think Ghost Hunters can compare with Paul McCartney and Wings, then you really do need my oversight and the oversight of others in the community when you are writing about GH and TAPS. I suggest trying another argument if you want to get your ad campaign going again in here. VX 21:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, to Cyberia: Neutral Point of View does too exist. You can even use it when writing of something about which you are passionate. It can and does happen every day. VX 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This section header should read differently. We weren't voting on the "highlights" but on whether the entire listing of programs should be removed. I am looking for WikiProject Television articles that list every episode. Here is the page for the format of WikProject TV articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television#Structure_of_a_TV_show_article

And an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_Factor

VX 22:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is Most Haunted's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Haunted

They have a link to the FULL listing of locations, and it's just a link for those interested in reviewing each episode/location. Then they have details on some of the more interesting locations listed. Since you'll not be able to include ALL the listings of every episode on into the future, and since it's not appropriate for an article no matter how much work you did on it, why don't we edit it down to some highlights, and decide on a reasonable number for the sake of the article. Most Haunted has 20.

I hope to get some appropriate feedback on this. When you don't give feedback please don't come back in here and revert the changes we've discussed. Thanks. VX 22:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghost Hunters has a really nice website with snazzy features on each one of their episodes. A link here is easily provided. Let's talk about why it should or should not be included in this article. VX 00:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that 'Most Haunted's wiki entry lists episodes by number, location, and theme. 'American Chopper's wiki has a list of it's theme bikes only (each episode is centered around a theme bike). SciFi's Ghost Hunters show site provides an extensive list of episodes of Ghost Hunters with plot summaries, so it really is redundant here, except in it's simplest form. The other approach VX suggested was to mention a few of the more prominent locations the group has televised. For example, the Art Bell (a paranormal radio show host) wiki entry does not list his complete roster of guests. It just mentions some of the more memorable. Episode list or no episode list? I really don't have strong feelings either way, but one point to consider is that GH is going into it's third season and that means the episode list will eventually become rather large and possibly unweildy. LuckyLouie 02:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it will be large and unwieldy. It's already categorized on the show's website, so it's not appropriate fot this article, except for some significant shows like the one that got the rating award, etc. The information should be provided so those who want it can find it on the show's website. This is becoming more and more obvious, no?

So the only reason to include it is that Cyberia took the time to put it in? Heck, I took the time to discuss and vote on it with LL and Seicer, so I'm going to remove it again. I'm also going to have to object to holding one-sided discussions in here. And then, when the contributors who are too cool for the discussions don't bother to participate they feel it's okay to blow a fuse and do a revert.

In addition, I would like to point out that there was no discussion about adding the "highlights" prior to adding them.

Now to refocus, notwithstanding that Cyberia and Ira had a problem with it, the comprehensive listing of each show should be removed. Or can someone please offer me a reason to keep it; other than it took Cyberia precious time to write it out and put it in the article. Thanks in advance, all. VX 06:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to know why the episode list is coming under attack? If you guys don't bitch about one thing it's another around here. I deleted the Highlights section because it caused problems. I was experimenting with it anyway - I figured even before I added it that it would come under fire, so getting rid of that was no problem. But it looks like certian people still want the whole episode list deleted entirely because other websites already have them and that is BS. Other TV shows have episode lists here on Wikipedia - Hell, certian other shows - Arrested Development, Star Trek, The 4400, Surface, Stargate, Dr. Who, BSG, Lost, (thats just to name a few), have complete articles written for EVERY INDIVIDUAL EPISODE! So what's the freakin problem with having a small list indicating the airdate and where the investigation took place. Some of the sites have WIKI links anyway - like Eastern State, Lizzy Borden's house, St. Augustine Light. Pretty convienent I think to mention it. It's not that I made the list and that I know people want to delete it - It's that I see no valid argument given by anyone for getting rid of it in the first place and I feel it is being attacked for no reason. Cyberia23 21:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I swear that I am not taking this position to be a jerk, but what could possibly be 'unweildy' about a panel of information on an infinitly expansive encyclopedia? Make it a seperate article if it gets too big for the main one. --Ira-welkin 17:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, Cyberia??? The reason not to list EVERY episode is clearly stated, above, by me, and the others (except Ira-welkin). Is it really that difficult to understand? I think that the Highlights being added simply drew attention to that area of the article. So, the fact that you were willing to take out the highlights didn't stop discussion about the notion that you shouldn't be putting down each and every episode.

Your rant notwithstanding, (and like Ira told me early on, expect your writing/contributions to be mercilessly edited), when the third season starts, I will be editing the list down to key episodes, unless you would prefer to do that yourself. I would prefer you do it however, and knock off the childishness. VX 05:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Cyberia was only experimenting with the highlights section, but when we were "discussing it" as the edits were being added, there was no participation in the discussion section by Cyberia. VX 07:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

General NPOV issues

I think we are having trouble treating this show like any other TV show because it resists easy classification. It presents itself as a docu-soap, however it contains claims of experiences that average docu-soaps do not, set within an intended scientific context. Add to that, the show operates in a closed loop with no oversight from objective outside sources. It would be similar to a docu-soap about a psychic, starring the psychic, produced by the psychic, promoting the personal philosophy of the psychic, and depicting the psychic in various situations achieving compelling results with the aid of technical instrumentation. It doesn't matter if the psychic was genuine or not, it's only natural that there would be critics and believers. And it's only natural that Wikipedians would want to avoid having readers swayed one way or the other based on the Wiki entry for the show. LuckyLouie 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the claims of the show single it out to be a taboo subject to even mention what the show is supposedly about. Nobody who hasn't made up their minds about the supernatural is going to START or STOP believing because of an article about a TV show. For no good reason this has become a battle over the right of people to put what is in a show in an article about the show. As Cyberia says, many shows have an article for every episode. Just think, especially the one person most adamant that there should be no information in this article, imagine that there might someone who started or stopped believing in ghosts because of a description of what's in an episode of a TV show. (The only reason that such information would supposedly be 'bad') Wouldn't they be so dumb and making such a poor, irresponsible decision based on too little evidence that there is no reason to worry about it so much? That I think is what number letter man among others is worried about, that if people read in an article that an episode features footage that is supposedly an unexplained shape, they will suddenly believe anything. --Ira-welkin 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, while this meaningless 'argument' invoking 'wikipedia guidelines' as well as any other thing only when they help make an unrelated point has been going on, someone put an info box in. Which is pretty standard on wikipedia. Maybe if this article was a little less the site of a controversy about the reality of the paranormal, someone might have noticed before now that it needed this info box to be 'wikified.' Maybe if this was just an article for information again, and not the 'Great War', then we can all be happy! --Ira-welkin 20:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See, Ira, Louie is trying to bring something up and you turn it into something it need not be. When we first came to this article, Louie and I, it was utterly rife with point-counter-point. Can this please stop? Read and understand what Louie has written in the paragraph you're responding to, and try to keep it on topic, would you please? VX 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and about the info box. I linked to a page that showed the infobox up above where you stopped reading and contributing!!! Isn't that cool that someone else checked it out and thought it would be neat to include one in this article? Rather than turn it into a PR campaign? And that IP address of the user who added it looks familiar, no? VX 06:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does the IP look familar? If you click the IP of the user who added the infobox, you will see that it is their first ever contribution to Wikipedia. Random assertions such as that are often a product of an overly defensive position. --

And, as Lucky says, we shouldn't sway readers one way or the other, V173461's past inclusion of extremely leading statements like 'rolling desk chair,' 'explained reflection,' clearly have no place whatsoever. --64.198.46.28 21:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

64.198.46.28 21:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear 64: My past "inclusions" of extremely leading statements such as "rolling desk chair?" not acceptable to you? Point noted. That was my opinion, so it wasn't appropriate for the article. However, neither was the PR advertising, any of it, that was in the "highlights" brief as the "highlights" were. :) That doesn't mean my contributions didn't dramatically help the article. They did. So, if you have a suggestion for how to make the article better, let's hear it. Otherwise, this discussion is becoming awfully boring, and unhelpful. VX 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

A user removed a link to a critics page, then placed a 'needs source' template over the Criticism section. Cute trick, but I reverted it. LuckyLouie 02:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with their actions, but you have to admit that a seventeen year old in a room postulating is not somehow more viable of a source than TAPS, especially to an encyclopedia. Especially when those 'external links' are full of copywrite infringment. --Ira-welkin 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to agree with Ira-welkin here. A link to an unverified site violates WP:EL as it could contain "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research". If anyone wants to dispute this, let's chat about it here and not engage in an edit war :) Seicer (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading over WP:EL, I can see where those 'independent investigation' links would be a problem. Since they do exist, can they be mentioned but not linked to? Or must they be ignored altogether? I believe James Randi has a critical mini-review of the show on his site, albeit dated where some of the concerns in the Criticism section are addressed. Do we feel this meets the critieria for reference? LuckyLouie 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As a side note to everyone, I'm planning to re-add the 'no sources' template to the Critics section if the criteria for sourcing is not met. You can't simply say "the sources are in the external links", they must be referenced (as per wikipedia guidelines) within the section itself. --InShaneee 19:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Add what you wish, but the source is out there. Age of the debunker being 12, 13, age 5, it doesn't matter. A five year old probably could debunk some of the crap Ghost Hunters puts out there, no kidding around. The shows critics are EVERY bit as valid as the tricks they play on the show. ;) VX 05:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And, I'm reading the link you gave Seicer, and I strongly believe the sources are valid. In discussing the shows critics, we simply cite the sources. It would be such a shame to leave this work out, because it doesn't purport to be scientific or valid, like Ghost Hunters work supposes of its "science." We're not referencing anything of science, it's impossible to do that since the group TAPS doesn't submit to independent review. Plus, I'm sure there is another way to reference the critics; they are an important part of this whole GH phenomenon. Or perhaps they deserve a wikipedia article all their own.... VX 06:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a user who removed the "supposed" qualifier from the Episode Format description about ghosts. Apparently he has scientific proof that ghosts exist?

Martial Law -"Supposed" ? Seen one episode in which some entity attacked a member. Had a uncle who said that ghosts don't exist, until one threw him out.)

LuckyLouie 06:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Louie. If the criticism section is messed with again, I plan on revising the criticism section and getting more specific about it. I thought that would be avoided, and without that it's a much better article, but I'll try to be brief about each and not belabor it all....gosh, what a hassle. VX 06:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with Wiki policy. But it IS comically ironic that the critics big issue with Ghost Hunters is their "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research". The TV show is free to make unverified claims, but the Wiki article is not. Consider this quote from TAPS Grant Wilson: TAPS takes mysterious situations and stories like those at the Crescent Hotel, and tries to recreate them. It doesn't take ghost tales at face value and doesn't consider people's experiences evidence unless TAPS can capture it on audio or video. "It's good science," Wilson said. (http://crescent-hotel.com/ghosts/press_scifighosthunters2005.htm) Good science? In the same TV episode, Grant lauds the questionable thermal images he's captured as "The Holy Grail of paranormal research". Mixed messages? It would seem so. I would hope the criticism section might attempt to convey, if not the particulars, the essence of the critics argument (which I feel might be summed up as, The ghost hunters claim to be practicing science, but they're really not). LuckyLouie 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They really claim to have a 'scientific' procedure, which compared to Travel Channel's Most Haunted, Discovery's A Haunting and other American shows, they definatly do. Please see the discussion on the Atlantic Paranormal Society page. --64.198.46.28 19:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the critics section that can't be worked out. As far as the "holy grail" comment, I almost dropped from my chair in laughter over that one. 64? We aren't comparing GHost Hunters with Most Haunted, or any other TV show. I know I know, you think Ghost Hunters is superior to those nutcases, but realize that Ghost Hunters is no better or worse, just different. VX 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning vandalism. Unsigned comment posted another copy and paste, the same as his/her last one. Instead of commenting to my question regarding it, the user pasted it again in a new section. I'm just considering this vandalism. The user may need to be cited for this....I don't care one way or another. This article seems to be drawing some flaming users. ;) VX 22:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

17 Year-Old "Postulating"

I am bringing this up, mainly because Seicer said he was in agreement with Ira who said:

I don't agree with their actions, but you have to admit that a seventeen year old in a room postulating is not somehow more viable of a source than TAPS

It's a good item to discuss, I think.

Now, these critics, young as they may be (and they're not all young and certainly not stupid) are not postulating. Show me where one is postulating and I will show them telling their readers that they ARE...postulating. What they do is SHOW readers/viewers a very viable perspective. Usually this is easily done, with such simplicity a first grader could make a decision based upon what these critics show.

Forgive me while I laugh at the idea that they are somehow "beneath" the great and mighty TAPS. But I find it laughable. Let the reader decide. Serious investigators, the type that wikipedia might prefer, certainly are not going to waste their time debunking TAPS. Let the shows fans do it, and they do, as critical as these fans may be. If TAPS wants a certain quality debunking done, they should turn over their stuff and even pay to have one done. Right now, this is all we have. And I would say it's pretty damn fine work. Maybe we need some more input by unbiased parties. VX 07:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unbiased parties? Like someone other than you for a change, who I can clearly see explode with a burst of defensive revisions and long-winded, fact-deprived 'explainations' of your extremely defensive position every time somebody else makes a valid point. What's your deal?

You clearly have a huge, beyond the point of pure reason grudge against TAPS, to the point of going against them merely on princple. You also seem to not possess any particular knowledge on this topic that would make your extreme amount of input helpful to a larger community. --64.198.46.28 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you say I have no particular knowlege on this topic? Because I'm not a TAPS fan? Apparently your a fan of mine, familiar with my contributions. Believe you me, I know what I'm talking about with regard to this article. And I can write without bias even though I have one. Now, if you have something constructive to add, please add it. Oh, but keep your bashing of TAPS critics to the TAPS community forums. ;)VX 22:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, you also cite me for having a grudge against TAPS...which I do not. I actually am pretty ambivalent about them and the show. ;) VX 22:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

To get back on topic. Let's take the "17 year-old" who debunked with thermal imaging, frame by frame analysis using TAPS own screen captures. Review this and tell me how this 17 year old doesn't have something significant to contribute to the Ghost Hunters phenomenon? http://www.ultimatetechlinks.com/CrescentHotelAnalysis.html VX 22:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its the copywrite infringement that singles him out for not being valid for this encyclopedia. Of note, The Crescent Hotel analysis is far more respectful in tone than any critique that you have leveled, and perhaps finding a match for this tone, as opposed to lashing out with absolute statements such as the 'tricks' the group employs, would make for a less argumentative discussion. --Ira-welkin 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my tone inflames because it's a sensitive subject for some but that comment shouldn't bother anyone. Certainly you know there are critics who think they have employed trickery. Okay so you think because the kid uses their own screen shots he should be singled out for some reason? Or, he's not respectful enough? I'm sorry, I thought he was very respectful of the group. Also, when the group fails to release their stuff for examination voluntarily, you shouldn't wonder that fans are going to take up their own tools and do the work regardless. I'm sorry but Ghost Hunters isn't legally pressing charges against this kid, are they? If not, they seem to condone all forms of advertising, such as the type this kid has given them. Plus, Ira, I didn't mention tricks in this section so bringing it up all over the discussion section is just adding fuel to whatever fire might exist. VX 22:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dave Oester of IGHS (a rival paranormal group) had some rather scathing criticism of TAPS. I would say it might be worth covering in the article, except for the fact that virtually all information and POV about the feud is from TAPS official web site: (http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/rumormill/doctordave2.html) LuckyLouie 04:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It also seems that Dr. Oester was proven to be a hipocrite and his arguments irrelevant. But if some source could be found to present his claims then it should be included. --64.198.46.28 00:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Oester vs. TAPS feud; I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but just because TAPS makes a claim does not mean it is automatically true or proven. Thanks. LuckyLouie 02:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"His arguments irrelevant?" How so, exactly. Or, at least give two good examples, please. VX 07:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Louie, I read only the first few paragraphs of that page and feel genuinely sorry for that poor Dr. Oester. Just concerning the hate mail and trolls visiting the site, I can imagine what the guy says has, in fact, happened. I guess it's important to TAPS to have that sort of thing on their website, but who would be able to read it and then try to think of them as serious about the field of paranormal research. I cannot imagine how this is good for anything but drama. VX 07:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, guys. Can we NOT debate Dr. Oester vs. TAPS here? Basically, Oester says TAPS are phonies out to make money and TAPS says Oester is a phoney out make money. Personally, I believe there is truth to both allegations (TAPS followers, please don't attack me, I have a right to my personal opinion) but debating which side is morally superior will lead us into a snake-pit of POV argument. Unless someone can figure out HOW to write the Oester vs. TAPS incident dispassionately and with no POV, I say 'let's not go there'. Maybe I was wrong to bring up the subject. LuckyLouie 18:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No debate is necessary. Just look up 'David Oester,' read what is said about him and what he says. --Ira-welkin 22:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What I find more interesting is what TAPS says about Oester. I find the objections they make more revealing than anything. But LL is right there is no reason to include anything like that in this article.

I was however, asking 64 to answer the question for a reason. You don't get to throw accusations around like that. Maybe in the TAPS forum, but not anywhere else.VX 06:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So, the kids work using the screen captures of the show look pretty darn convincing to me. After this work, is it really true that TAPS still clings to their original conclusions? Or are they going to lawyer up and get the kid to take down his work? Anyone know? Has either Jason or Grant commented on this issue? VX 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on what should be included in Criticism

I'm putting this here and in the TAPS entry because both articles seem to be having the same issue. The question I ask of Wikipedians is "what should be included in the "criticism" section? To help facilitate discussion, I'll put down a couple of items that I think have sources that can be cited, and should be included:

1. There are critics who 'tear apart' Ghost Hunters evidence.

2. There are critics who feel the group is 'unscientific'.

Let's work to get a consensus. Feel free to comment, revise, add, opine. ALL opinions are welcome, but please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks LuckyLouie 22:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, and unargueable. I think the problem recently with the way that the critics section presented the idea that some critics feel the group is unscientific was that it took quotes from the group out of context to make it seem as though they were claiming things they definatly weren't. I think presenting the assertions you list above is a good idea and neccessary. We just can't make it seem that THOSE views are right, while others are wrong, etc.

Also, the stated threefold purpose of the group is a matter of record, and one could not say that it was 'biased' to put the stated purpose of, say, Alcoholics Anoymous in its article. It is a huge part of being able to evalute the group's actions to understand what it is they claim they are doing! --Ira-welkin 22:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the threefold purpose too. Is it like the AA's "12 Steps"? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I can't seem to find it on their website. LuckyLouie

Well, the threefold purpose comment was written in the TAPS article, and sounded preachy. Or, sounds preachy. Where is the reference to the threefold purpose; if you have one, and certainly it should be found on the group's website, then cite it.

Personally, I am missing the issue over the Response from Critics section of THIS article. I don't see anything wrong or inappropriate with it, but perhaps I am too emeshed in this to be able to see. What IS the problem? In this article? VX 22:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to take the group's temperature regarding what the issues were. If this or the other article undergoes mediation, the first thing they'll ask us is what the issues are. LuckyLouie 23:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Just copy and pasting from the other discussion...

I didn't think the GH article had an issue. Everyone was happy with it. Someone new came in and slapped a template on BOTH articles when that person should only have put the template on the TAPS article. They assumed because one was rough the other was. So, I don't think the GH article's section on criticism has any major problems. We took a lot of stuff out of it already. I can't see taking out the last paragraph at GH, certainly.

I doubt very much we'll get the person who put the template on, to come in here and comment, if past behavior is any clue, so...let's not cloud two articles with that error. As you can see, there is no template on the GH article. VX 23:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a template on this article. I removed it because the user refused to join the discussion. So, VX, you feel that the TAPS article should have no criticism aside from a pointer to the Criticism in the Ghost Hunters article? I need clarification. LuckyLouie 23:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I know, LL. This article's section on Criticism has no problems that aren't easily fixable. I myself can think of lots of appropriate stuff to put into this article's "Response From Critics." The point is who cares. I think what we have in here now is good. It may need one or two appropriate additions but I don't think we need to work on GH's criticism section. I DO think the one over at the TAPS article needs work, but it's new work, and off on the wrong foot, possibly. I think we should either work on it to make it a completely different "look," at the objections, or, simply say, critics of TAPS mirror that of GH's critics. And put a link? Would that work? VX 23:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to say. And this is from a completely new perspective, or, an old one I brought up way back when. I think the show's critics should be shown in the proper light. I personally think the proper light is the reality that the show's "fans" are all over the net trying to debunk the show. It actually speaks to the show itself, that it has created all this drama/dissent, it's nothing to to shy away from. The critics exist alongside the show. Not all shows can say this, right?

So, show the critics for who they are: the little band of geek-like thinkers, who are familiar with all kinds of nifty technology, and who possess enough research ability to adequately and fairly weigh in on a group who does not submit to third part outside review. I mean we do show this already. I just feel I need to state the obvious since we've had one person who questioned the validity of our showing this, and thus we felt, for some reason, we had to change the section. VX 23:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A brief note and a link to the GH article. It sounds like a solution. Especially considering the heated debate. May I request you accomplish this task? :-) LuckyLouie 23:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, just let me read up on how to do that!!! :) VX 23:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the personal attacks will stop now. Bear in mind TAPS has a cult-like following who can be VERY touchy about anything they perceive as 'disrespecting' TAPS. LuckyLouie 00:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. VX 03:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

VX, regarding your thoughts about net-based debunkers, you might examine examples of controversial-topic Wiki articles that use independent 'debunking' sources as external links. For example, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(video)#Debunking LuckyLouie 02:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh my! You selected one of my favorite topics, September 11! I am a known conspiracy theorist, if you can imagine that, especially concerning Sept 11. I own a copy of Loose Change and don't believe it's all that far off the mark. It's a HUGE article and of major consequence. Just the conspiracy theory part of Sept 11 alone is huge all by it's lonesome. I am not able to even go near the subject without falling into it again and getting obsessively lost. But I'll try to think of another similar frame of reference for thinking about Ghost Hunters and TAPS.

For the record, I find the debunkers of TAPS infinitely more interesting than the group itself, so of course I feel they are important. I am thinking about writing or contributing to an article on them all their own. If they haven't one already, their time has probably come. ;) VX 07:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I like Depeche Mode. I have not put that into the article. If you make an article on the debunkers of TAPS, after saying that an episode guide is 'too bulky and cumbersome,' I will laugh. Not that I don't defend your clear right to make such an article, but just because of your willingness to achieve your objectives using whatever means available. ;) --Ira-welkin 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also for the record, we weren't suggesting to put anything about Sept 11 into the article. Uh, Louie was suggesting I look at that article to gain what is called "perspective" on this article. The episode guide IS ridiculous and will need to be edited. A similar guide located on the TAPS website so a link would be just as helpful for anyone interested in this "wealth of information." Laugh away, Ira, have a good guffaw. And if you didn't catch it maybe you should lay off the booze because if you think I can't go right ahead and write a completely SEPARATE article about debunkers, without worrying about you, you're wrong as wrong can be. Yuk yuk yuk. VX 06:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, my point about the LooseChange article was that it allows home-grown debunker sites to be listed in the links. LuckyLouie 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cabal Mediation

Ira has filed a Cabal Mediation case or some such thing. I'm not really sure that any work or discussion is going to be happening on either article at this point. I have had the sneaking suspicion that writing a good article was not really the intention of Ira-welkin, and I must say I was disappointed by Cyberia's clinging to the list of show episodes, as they are going into season three, rather than considering what is best for the article. It's as if ownership is more important: they wrote the episode list, so they don't want it edited.

I guess Ira is even complaining about the criticism of the show, any and all of it. Please note that the criticism of the show prior to mid June was immense. There were critical points that weren't appropriate at all and yet Ira and Cyberia were happy with the article as it was written. Ira wanted to write the criticism section of the tAPS article himself, and that section of the article now has a template, or it did before I edited it today.

To the question of What's going on? Ira answered:

... All manner of bizarre accusations such as that Ghost Hunters is a product of 'malls' in the 21st Century, editing the article to reflect only critical positions on all details, constant arguing for over a month, repeat requests to eliminate one of the articles, the constant deletion of sections for differing reasons, etc. Essentially the paranormal focus of the group and the show and the controversy that it is creating between critics and supporters is threatening to tear these two pages apart.

There were not repeat requests to eliminate one of the articles. There was ONE suggestion, a question. But that's a point of contention to Ira. It is becoming more and more clear to ME that ANY criticism, skepticism, and questions of any kind, no matter how good a question it is, is, to Ira, an affront to him personally and to TAPS. It is very difficult working under these circumstances.

In addition. The comment about "malls" is baffling. It's not the first thing Ira's written that's made me shake my head. Please tell me if I gave anyone else the impression that I was accusing TAPS as being a product of "malls in the twenty-first century." Please.

The constant deletion of sections for differing reasons? It might have been better to take a bit more time explaining what is meant by this, since any major deletes have been appropriate and respectful.

And, the last sentence is just plain off the mark. It just couldn't BE more off. The problem is that the writers can't seem to write from the NPOV. The critical writers have been managing to work with the other writers, give and take, be at least somewhat respectful in the face of outright hostility, and write from the NPOV most of the time. When edits are suggested, we've discussed them.

Why didn't we ask that the critical writers simply STOP working on the article and go away? That's the point, isn't it? VX 04:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

V17's talk page states: 'I am an artist-writer who is particularly sensitive to media messages, the type of which we are bombarded with daily on TV, radio, print, and other mass media. All one need do is read the various edits I've done on the Ghost Hunters article to see my particular bias and how it comes across at wikipedia.'

Hopefully the mediators can remove all bias. My final response to everything besides this is posted the other day on the TAPS discussion. I await and trust completely in the actions of the mediators. I wished to cast no aspersion on any parties, only to say that conflict between those parties was making these articles overly difficult to sort out for us. Now we are "off the hook" so to speak, we can just let someone else take care of it, someone who is not as worked up as we all are. That is all. --Ira-welkin 06:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ira, I'm a bit shocked. I have, at times, expressed skepticism of 'Ghost Hunters and TAPS in these Talk page discussions -- so now I'm accused of participating in a cabal? LuckyLouie 06:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So my talk page says what it does. Because one has a bias doesn't mean they can't write from the NPOV. If there is anything in my contributions that is improper, certainly you've never mentioned it, have you Ira? YOu seem to know how to mimic appropriateness, stating you are all for the neutral point of view, but then you have a problem when your blatently inappropriate contributions are removed. Such as when you began putting in your advertising in the highlights section, and when you made up the threefold mission statement of TAPS. Unreal what we've had to deal with, not because of any of this but because of your aggressiveness toward anything helpful.

I'm shocked too, LL. This is just as over the top as anything I've seen to date. Oh, and though I find this a bit exasperating, I'm not worked up Ira. Do us all a favor and reveiw the discussion page to see who is on a rampage.VX 06:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of a cabal, I find it interesting that both Ira-welkin and the user with the IP address starting with 64 both mentioned my comment about the rolling desk chair. Of all the things I've mentioned during the writing of this article, both these users attacked me while mentioning that specific offhand contribution I made way back when. Both are also attacking me personally, trying to make a case that I'm a bad contributor. You wished to cast no aspersions on any party? That appears to be untruthful, at best. It's not all that hard to "sort out," really, if you would simply apply the NPOV to your contributions and not take issue with those who call it to your attention. VX 06:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, my username is VX. That is 'V' followed by an 'X.' Thanks. VX 06:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't say more stuff, but I just wanted to point out that it is just called 'Cabal Mediation' to have these third parties review the article. There is nothing to worry about. No need, either, to freak out. We can all rest assured that these third parties have no agenda to promote. --Ira-welkin 07:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You are very good at stating the obvious, Ira. It wouldn't be third party mediation if the third party had an agenda to promote as concerns the TAPS articles. so, Who is freaking out, in your opinion? All manner of bizarre accusations? Will the mediator see these? Where are they? Because it may help if you point them out--but wait--hunting those down and spanking the bad person isn't the issue, is it? Is there or was there something you wanted this article to say? If so, what would that be? VX 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If there was something I wanted it to say, turning it over to impartial third-partys who likely will not tolerate anything unsourced or POV would be a strange act indeed. As all the mediators will possibly do is make the best article possible by conforming it to wiki-guidelines, no party has any reason to be upset. There is no way that bringing in mediators is going to make the article worse, so please be glad about it! --Ira-welkin 07:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OOPS. So the mediation comittee is called the cabal ! So you're not accusing us of forming a cabal against you? THANK GOD. For a minute there I thought you'd really gone haywire. OK. Never mind. Proceed. :-) I see we're all awake tonite. LuckyLouie 07:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got to be getting to bed. But the there is really nothing to worry about. It was with the hopes of settling all our differences that I did it. I really think that the bottom line of why this has been a sort of difficult process is we all aren't really sure on what the article should say or be like... Everything should be cool! ;) --Ira-welkin 07:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)d

I do have a pretty clear idea of what the article should say and be like, but I welcome mediation to help us reach an agreement. LuckyLouie 07:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I do too have a pretty clear idea of what the article should say and it is pretty good right now at least as a framework. But I also have a pretty clear idea that this has nothing to do with the article. ;) Good night all. VX 08:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the mediator has taken time to review the request for mediation. That couldn't have been a fun job for him. Two days later, he's being ignored. That doesn't seem fair, does it? VX 19:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the mediator will come back when he sees activity on the project page. I doubt he is loosing sleep, or constantly monitoring the page for signs of progress. It is a much more laid back process than that, if your read the page describing the group he is from. Anyway, his concerns are not being ignored. Sorry, for the third time, if this wasn't clear. --Ira-welkin 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about what type of process the mediation is, only that we use the mediator's help and respect his time, whether he is laid back or not. You might want to go back and read his instructions to post comments and issues "below" where he wrote them out. Thanks. VX 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)