Talk:Ghost Hunters (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This is the archive #1 for Ghost_Hunters discussion.

On the Claim that the Controversial Nature of the Paranormal is Opinion

Read the first paragraph on the paranormal. I believe this meets the Wikipedia reference requirements, in addition to being common sense. --Ira-welkin 03:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: It is the second part of the sentence that is misleading. "...and when weighing these issues one must consider the full argument of both sides." You then enumerate only arguments supporting a belief in TAPS integrity. ~ UNSIGNED comment by 75.6.194.162

Unless you read the very next paragraph. ~ UNSIGNED comment by 75.6.194.162

A more detailed examination of the criticism of TAPS can be found where it is most appropriate, on the TAPS forum. Criticism as it applies primarily to the show is addressed here. --Ira-welkin 20:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are we referring the contributor over to your discussion forum here? I don't even see a reference to the discussion forum in the article body! In any event, a "detailed examination" is not called for, but a section that adequately relects the criticism without editing done by TAPS marketing is in order. Though curious, the thought of going back and reading what you did to the article, because the above contributor was not familiar with wiki editing, is irritating to say the least. Please know that from someone who is almost an outsider to this group, the article is markedly biased and looks more like marketing than what I would expect. VX 07:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

"On the Claim that the Controversial Nature of the Paranormal is Opinion." Is this supposed to suggest that the nature of the paranormal is not based upon opinion. Or that the paranormal is not rife with controversy? The title makes no sense. There is no doubt the whole field is both controversial and based upon subjective evidence. VX 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Nope, it was showing factual evidence for the statement which was made about the whole field is contriversial. Somebody said that I couldn't say the whole field was controversial, while wikipedia's paranormal article said it quite clearly factually was controversial. You don't even know what I was saying. That's why I've stopped making new statements, you aren't even reading the earlier ones. I am no longer concerned with you as a person. --Ira-welkin 17:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Where were you ever concerning yourself with contributors and relating to them as real, live human beings? I've seen little or no evidence of this as I've waded into this mess with you. Personal attack throughout. VX 15:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)VX

• NOTE: Again, you are pointing readers who wish to make a decision regarding the

authenticity of TAPS paranormal evidence to a BIASED source of facts: the TAPS site. To be balanced, you should also point them to (for example) James Randi's site. ~ UNSIGNED comment by 75.6.194.162

After careful consideration, and after review and correction of another page that did not fit the NPOV criteria, I modified the content to resolve any disputes. There was evidence of favortism towards the TAPS web-site, which is not a factual source and cannot be considered a credible nor a scholarly source that is warranted for an encylopedia. Modifications included removal of content describing TAPS web-site (we are not advertising their web-site), removal of any favortism towards the 'facts' of their investigations (they are still uncited and unverified by the scientific community), and removal of any other biased works. Citations are still needed throughout, where indicated, for reference. Seicer 04:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

On Pressures to Reduce Article Information

Copy of a Letter to Cyberia23

I defend the apparent repetition by pointing out that the initial mention of Ian Cashmore relates to distinguishing the show Ghost Hunters from the show Ghosthunters that was also made by Ian Cashmore, and disambiguifying that right up front, and then mentioning him again under 'critisms' section along with other criticisms. People might have a hard time telling 'Ghosthunters' from 'Ghost Hunters,' especially since they were both initially made by the same people. You have a hard time telling 'TAPS' apart from other paranormal groups, calling them 'TAPS Groups,' which is baseless and innacurate, a case of extreme simplification and injecting fallacy into the article. --Ira-welkin 01:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this article and the TAPS article have greatly improved in the last two days. Discussion rather than immediate 'corrective surgery' is much more appropriate. Those with the facts are quite capable of presenting them if guided while those whose knowledge of Wikipedia exceeds their knowledge of the topic would do best to merely guide with discussion, lest fallacies such as that all paranormal research teams are 'TAPS Groups' would not creep in or taint the quality of information in articles. --Ira-welkin 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: I believe most of the changes you made were an attempt to polish TAPS image and sway a reader to believe TAPS "evidence" as it is presented on the show. To authenticate the evidence seen on this TV show, an independent examination of TAPS investigation records would be necessary. Third-party examination of original DV and thermal camera tapes, DVR files, audio files, witness statements, crew and staff movement logs, and any other pertinent data would help authenticate or invalidate this evidence. Unfortunately, TAPS does not release such records for independent examination. ~ UNSIGNED comment by 75.6.194.162

• NOTE: I also believe you have led the "Criticism" section astray of its original purpose - to list the concerns of the show's critics. You have attempted to refute every criticism and mitigate every shortcoming. That is not "criticism", it's propaganda. ~ UNSIGNED comment by 75.6.194.162

This section was unbashedly critical. If you want to seem critical, add FACTS supporting your position. PUT IN THE GUYS PAGE IF ITS SO GREAT. --Ira-welkin 12:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

75.6.194.162 - you need to learn how to properly edit Wiki pages, I suggest you read the editing guidelines. You cannot add your [bracketed] personal comments to artile text. It's against Wiki policy, not mine or Ira's. If you keep doing it it will be deleted and reported to an admin. I also suggest you get a real USER NAME and SIGN your posts with four tildats "~" Cyberia23 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Though you can suggest all you want I do not see evidence that signing edits is required by wikipedia. ~ UNSIGNED comment by 67.66.69.92

Whatever, be a smartass. Cyberia23 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much of what the unsigned user above is saying. The criticism section is weak and needs strenghening to accurately reflect what is going on. I volunteer to work on this but I am not up for a fight with the "management here." I don't mean Cyberia. I would like to request Ian refrain from editing my contributions before checking with Cyberia. VX 07:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

My argument is that the debating and critcism crap is far to lengthy for what this page is about. All those paragraphs can be summed up with a simple explanation. Wikipedia is not a debate board, it's about solid factual information. The article should consist of what the show is about, the unique aspects of it, whose in it, what do they do, some detail about episodes (which the episode list does a fine job of) and some links which can point to all the hoopla and controversy out there. This article was best the way it had it originally a few weeks ago, now it's a long winded diatribe of unecesary preaching and bickering. If I gave a crap I'd say screw all you guys and revert this page over and over in an edit war until one of us gets banned and the winner can have it their way, but you know I have better things to do. All I can say is thanks for making a mess of this place. It's freaking TV show, not a religion, get a life. Cyberia23 08:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey if you go back and look, it talked mostly about Ian Cashmore's opinion of the show. If that is relevant and can stand for months, so can a bunch of other opinions from other perspectives. You can't just tell me there wasn't a section called 'criticism' which had Ian Cashmore's opinion, which if it mattered enough to be here for months proves that other opinions must be equally valid. But going to extremes with it is dumb. I think that giving the Ghost Hunters a chance to explain that they don't have any evidence that they feel would convince skeptics is important, to show that they do not think they have irrefutable proof. I think that pointing out a few of the arguments on both sides is useful. But I do agree that trying to proove one way or the other that they are legit or not is beyond the scope of not only this article but the wikipedia environment. If it was ok to include Ian Cashmore (who has jack to do with the show) and his opinion, its ok to leave in the 'supporters' section and the 'statements' section. It's not ok to work outside the framework of it. Lame lame lame. --Ira-welkin 13:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares whose opinion it "mostly" was; this article is now mostly YOUR opinion, though I see you believe you have improved it. Here's a suggestion Ira: take a break and come back and TRY to see how bad this article is in its current condition. Though you suggested I am a contributor of poor value; I went through last night and made many simple edits that must have been overlooked for months. Anyone who would even think about contributing at this point would look to the aggressive behavior and defensiveness you've displayed and just roll their eyes and go elsewhere. VX 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX --VX 12:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Resolution and Mutual Presentation

Through the process of debate I believe we have come to a Ghost Hunters article that has more facts, better presented arguments for both sides of this particular debate, and is more interesting. I also think that it doesn't make up anybody's mind in advance. As only facts are stated I think that it gives each side of the discussion equal weight, and as I stated both sides now have a section to post facts relevant to their positions. I now await the arrival of facts supporting those who feel the evidence is faked. There may be a few questionable pieces of evidence and I am sure that an analysis of those would be very interesting.

The topic of 'what constitutes a valid sign of the paranormal' is a very interesting one.

1) You have to take into account the security measures employed to insure lack of external contamination.

2) You have to be someone who people 'trust' no matter what steps are taken, or the entire thing could be percieved as potentially illegitmate.

3) Establish some kind of guideline of comparision to label an anomalous sound or form 'supernatural.'

These are complicated issues in and of themselves, and it would be nice to have a cross-debate discussion to see what steps would please both the critics -and- the supporters. Because many strenuous critics of the very idea that there -could- be supernatural phenomenon state that unless they had a strong personal experience, nothing would convince them.

This position is rather common and it is interesting to note that while the perspectives of this opinion should be expressed in articles dealing with the paranormal as one of the valid positions one could take in response to the alleged paranormal activity, it would be biased to expect to call every person by a default a liar for expressing a view evincing belief in the paranormal.

If valid criticisms can be placed and allowed to remain in articles (as well they should) then it seems quite hypocritical to insist that any objections to such criticism are biased and do not fit in anywhere in the article, particularly when the attempts to rationally explain this doubt with no facts have become far more preposterous than the idea of the 'supernatural.'

This article and the TAPS article are not a debate on the possibility of the paranormal.

--Ira-welkin 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong if you believe all skeptics hold the opinion that until they have a strong personal experience nothing will convince them as you cited above. VX 15:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

I recently ended the Ghost Hunters article with a preposterous and leading statement, a statement with the weight of fact behind it but none the less with a slanted tone. I did this because the statement was similar in tone to statements that were being made to the contrary and I wanted to see the reaction that a blatantly slanted statement would get. Following is the statement in question in quotes followed by the response of user C. Darrow:

"Until there is substantial proof otherwise, the possibility that TAPS fakes evidence remains completely theoretical." I believe this to be a conclusive and misleading statement. It would be equally correct to say, "Until there is substantial proof otherwise, the possibility that TAPS evidence is genuine remains completely theoretical." I feel that these two statements would cancel each other out, therefore, neither of them should be included. -- C. Darrow 22:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Hence we are in definate agreement that speculations as to the legitimacy of TAPS are not acceptable in absolutists forms. This would mean that presenting the information of the various sides and their views in the two sections is appropriate, but telling the reader how to interpret this information is not.

Saying the article is biased for having more positive facts is like saying that a trial was biased because one side had more proof than the other. I am not saying that I believe or disbelieve the group or the show, only that equal presentation of the facts should be occuring, can occur, and I believe currently is. Plugging in factual data about the legitimacy or illegitmacy of the group is quite possible and very useful to both sides at this point. --Ira-welkin 22:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ira, you wrote: "I recently ended the Ghost Hunters article with a preposterous and leading statement, a statement with the weight of fact behind it but none the less with a slanted tone. I did this because the statement was similar in tone to statements that were being made to the contrary and I wanted to see the reaction that a blatantly slanted statement would get." --- That's called "trolling" and has no place in Wikipedia discussions. -- C. Darrow 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It must have been "trolling" when the people disagreeing made such statements and objected to my use of them too. Either it was only "trolling" when people advocating a certain position engaed in it (biased) or it was an ongoing debate. If only one party on the basis of their opinions is guilty, then there is equal weight to the arguement that it was the other and not myself. If, as reason dictates, NO sides are guilty or both are, the clarification of every side is the result.

An unbiased reader here can clearly see how I have retracted the debateable statement, done my best to balance out my opinion, and kept things factual. I refuse to feel guilt for posting "There has been no substantial sign of their faking evidence." If that is 'trolling,' especially in light of my later edits and my general position, then you have a peculiar definition. This shouldn't be a quibble over words. I am ready to stop a meaningless discussion that has stopped pertaining to the supposed subject at hand.

--Ira-welkin 23:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Making preposterous statements and then admitting you did it to get a reaction is called "trolling". Own up to it, and move on. -- C. Darrow 23:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm escapes you! 'Preposterous' perhaps in being based on fact and rationality, reasonable doubt, and common courtesy, but not preposterous in the sense of your argument: no more factual basis than a UK tabloid. In this case I think it is plain that making a summation 'There is no direct evidence to suggest that TAPS fakes their paranormal evidence' is not 'preposterous' in the sense of your accusations. And your replies are to but a word or phrase of my lengthy responses. Please try to advance things around here and not play tag! --Ira-welkin 23:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As concerns resolution and mutual presentation, I note quite an imbalance between the criticism section and the Supporters section. I haven't changed anything but, for instance, the statement about the "small, closet-like door" that was discovered after the fact: More needs to be said about whether or not that space COULD have been used, as is suspected, in the part of the investigation in question. One sentence, also, does not constitute a paragraph. VX 07:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Note here also about the doorway. Recall that I am currently gaining access to a link from an independent investigator who went to the site and found a stairway behind that little door. Heresay right now but I have a sneaking suspicion it is real evidence. Best to take this out altogether and maybe I will forget...which is certainly possible. VX 21:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

--VX 12:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Does this page need a dispute template?

Hmmmm? Cyberia23 19:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The only dispute seems to be with people claiming that the fact that two stars of a show that is so successful that the season finale was rated #2 on all of TV that night make SOME money from being on it somehow is proof or even a sign that they FAKE EVIDENCE. Such an accusation is fairly dramatic, especially with no evidence. This viewpoint is addressed however in both the TAPS and Ghost Hunters article. I should think that 'No Original Research' means not poking through tax records to then go on to conjecture that the opposite of what is stated in several official sources is true. If there -is- any direct evidence that TAPS or the Ghost Hunters fake evidence, then that should be presented. Alan Alda makes a check for hosting Scientific American Frontiers, I'm sure. Does that prove he goes around faking science expiriments? TAPS have debunked several major tourist-oriented 'Ghost Sites' on national television, but I do not put this in the article and claim that it is -proof- that they do not fake evidence. How is a far more ephemeral claim that CONTRADICTS multiple cited, official sources with nothing but conjecture behind it grounds to challenge a group with falsehood? --Ira-welkin 19:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an idea: get the real information about this television show and present it. It would be of note if the actors (TAPS) in Ghost Hunters are paid, and what other positions they hold which could influence their actions and the integrity of the show. They attempt to portray themselves as serious investigators so giving up this information seems relevant. VX 15:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

I have created another section, giving a forum to discuss the controversial nature of the show and also moving the objections to criticism to a seperate section. Hopefully having the two volatile sides of the argument not competing for the same space will help ease everybody's tension. Hopefully the debate, if there needs to be one, can take place on rational terms, using facts and information rather than assumptions, anger, and hostility. --Ira-welkin 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Which section is this, I wonder? VX 15:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

I think it DOES need dispute template. There is sufficient "neutral" information about the show in the show description section. The "Criticism" section should simply enumerate the concerns of the show's critics - period. If Mr. Welkin wishes to add a NEW section entitled "Defense" or something similar, that would be agreeable. However I would hope Wikipedia would prevent him from hijacking this entry and publishing final "non-neutral" conclusions about the show in Wikipedia's name. C. Darrow 19:45 UTC 14 Jun 2006

Thanks. It is worthwhile to note that the only factual evidence supporting your harsh claims are the words 'as yet.' ;) Looking forward to a debate. -I- Don't want to believe them if they're lying. Proove me wrong and save me face! --Ira-welkin 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ira, I'm sorry, but the "criticism" section should not include "defense" statements, therefore I removed the "unsubstantiated" disclaimer. -- C. Darrow

'C', I'm sorry, but that 'sentence' was there from the very beginning before I was on wikipedia, therefore I didn't feel 'responsible' for it being there. No reason to apologize to me! Though I don't feel the group should be criticized unfairly, there are many fair criticisms of the group such as the IR Thermometer, ETC, that are valid. I have no problem with such FAIR criticisms based on FACT being presented. I -LIKE- facts, that's why I don't see the point in equating unrelated things like income and credibility. Also why I like the fact that whoever wanted to show me that link about Jason and Grant's production roles showed evidence which supported my facts and claimed that the link would prove me wrong. I believe that TAPS are at least sincere and the facts at present show no reason to assult their credibility. If they were a band you might not like their songs but you don't need to accuse them of not singing their own parts unless there is proof. --Ira-welkin 20:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ira, if you "don't see the point in equating unrelated things like income and credibility" why have you posted it as a measure of credibility in your "Supporters & Controversy" section? -- C. Darrow

Because I was forced to move that section out of the 'criticism' section where the debate originated to a new section as it strictly speaking isn't criticism. To be fair I would have to either erase it from the criticism section as well as the supporters section or leave it how it is. I didn't think it would be fair to the Critics to take out one of the only areas they seem to feel is important, and felt it would be more valid to leave both sides opinions in. --Ira-welkin 21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I just think it's odd. You start off your section by saying readers need to consider all sides of the controversy surrounding TAPS credibility. Then your argument in favor of their credibility is basically (and I'm paraphrasing here): "TAPS has been around for 15 years and they are a nonprofit organization and the two stars get no profit from the show". I suppose that could be a major influence on some people's perceptions. Others would need a bit more convincing that the videos they see of people running around in black drapes are actual ghosts. -- C. Darrow

You paraphrase to the point where you make the fake words prove your point and it has no truth as a representation of what is actually there. What is there is PURE FACT. As for your assertions about 'black sheets,' you should know enough to know they tried to debunk that. If people want 'convincing' on those topics then they will have to see for themselves. An ENCYCLOPEDIA article that takes a side is BIASED. There is every possibility left open in the article in its current state that ANY of the possibilities are possible. It is not up to us to ensure which side the reader will choose without knowing anything else about the group. The decision that all those accusing the group of falsifying evidence (apparently just you) have made is based on pure speculation from watching the show and either 1) not believing in the paranormal or 2) Not trusting TAPS. That decision is based mostly on INTUITION and DISBELIEF and though a valid feeling CANNOT BE ENTERED WITH NO FACTS INTO AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Especially not with the same weight as ACTUAL FACTS. Again, I don't want to believe these guys if they are lying, and I am keeping my eyes open. Several of the articles of debate that I have contended with have been demonstrated through and through to be completely erronous. ('Executive' Producers? Providing evidence that supported me and claiming I was wrong because of it?) This is sloppy work, Man! If you want to change an ENCYCLOPEDIA, don't do it for reasons of PARANOIA, ENVY, HOSTILITY or other EMOTIONAL reasons. I have made every effort to continue to edit my changes to this article in a way that is acceptable even to those who have the opposite view point from me, and I have found everybody but you to be completely reasonable when these matters have been discussed. I am not trying to lead anybody in their opinion of TAPS or Ghost Hunters. It's a matter of public record that before I started editing both articles were rather slanted AGAINST TAPS and Ghost Hunters. Now I feel they are more neutral. Please pile as many FACTS against them as you want in the criticism section. --Ira-welkin 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're getting a little bit emotional there, Ira. -- C. Darrow

As you have again presented no facts, I think its plain that my mounting irritation is caused by your insistence that the view that TAPS fakes all evidence should be treated as dominate despite no evidence and that this irritation is completely justified. I am not emotional about TAPS, I am emotional about the INTEGRITY OF THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA. --Ira-welkin 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, well, I'm not upset with you at all, Ira. And I do have facts. It is a fact that a number of viewers call into question the evidence TAPS presents on the show, going so far as to suggest it may be faked. There are critics. They do have concerns. I have merely listed some of those concerns. -- C. Darrow

For my response please see the top section.

--Ira-welkin 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC) --VX 12:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Jason and Grant's Roles as 'Producers' on the Show

Firstly, they are not 'Executive' Producers. Not much is known outside the fact that they have been given the title 'Producer.' All that is known for sure is that they, because of this title, have -some- input into the format of the show.

Erroneous Statement:*NOTE - Both Jason and Grant are listed in current show credits as "Executive Producer".

• NOTE - I have purchased the latest episode off of Itunes and just reviewed the credits. You are absolutely wrong. There are two executive producers:

1) Craig Piligian 2) Tom Thayer

And Two 'Co-Executive Producers'

1) Rob Katz 2) Alan David

In addition, there are two other producers listed:

1) Jay Bluemke 2) Michael Becker (Co-Producer)

Jason and Grant are listed as merely 'Producers.' Thusly, the latest known fact is that they are 'Producers' only. Until you can give an episode number where they are listed otherwise, I submit that there is no known record of them ever being listed as 'Executive Producers.'

Their being given this title coincides with the:

1) Lessening of using tension building techiques such as 'Flashing Scary Faces'

2) Lessening of dwelling on intrapersonal issues and an increasingly positive atmosphere on the show, choosing to talk about the field of paranormal research more rather than forgetting computer mice and tables.

The only episode which lists Jason and Grant first as producers is the final episode of the second season,

• NOTE: Wrong. See tinyurl.com/q8d3c ~ UNSIGNED comment by 75.6.194.162

• NOTE: I did go there, not only does the listing of producers EXACTLY MATCH what I have written, it also incorrectly states that Jason and Grant are 'brothers,' which reduces its credibility. But, as it shows exactly what I have charted out above and that YOU are wrong, thank you for providing this information. --Ira-welkin 19:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

which had no tension whatsoever. This correllation, though perhaps incidental, is striking, and may reflect the nature of their influence on the production aspect of the show.

With the clear marketing rights to the TAPS logo and trademark completely in Jason and Grant's hands, it would be ridiculous for them not to make some money from the show. It is pretty clear that Roto-Rooter cuts them a huge amount of slack in terms of time off in exchange for a high brand profile on the show and web links on the TAPS site and the Sci Fi GhostHunters site. Their popularity among paranormal lecture circuits and talkshows was well-established long before the show GhostHunters, and is probably the reason why TAPS was selected to be in the show. Hence their 'prominence.' --Ira-welkin 19:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a listing for the term Executive Producer in some detail. Perhaps you could frame your argument around it, or edit the Executive Producer article in Wikipedia. VX 06:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX --VX 12:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

On Potential or Alleged Alternative Motivations for Jason and Grant to Run TAPS -ONLY- for the Last Two Years of its 12+ Year Existence

• NOTE: pointing readers to TAPS website for facts is misleading, as TAPS controls all content on their website. This is akin to pointing readers to MOST HAUNTED website, which alleges that the show is real and nothing is hoaxed. ~ UNSIGNED comment by 75.6.194.162

This is like saying that you cannot believe any word of any autobiography because the author stands to make money. The burden of proof falls on persons to find evidence supporting the falsification of evidence. The fact that they do not lose money by making this show proves nothing. --Ira-welkin 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: No, I'm just saying that you are pointing readers who wish to make a decision regarding the

legitimacy of TAPS based on their financial activity to a BIASED source of facts: the TAPS site. To be balanced, you should also point them to (for example) Rhode Island State Tax Records site. ~ UNSIGNED comment by 75.6.194.162

Actually, I think dwelling so long on their fiancial aspects is TOTALLY beside the point and next to useless when evaluating their legitimacy anyway. They must make money from lisencing, roto rooter product placment, etc. But you ignore that discussion in favor of assuming that them making money from the show at all proves that they are fake. The show has been on 2 years, TAPS been around for more than 12. --Ira-welkin 12:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: while the legal entity TAPS may indeed recieve no compensation for the Ghost Hunters show, principals Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson may receive funds. It is only by examination of their individual and corporate tax records that one would know for certain.

It is also not relevant. --Ira-welkin 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: It is relevant. The fictional claim of TAPS is that it's two stars are ordinary plumbers who receive no money from appearing in a TV show which features them.

• NOTE: You can't just say 'fictional' for no reason, there is no other source for where they get their money. The fact that they get money at all from the show isn't proof of deception by any means. Again, proof of lying alone is proof of lying. Again, the autobiography anaology is appropriate, and again you have offered no information, just making fantastical claims such as labling the statements of TAPS 'Fictional' arbitrarily. EVIDENCE, PROOF, OR SILENCE are your options. --Ira-welkin 12:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

--VX 12:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Twice Removed Irrelevant Point With Counterpoint To Illustrate Reasons Why It Is Irrelevant

• Note: It was not I who removed the first paragraph. I think the second shows why the argument is invalid. --Ira-welkin 21:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

For insight into TAPS investigative standards some turn to their online discussion forums, where discussion of the episodes takes place amongst the shows fans and a few critics. Some feel critique is handled with a mindset that practically forbids alternative perspectives, demanding complete trust in the founders' integrity. Some contend that at least one moderator has stated that Jason Hawes' has sanctioned the bullying held by the moderators in the forums, and people are banned simply for being disagreeable to them, for questioning TAPS evidence.) Look toward the middle to end of this thread, for example: http://www.taps18.com/index.php?topic=36600.0 - from anony

However, others have been warned for vociferously defending TAPS integrity while in arguments with nay-sayers who not only were not challenged by the sites moderators, but whose thousands of comments are to be found all over both TAPS forums. Clearly there is no single attitude held by the forums forbidding any specific criticism of the integrity of the group, or the following thread would have turned out in the opposite manner. http://www.tapsforums.com/index.php?topic=51325.0 --Ira-welkin 21:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever keeps erasing this is strongly giving the impression that they are the same person who has a repeat history of audacious reverts... they would advance their position more by arguing about it in discussion. --Ira-welkin 22:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wish you would stop erasing my reference to the discussion forums, the first paragraph. Leave both in, but I think inclusion of the discussion forums and its tactics/policies should be included. VX 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)VX

I was not the one who erased it first. It was Cyberia23 and he or she was right. If they can both be included, they obviously shouldn't be. Because it isn't factual, its based on one person's interpretation. And as the facts could clearly be interpreted either way, that just isn't a good subject for inclusion. In facts the facts could be interpreted a third and dominate way: that foul-mouthed people alone are banned from the TAPS forums. Why bother with such sketchy and meaningless drivel? We have to fight to keep this article meaningful. There are valid criticisms of TAPS and Ghost Hunters and there are valid defenses. But putting in CRAP is stupid. --Ira-welkin 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I will change the inclusion and if you remove it I will report you. It will have NO specific reference, just the suggestion that the discussion forums highlight a specific criticism. VX 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Honey you can't just say you'll change it and that you'll report me for erasing it before you have, because how does anybody know that this change will break your streak of pointless changes to advocate your position that aren't based in anything.

The reason that 'suggesting' that "the discussion forums highlight a specific criticism" isn't appropiate is that the evidence can be interpreted in so many ways with regards to specific incidents that it shows that ENTIRE line of thinking to be biased and meaningless. Irrelevant. Why say that they highlight a SPECIFIC view when I have provided proof that they also object to the people opposing the view you claim that they specifically advocate. Clearly, the whole thing is not objective at all and more than meaningless. --Ira-welkin 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is just the problem with this controversial section. We can't use the ARTICLE to discuss things like gossip. The discussion forum thing is not at all meaningful, users get banned for innapropriate language and in the thread I have listed one TAPS defender got warned for arguing with someone who was quite against TAPS, critical of all they did, and who has over ONE THOUSAND POSTS THROUGHOUT THE DISCUSSION FORUMS, ALMOST ALL OF THEM CRITIQUING TAPS. This situation simply could not be if there was a basis for your argument.

Hence, the entire thing is inappropriate for inclusion in the article. And I think its clear that the discussion of it HERE, on the DISCUSSION page, not only shows why THIS material is unsuitable for inclusion, but why ALL things of this nature should be tentatively introduced on this DISCUSSION page.

Seriously, we have an article with facts and an unbaised presentation of all the different opinions now.

Let's try to keep it that way.

--Ira-welkin 23:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification on that darling, but we're going to refocus the point a bit, okay? We're talking about TAPS investigative standards and highlighting, that, when criticized, go unaddressed at best. I would like to cite the discussion forums as a place used to stifle criticism, by TAPS itself. There is nothing biased and meaningless and certainly you can allow it with one of the classic counterpoints given in the TAPS forums being the critics are "redundant," or in some other way hateful. VX 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)VX

And we'll choose a different "reference" from the forums, perhaps the signature line of their moderator, Jackal, or some other recent flame-fest citing Jason as the instigator. VX 23:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Saying that they 'stifle criticism' in a webspace that THEY pay for out of THEIR POCKET where you can find thousands of critical posts about them that they are PAYING to allow to be there is not factual enough to be included. The interpretation of events that you are lobbying for is not conclusive at all, and as the opposite opinion can be reached by the same set of facts you claim is centeral to your argument, there is NO WAY IT IS RELEVANT. It isn't MY original supposition that this is the case either. --Ira-welkin 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Paying for it or not, let the reader decide. Some would say they pay to have their moderators berate critics. Why bother trying to squelch the inclusion? There may be criticism, but there is also abuse, and I believe I can show this. VX 23:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)VX

It can be shown that the moderators have taken sides AGAINST a defender of TAPS so your whole argument is null. It's just not the kind of thing that is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

You keep talking about these references but what the hell? What are you even trying to say? That they don't allow certain kinds of people to post freely on their forum. So it is up to YOU to tell all of wikipedia how to interpret data in ONE way when there isn't even necessarily a WAY to interpret it?

Its like saying that 'Blue birds might hate dogs' belongs in the article on birds.

I'm only so sure it doesn't belong because people who have actually been on wikipedia a while don't seem to think so, but I can sure see their point. Haven't you only been on since C. Darrow got taken off? Why don't you try to learn something? --Ira-welkin 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated drivel, above. Unless there has been a poll. This is not a fan club. The vast majority of the fans could probably care less but I am not writing to the show's fans. Also, a person's newness to an area of inquiry has its pluses and minuses. You might learn something from those type of people yourself. VX 02:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

--Ira-welkin 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't decide why this shouldn't be included. Though Ira is certainly correct, discussion board moderators likely moderate a wide variety of issues, there are places within the boards I can cite which show skeptics are not welcome and can be removed for simply "pissing off" one of the moderators.

Ira and I are involved in this right now. He seems to think my inclusion lacks a certain weight of evidence and logic to preclude it from the "critics" area of the article.

Can you help make the decision. I was not out to get into a long discussion about this; I thought my point was a good one, where it was placed in the article. I am willing to work on it; but certainly not to the extent it becomes a glowing comment. VX 01:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

I did not first remove the commment, and my willingness to explain the motivations behind its removal doesn't make its invalid nature an argument between me and this very new person who does not sign his name. I am merely explaining why the community seems to be against it. --Ira-welkin 00:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I think the clear lack of good formatting and the lack of respect for wiki-policy (unsigned comments, poor grammar, wrong punctuation) demonstrates a low-level of general quality. --Ira-welkin 00:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here; the person who removed my paragraph initially is not. As for poor grammar, I have no idea what you're talking about, and, I don't spend all my time manning this article. Your comment, above, is "irrelevant." VX 01:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Here is the original removal by user Cyberia23:

Ghost Hunters; 21:45 . . Cyberia23 (Talk | contribs) (deleteing irrelivant info by 67.66.69.92 - drama from another website)

It was irrelevant then and proven even further irrelevant by other facts. --Ira-welkin 00:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As a new person to the community, I think my paragraph IS relevant. I think people who read the "criticism" section would very much like to know about the stance taken against critics in the discussion forums. One only needs to READ, to understand and the reading sheds an honest light on anyone with doubts. It was a valuable experience for me to read and post in the forums and I believe it will be to anyone with an inquiring mind.

I failed to mention above: In resolution, I would like a citation to the TAPS discussion boards', particularly the areas where discussion of the episodes tries to take place. Thank you. VX 01:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

--VX 12:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding Clean Up Template

We need consensus on this. What needs to be here and what doesn't. It's better than arguing about it. Cyberia23 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that after you cleaned it up and made everything make sense with the 'Statements' section, everything is arranged very well. I don't see the point of erasing potentially useful information on an endlessly expansive encyclopedia. Now somebody on any side of the issue can learn a lot about all the other views. I think that is much better than a shorter ambiguous article that didn't express things about the various viewpoints.

The Paranormal is a large topic and a flashpoint of debate, and I think an environment in which those with evidence that TAPS is illegitimate or persons who have evidence that they think points the other way in the form of FACTUAL references and statements have every right to be able to place those facts here within the framework of the article. I believe this type of arrangement in a controversial topic area will help to not marginalize the topic just because it is controversial, and promote more respect amongst differing viewpoints.

--Ira-welkin 20:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There probably does need to be some clean up but agree there needs to be concensus. How do you suggest that is negotiated? VX 22:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Look, Ira, the article is a mess. There is a way to get everything in without separating it out into your currently organized, Critics vs Supporters and Controversy. This doesn't make any sense at all, the second heading. Let's put it all under "Discussion and Debate with Critics" like I am working on right now.

The "Statements" Section is not needed. Is totally hanging out there making no sense and out of context. This whole article needs a framework for debate and I am working on that today.

By the way, I have evidence that the small doorway that was found and not disclosed, leads to a stairway. There is a photo of it out there taken by an independent paranormal investigator. So, that needs to be addressed. Fair warning, okay? VX 20:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Okay, here is it: Your quote:

Many of the criticisms leveled at the show and the group have a highly assumptive nature, one that posits a serious critique when it merely shows lack of full understanding. The following is taken from the 'Independent Examination of St. Augustine' in the External Links:

"One example was when TAPS cameras caught a questionable figure moving behind a pool table at the Moon River Brewery in Savannah, GA. TAPS co-founder Jason stated, "There was no way for a person to get back there without our camera being able to see them do it." However when several fans visited the site, they were puzzled by the existence of doorway at the back of the room. The doorway is positioned so that anyone could enter through it and still be out of sight of the TAPS camera. This fact was omitted from the show. Had it been presented, it would have cast serious doubt on the "paranormal" findings.

The door in question is a small, closet-like space.

First, it wasn't a "fan" who went to investigate the site, she is an "independent investigator," hardly a fan anymore since she has been banned in the forums for discussing these things. (!)

And, here is the link to where she presents her pictures/evidence. She has even discussed this with Grant. Her evidence is hardly "assumptive" and this should be cleaned up or removed, in my opinion. Whatdya say?

http://www.tapsforums.com/index.php?topic=43941.msg890955#msg890955 VX 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

I'll wait a little while longer before continue to edit this article. VX 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

--VX 12:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What the F***?

What the hell did you guys do to this article? It's a complete disaster now. Cyberia23 19:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How so? Talk about what's wrong and we will fix it reasonably.

--Ira-welkin 20:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's going completely off track and really needs to stop preaching. First off Wikipedia is not a debate board. It's not supposed to go into heavy detail about controversy. What belongs here is supposed to be pure fact not opinions. This article should be about the show period! What it's about, whose in it, who made it, and a listing of episodes - like it had been for months until you and Darrow came along and annihilated it - All the BS criticim and explanations that comes with it doesn't need to take up 75% of the article. Who freakin cares about Roto Rooter's free advertising? Another thing, your quoting info from the external links. Again repeating what is already somewhere else on the net. If I wanna read about quotes and interviews and who said what then click the external link. Thats what they are there for! Don't announce stuff like "in this link is an interview...", "in this link is a debunking project" - thats SPAMMING by the way, in case you didnt know - free advertising for someone else and a "no no" on Wikipedia. Yes we can provide links, but not paste content from external sources to Wikipedia without express consent of the source and you should also clear it with Wikipedia admins before you do it so they're aware of it. 90% of the time they say NO, even if the site said it was okay. Cyberia23 20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

'It's not supposed to go into heavy detail about controversy. What belongs here is supposed to be pure fact not opinions.' quote from above

Quote from Wikipedia article on the Paranormal: 'Because such observations don't fit into the established framework or consensus reality, they can be the subject of controversy.'

Hence I made the apparent mistake of thinking that this factual controversy was of relevance in relation to the apparent cause of the controversy. I fail to see this mistake entirely. If a grand percentage of the reaction to the show is to either attack or defend it, surely this is of interest? I believe that there is a large segment in John Lennon's article about the CONTROVERSY started when he said the Beatles were bigger than Jesus. It IS of note. --Ira-welkin 20:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling me you made changes, Ira, since the 15th to reflect what was suggested above? VX 22:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

--VX 12:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of a 'Direct Lift' & 'Violation of Rights'

The unhelpful demeanor came to a head here with C. Darrow, and I don't think I need to say much else in addition to the records to show why I repeatedly warned him with vandalism templates until he was blocked. Instead of arguing his point (after it was clearly proven invalid) or discussing his views on why he repeatedly removed the completely valid text, he continued to assert the same empty and possibly false statement that he was the author of the website in question, a statement that is utterly irrelevant. The two paragraphs erased do not contain original research nor ideas specific enough where their expression can be copywrited or protected. --Ira-welkin 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

C Darrow should never have been banned in the first place. But the job was to dissaude others from contributing and apparently it worked. Nice. VX 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

--VX 12:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Text Removal Guidelines

If items of a factual nature continue to be erased based on continually shifting reasons, i.e. FIRST because there is no reference THEN because the reference ALLEGEDLY doesn't allow paraphrasing of its core ideas, then I submit that we may need a dispute template again. Because of one person.

Rather than that, I think it is pretty plain that comments against the validity of TAPS or the Ghost Hunters that are referenced in the external links on a page that shows NO RESTRICTIONS OF ITS USE let alone a prohibition against MENTIONING the ideas within are valid.

Firstly, none of the phrases used in the article are used directly, making it impossible for you to claim violation. Secondly, if you are the author you should have known that those arguments were linked at the bottom of the page. You seemed to show no knowledge that they were there. Thirdly, by publishing this work on the internet without any restrictions on the rights, you have placed the work in the public domain. --Ira-welkin 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from such concerns, the actual material mentioned is non-exclusive to the article. Meaning: copywrite law protects the EXPRESSION of a particular idea, but not the idea itself. Thoughts, sentiments, or ideas that can not be expressed in a variety of ways are uncopywriteable. As someone merely watching the show and drawing conclusions, you can not stake an ownership claim to the material. As all the material is presented in the show, you cannot claim that you OR the actual author of the paper has any special ownership right of the ideas or that it requires another level of 'primary source' material in order to leverage those concerns. The show is available for all to see, and is a very primary source. --Ira-welkin 18:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Accept the fact that the removed material may not be admissible. Perhaps discussing -what- it was that was removed would help, because then the community can talk about it and maybe you will realize why it does not belong. --Ira-welkin 21:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the reason given for removing it is erroneous at best, firstly, and I would like mediation in here. Several contributors have been harrassed because they have criticism to contribute.VX 05:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

In reading this again, it is no wonder I was confused. It is almost as if one person or username is manning this cite at all times. As soon as I hit "save," I got a message that someone else has edited the page already and this happened several times. It is the same aggressive defensiveness you see in the "discussion forum" at TAPS. Above, I misplaced text in the wrong area earlier today, so I have edited it. Interestingly, it addresses the very same behavior seen above. Certainly there is no excuse for not following wikipedia's rules for signing edits, etc., and I have been guilty of this out of ignorance but this behavior from someone who knows is outrageous. VX 15:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

--VX 12:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Paranormal Can Be Discussed on the Paranormal Page

The topic of the Ghost Hunters and/or the group TAPS is too specific to engage in wide-sweeping debate over the legitimacy of the entire spectrum of Parnormal Activity or Anomalous Phenomenon within. Hence I believe it is inappropriate to place the article 'Ghosts 'all in the mind'" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3044607.stm) from the BBC in the 'external links' for this article. There is not only no mention of the article's topic, but only the most tenuous connections to it.

Pertaining to the Ghost Hunters debate and as a matter of my personal opinion, if TAPS had the time to waste to 'debunk' such an inconclusive study based on guesses and intuition, it wouldn't take much effort and might make the skeptical community more respectful of their techniques. This is relevant to the current discussion because it is quite clear that the claims of this 'scientific report' are just as easily assailed by reason as the TAPS investigations.

The studies of electromagnetism prompting the feeling of 'presences' are quite known to TAPS and they always take it into account, using it to debunk activity on their own investigations. Statistical analysis alone is not proof of anything, particularly when the controls for the experiment are only hazily outlined.

If I were to say: 'It is my assertion that police cars exist more in places with violent crime, because I have noticed more there,' I might be basing my conclusion on what seems to be accurate evidence, but in fact I am not making any meaningful conclusion. In fact, police cars could exist at much higher 'rates' at the police station parking lot. Though critics wish to label the Ghost Hunters 'desperate' to find evidence, several quotes from them show that they do not feel they have found anything conclusive as of yet, only interesting clips which can still be disproven. They certainly would get laughed out of the field for claiming something as general and final as 'Ghosts all in the mind' based on such inconclusive evidence.

Also, as it seems that C. Darrow's opinion is clearly that the Paranormal does not exist at all, and it seems odd that he has so far kept his contributions limited to solely the Ghost Hunters page (with an example of going to another user to complain about the article). If he feels strongly about the paranormal and has relevant facts, one would think he might wish to contribute to other pages as well.

--Ira-welkin 14:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC) --VX 12:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Familiar?

I think the last set of edits from this suspicious new person demonstrate why it is so hard to keep this article factual.

I have at least fought to keep valid factual CRITICISM in.

I have no problem with criticism. I have no problem with defense. If it is -factual-. But as many have pointed out the threshold between valid point and mindless, slanted babble is very thin and apparently difficult for some people to discern.

As a community we have to keep meaningful standards. I would no sooner put in 'TAPS are nice and their funny jokes sure make people trust them,' even though it is pretty much true as far as a lot of people are concerned. Because its CRAP as a FACT even if it has a strong factual basis. Its something that can not be made up for the reader.

If you can look at the board and show the moderators stopping a supporter from arguing with a critic, then your argument is bad. If you can look at this: http://www.tapsforums.com/index.php?topic=51325.0 and say it doesn't contradict your point, then you are being just as biased as you seem.

I have no problem with factual, meaningful, relevant criticism. There IS some. It belongs on this page. That isn't why people are opposed to the argument that you are advocating. --Ira-welkin 23:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The posting above was not done by me... If you do wade in and read he/she does have a point. VX 22:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX --VX 12:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What a Mess

Why are there sections devoted to criticism and then one for Supporters and Controversy? This makes for a clumsy read. Further, I see criticism of the critics in the supporters and controversy area, which should be kept in and responded to, in the criticism area of the article, if you are going to keep it, and for now it looks like we will need to keep it. It also makes it weird to be editing the content of the Supporters and Controversy area, as I am doing, because there are some flagrant abuses contained in it. I can't help but having this, temporarily, end up looking unbalanced but I will either take out the "Criticism" section and merge the two into one flowing article. VX 18:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Seems fair. Even though multiple people have consistently found your edits to be lacking in judgement, and your biases are clear based on your edits and contributions, feel free to choose to elminate an entire section for reasons you can't even grammatically or conceptually explain, and then claim to create a 'flowing article' that I'm sure will be a great read.

Why is 'criticism' of 'criticism' found in the defense section, and not in the criticicm section? Are you serious? What the hell ? --Ira-welkin 18:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of 'someone constantly on,' notice that you have never done anything until C. Darrow was banned, and neither he nor you ever contribute to anything other than the 'Ghost Hunters' page, which you seem to be trying to get more and more to advocate a single position.

I admit I have made some revisions, revisions that none have contested. I also have helped out issues on completely different topics. And I am also probably not a guy that just got banned. --Ira-welkin 18:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Woah! I think that much of the material number name dude has introduced is weirding up the article. What does somebody other than me think? I won't take it out because that way he will see that I'm not the one in charge of what makes sense and what doesn't. ;)

It seems that Cyberia was saying we should try to reduce the amount of the very thing being introduced in these latest edits. --Ira-welkin 20:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing a section as simple and straightforward as 'Criticism' to 'Discussion and Debate with Critics: History and Framework' is a little over the top, isn't it? Sounds like 'Pirates of the Carribean: The Search for the Golden Pearl.'

If the quotes from TAPS themselves already say that they know that their evidence can be debunked, what's the point of 'proving' that it can be debunked? Waste of time and ultra-complication of issue. --Ira-welkin 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are upset over my adding some decent framework to the article. Cyberia did mention that the article was messed up; I'm going to fix that. I guess the title HAD to be a little long, given what I am up against here. VX 21:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Ira, cease and desist. VX 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

You are telling me not to discuss my opinion? Did -JASON- tell you to instigate this flamewar! YOU ARE REPRESSING MY IDEAS! Obviously you are a liar and untrustworthy by your own standards then... or I am being like you and reading to much into it and making strange statements. Desist yourself! ;) Or don't! Just lighten up and stuff. --Ira-welkin 21:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone failed to sign something they wrote, above, having to do with my writing ability, ad nauseum. I am not intimidated. I have a cool headed approach to this now, and you have failed to dissuade me to allow you full editorial power on this article.

Cyberia has made suggestions and they awaited your changes. You failed to change them. You stalled me on including information about the discussion forum which still awaits mediation. YOur actions are hostile and demand attention by the wiki representatives, at this point. It's getting ridiculous.

Critique something I contributed or stop getting in the way as I attempt to clean up this mess. VX 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

By the way, I am not a guy who just got banned. Although new to wiki editing and contributing, I am qualified. You keep bringing up the guy you got banned. You probably should be at this point but who knows. Lighten up yourself, Ira! VX 21:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

I think you are silly. You told me to 'Stop' with no qualifications for what you meant. The 'suggestions' he made were to change things, which he did. It -did- happen. And he said that he likes it now, which he meant BEFORE you changed things. But as I said, I will not change anything. You are so funny because I say I won't change your article just let others point out what I would have said, and you me not to get in the way. You really don't ever seem to understand what I say. And that's fine. I will let others point you in the right direction.

But to say I am hostile after saying I won't edit your comments, just let the 'wiki representatives' you discuss do it for me, and after YOU told me just to 'cease and desist', is silly. Cease saying I won't edit your silly edits so that you can see that it isn't MY opinion that is making them unsuitable? That can't be what you mean. I think you are just freaking out. --Ira-welkin 21:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If YOU are going to bring up what Cyberia said, try reading the section he JUST WROTE at the bottom of this page. --Ira-welkin 21:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just did. Sigh. There is a lot of cross posting going on. I saw no new movement on the suggestions but maybe you were making them at the same time I was doing my writing. Be honest, you think the "Criticism" section previously was a decent reflection on the skeptic/critic aspect of Ghost Hunters? Come on, Ira. Your group is nowhere without the input of the skeptics (and I cannot allow it to go on and on how TAPS is their own critic, because that just isn't so). So embrace them like Britney embraces the paparazzi (sp?) VX 21:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

PS. Thanks for adding that part about the St Augustine Lighthouse. Why not just put an external link to it and take out the other stuff about all around? VX 21:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

--VX 12:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It May Not Need a Dispute Template But

I would suggest this article contain both sides of the Ghost Hunter Phenomenon, with a capital 'P.' Since Ghost Hunters IS a phenomenon of popular television, contributing to a number of "urban myths" within the paranormal community, it is important to include the role of the critic in the article on it. Otherwise it can not be an accurate portrayal of the phenomenon (and there are many of these groups around, many using heavy marketing strategies--this is something very unique and timely going on--although we see its reflection in history, known by other names. Critics who analyze the evidence presented by Ghost Hunters are as much a part of this phenomenon as is the group, it's creators and contributors. How to have a Wikipedia article on Ghost Hunters without allowing it be typical TAPS marketing is the question then, and I see above that someone would like to limit criticism to only what one side considers "FACTS."

Whether we realize it or not, in this new age of pop-paranormal investigation, we rely on the critics to balance out the general discourse here, and to set the standards for it. Ghost Hunters employs the use of debunking, paying homage to it themselves, though some believe this could be utilization of reverse psychology, to enhance the impact of whatever real evidence is found by the group.

Other debunkers are found on the internet, and these people often employ frame by frame analysis of the footage shown on TV. It is not necessary to cite each and every one of these tutorials, this is done in the discussion forums at TAPS as well as in some of the anti-TAPS or, "Taps Revealed" forums for discussion and illustration. But it is important to note whether TAPS is meeting the pop standards, found in the framework set by their critics.

As Ira is so concerned about the INTEGRITY OF WIKIPEDIA; don't allow the article to leave out the "redundant" criticism that has just as much integrity as the evidence TAPS presents and is just as much a part of the phenomenon. It occurs to me that critics of the paranormal might have their own wiki entry except they are not organized for television as an entity--they would likely be subjected to lawsuits if they organized as the "anti-paranormal" aspect. Still, debunkers naturally follow things like TAPS; they fit together like hand in glove. We need to see more of this in the article and, as an aside, I think Ghost Hunters would do well to come to terms with "the critic" rather that attempt to become the standard against which all paranormal evidence is brought. I think this is the thrust of the controversy, this aspect of the Ghost Hunters Marketing, and the paranormal community resents it, with good reason. TAPS has yet to uncover significant evidence which is not easily debunked.

It is revealing how TAPS marketing is prevailing in this Wikipedia article and something needs to be done to address this overall issue. I cannot understand why, since Ghost Hunters is, to so many of us, more drama than documentary, Ira is demanding the proof of *real* science. He wants to frame even the "criticism" parts of the article. Let's remember this is not TAPS personal marketing / advertising forum and something needs to be done to reflect what TAPS is really all about--stop with the mythmaking already and let's lay out the phenomenon in a more authentic way, one that actually give the critics a chance to weigh in. VX 06:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX VX 06:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX --VX 12:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Article as of (Jun 17 06)

After having read through the article, I'm satisfied with the way it is, although I think it's still overwritten and could be shortened up quite a bit. I must say I'm a big fan of the show myself, but I understand that some of their "evidence" could have been hoaxed or have a more realistic explanation, however that information I think is unecessary here and should be kept to links, or single sentence statements. Any debate about what those links contain shouldn't be mentioned here because it takes away from the main point of the article, which is about the show itself. We not supposed to advertise for other websites that way, or copy content from them (even with permission). Most opinions seem to come from "original research", again, not permitted on Wikipedia. They must be facts that can be found in a published source as confirmation of what is said.

I myself am a believer in the paranormal having experienced things I couldn't explain, so I may have a biased viewpoint when it comes to debunking and criticism. I worked for many years in a haunted restaurant that used to be a factory and where a fired worker supposedly committed suicide in storeroom in the 1960s. That room, to this day, has unexplained activity. I even saw a figure of a man in the doorway whiched ducked inside the room as I approached. Entering and turning on the lights, I found no one there and there is only one way into and out of the room. Later, the lights would turn on in there when I know I had shut them off and locked the door from the outside. Our manager would get pissed because the lights were always on. Later they installed a motion sensor lightswitch, and the lights were always on! We just gave up after that LOL.

Getting back to my point though, I can see how some things like the "thermal camera ghost on the locker" incident could have just been Grant's reflection, and I wouldn't be surprised by claims of "creative editing" on Pilgrim Film's part - it's their job to make an exciting show - but I think Jason and Grant are sincere fellows and would never try to mislead the viewers. I can't say the same for Brian, who seems to exaggerate everything, has been caught in lies on other matters, and always seems to only see a ghost when it happens to be off camera at the time. However, being excited about activity and not really taking the time to think it over more rationally is not a deliberate attempt at misleading the viewers. I was excited as they were when it came to the lighthouse foootage and was caught up in the moment like they were, but could have it been a mistake of filming themselves as they went up the stairs? I believe it could have been and should be looked at more closely. (I myself am surprised the debunker didn't mention the flash of light seen just after the figure looked over the railing. I think that could have been from a Mag-Lite that the crews carry when navigating in darkness). I'm sure TAPS even would have ran with the moving bed covers incident on the Queen Mary hadn't Tango saw the jump cut from the camera being paused. But I'm glad they debunk what they can. But anyway, this would be a better article if it was cleaned up. I'm not the greatest writer, so cleaning up is a challenge, and you constantly have to be careful of wording. Cyberia23 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can agree with all this. I think 'Statements' is needed because it shows the groups own perspective on their work as well as clarifying the 'Roto-Rooter' connection, which is something worth knowing when deciding about where they get their money. It also is worth noting that in that Lighthouse footage, the motion sensor lights at the top which go on when jay and grant go up there remain conspicuously off when the 'possible person' leans over. Weird... But whatever, I agree, the whole thing is facts, not disputes from forums. The sloppy wording is gradually being corrected, where applicable. But I really don't think there is a huge grounds for a large debate, its not as though any of the sides to this issue are being slighted. Before there was kind of an issue, now the issue is to get the article to as concise and professional a wording as possible. --Ira-welkin 20:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. I think IRA has been successful in keeping others out of contributing here. And, I might just add, I have been alerting you that I was doing some fairly drastic editing and creating some sort of structure other than the jerky two headings of "Criticism" and "Supporters and controversy." In Supporters, we had criticism of the critics which wasn't even mentioned in the "Criticism" section, for one thing. And, there was and is still a lot of questionable statements. For instance, have evidence of an independent investigation with disproves something Ian has said. I have statistics which vary dramatically from those supposedly made by Jason and cited here.

I need to be able to include this without having the article end up looking like another flame war. To do that, I need to edit the article; I disagree it is okay, but then I didn't see this until just now! (But no Ira, I am not upset.) VX 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Reading along, shouldn't you put something in that at least explains what the "statements" section, being a separate section, is supposed to be about. It just doesn't make sense standing alone like that. VX 23:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Who is Ian? --Ira-welkin 21:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ira. ;) Can't we just get along? VX 21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

I just thought you might mean Ian Cashmore was mad at you! ;) I'm not mad at you at all, and I'm not doing anything to be mean or personal.

The following is proudly featured at the bottom of every edit page.

• Please Note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

If concensus is driving this article's contents, do not be surprised at the outcome of your intended edits. I swear I will do nothing to remove them. I am interested to see this will go. It's nice that you basically say you don't agree with everybody else and personally feel it should be changed to reflect your own personal tastes. I have done nothing to keep any factual criticsm out, I have put some in. I have kept lots of factual criticism out and taken out lots of poor defense... I have arranged the article in a way to keep conflicting views from stepping on each other's toes, which others have supported, and contributed to the layout of. You are now singlehandedly taking that out and that's fine. I at least am going to see what you do with it and see what others say.

You claim to care what others say but only as long as it supports your opinion or you BELIEVE it supports your opinion. When it goes AGAINST your reactions you just go ahead anyway. Fine.

Have fun.

--Ira-welkin 21:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Redistribute away? I fail to get even the gist of your comment, above, except it does indeed look like you are upset with me. Ira, "you claim to care what others say but only as long as it supports your opinion..." Right back atcha.

Back to the issue of this article... You have unnecessary editorial in statements such as the phrase "highly assumptive" to preface some critics' valid question. You don't have all the facts, nor do I, and I don't mean to be merciless so how are you going to fix that part of your article while keeping the back and forth out of it? If I could I would edit this entire article to the best of my personal knowlege. But I am trying to take the issue up in here. VX 23:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

At the end of the day, June 17, I am almost satisfied, that, especially if the outline I suggested is used, this article will turn out fine. The way it looked earlier, was very unfinished and disorganized. Not wanting to contribute to further disorganization I needed to put in some structure, as concerns the incredible drama between people in here and reflected in the article itself. Then, do my edits from there. I don't like to have to process work this way, but I felt pressed. I can understand the defensiveness, but still....

Cyberia, take a look at the very last external link in the article here, a third party look at the footage of the locker room. You mention it in your musings; I know I found it revealing, and very simple, and sweet, really.

I am neither a staunch supporter nor critic of the paranormal. I've predicted things in dreams, met a man I dreamed and journalled about two years earlier, right down to his name and what he was doing when I eventually really did meet him. I've seen many a thing happen before it did happen and experienced plenty of unexplainable phenomenon myself. I just love talking about these things and thinking them over.

I also am sensitve, as an artist, to advertising; general mass media bombardment, starting with pop and continuing to this day, having developed into a societal sickness. It's all about what we are told to do, be, want, discard, etc. Mass media is pervasive, by now; our children can't imagine a world without malls. So I am always on the lookout for the command to stop thinking for myself. I hate to have to say it; I see it on the TV show, Ghost Hunters, but I understand it. It is all so laid out and predictable. So, for me, it's always cool when I can give something a less shallow perspective and I hope I have done that if only to highlight the role of the skeptic in this age of paranormal pheonomenon phenomenon. VX 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)VX

I've become very curious about ghosts especially after what I witnessed. I'm actually looking into sort of an investigation of my own at Waverly Hills Sanitorium (supposedly the most haunted place on Earth) and where one can see shadows walking around constantly. A friend of mine lives near Louisville KY and I might get a chance this summer to go down there and see if we can get in to look around. I'd love to try that "laser beam" experiment seen in Spooked, where supposedly you will see the beam flash as it bounces of semi-transparent figures in the halls. Looking more closely at the St. Augustine Light investigation I found something curious myself with the photo on Wikipedia of the staircase. The picture is in black and white which makes it kind of hard to look at the details of it, but check it out. I think this is a vantage point looking down the staircase from the top. You can notice that the stairs and landings are all made of steel, and painted over to make them very shiny. I'd expect if you stood in a certain position and looked up or down, you may catch a glimpse of your reflection on the landing, or perhaps see the shadow of someone standing on the landing in front of the window. This may explain what appears to be shadowy figures peering over the side of the railing looking up or down at you. Could they just be the reflection of the veiwer? Cyberia23 21:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but some hard core TAPS skeptics would love to talk with you about it. Plus, that is just a gorgeous photo of the staircase...something about spiral staircases which is romantic. VX 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

--VX 12:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To Avoid Losing Me

Please comment in this section when possible; if something new comes up. I am finding it difficult to understand my watched items the diff and cur lists and the comments I see in there. I am relying on my reading in the discussion forums and help areas.

That said, Ira. I have to bring this up:

You have this in the Supporters and controversy section: (Jason says that only 20% of investigations actually yield evidence). This is opposition to independent researchers using your investigators' own statements at the end of each show (aren't you glad you have FANS?): The statistics are much more detailed than my brain can take in, but, here is a summary I have written for your consideration. The article cannot handle a back and forth of contibutions of differing information in its body so let's try to keep it factual. Jason may not be using the same data in making that statement.

If you look at each show and the findings of their "yes or no," haunted or not haunted, captured evidence determinations, in reviewing the first season, the group presented "yes" evidence at 31% of the locations investigated. In the first half of season two they presented a total yield of 37.5% evidence with a staggering 70.5% of captured evidence in the second half of the season, often called the "Back Nine" plus the Halloween episode. From the perspective of the viewer, in the first half of season two, 50% of the sites investigated were haunted,(an increase of 25% from the previous season, in total). The second half of season two yielded 65.7% for the finding of haunted, or paranormal activity captured. (Approximately 16 shows per season.)VX 22:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Ah forget this. Though the stats are at odds with each other, clearly the group isn't setting itself up for the critical reviewing process some might want, and do. Still, forget about it. VX 01:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)VX

You are missing that not all of the group TAPS investigations are televised. They do home investigations every weekend that aren't on the show. They only show interesting investigations on the show. They go to a place first for a pre-investigation and the cooler seeming places get filmed. Aren't you glad that that whole website is IRRELEVANT? :) --Ira-welkin 22:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What website is irrelevant? The discussion forums? Whew. A fan club.

I guess what I am trying to get across is I am striving to legitimize the critical community beyond allowing advertising and marketing to keep on pretending that TAPS is the gang to set the standard. If they want to set a standard against reality tv, that is one thing. I'm working not only on editing, but on reminding you to include that little nagging "band of critics" who show up for every single episode and contribute to the drama and discussion that keeps TAPS in cute hats, shirts, and video tape. They are part of the overall "myth" and demand a better showing in this article than was currently given.

These are the people who have no extra information beyond what you give them on tv once a week 16 weeks in a row each season. I've never heard it clarified, what you just said, so go figure. VX 22:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Again, it doesn't matter what you have heard clarified because the information about the number of investigations they actually do that aren't televised is out there. You ignore information about the motion light not being activated in the lighthouse as well. But ok. --Ira-welkin 21:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That information is out there, eh? I'll alert the media. :) VX 05:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)VX

That information is now referenced at the bottom of the article. VX 11:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)VX

--VX 12:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Name Correction

I deleted the name Brian Bell from the cast list, it should have been Andy Andrews - the skinny dude from the first season. For some reason I thought his name was Brian Bell and I don't know where that name even came from. I might have misread of the screen I guess or he might have been someone else with TAPS, but his name is not on the TAPS website. If there is a Brian Bell maybe someone can look it up. I didn't find his name anywhere. Cyberia23 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just remembered where his name is from, the IMDb lists him as a cast member. But I have no idea who he is. The only Brian I know is Brian Harnois. Cyberia23 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian Bell was their computer guy for much of the first season. He would lie and just leave in the middle of investigations. He was a real ass. --Ira-welkin 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds he's just like Brian Harnois. I don't remember him at all. Weird, I'll have to catch the marathon nest week and see who he is. Cyberia23 23:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

--VX 12:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

PROPOSAL FOR EDITS

1. Let's take Darrow's "St. Augustine Lighthouse case" off the table as a point of contention. It's going to lead to an endless battle of quoting, defending, countering, counter-countering, links to evidence, links to counter-evidence, etc. Tit for tat, and we both will try to get in the last word. Proving nothing in the process.

If you (Ira) want to add an external link to a page that disputes the critical analysis of Darrow's page, that's great. I think he/she explains things very well, and especially to the younger viewing audience. I cite the crescent hotel analysis to show your critics aren't unreasonable or stupid. (It's nice to see critics with so little ego involvement.)

2. Let's take Cyberia's outline of what he thinks the page should contain to heart. What was it now? "what the show is, who's in it, what it's about".

3. Working from that, let's see what else is absolutely necessary to describe about this show for the reader. The statistics? Not really necessary I guess. The Roto Rooter clarification? It really seems uneccessary, Ira.

4. I do think, for the sake of the entire community, we should remove content that has the skeptics looking like they are crazed fools. Phrases set up to make skepticism seem pointless aren't working anyway, and maybe everyone can feel a little better, especially considering that you do have a good group of skeptics, and I would think you would want that, to work with it. (However that's nothing to do with this article, just a general idea for consideration.)

O'tay?

VX 01:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)VX

I might also suggest, for the sake of the article, to remove the "statements" section. It's making you look like you're a lawyer trying to establish your client's good character. And while I feel I needed to do a bit of this myself with my section, I had a reason to--you don't really NEED this because it doesn't add anything. From an outsider's perspective. And you will still be able to work roto rooter in somehow...VX 02:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)VX

How do you like this for an outline... Contents

  1 The Show (what it is, as said in the top few sentences)
  2  Episode Format (was "Investigations")
  3. The Ghost Hunters Phenomenon: Success, Growth, and Fans 
  4. Controversy Within The Paranormal Community (currently Response From Critics)
  5. Credited cast

  6. List of Ghost Hunters episodes 
  6.1 Season One
  6.2 Season Two
  6.3 Season Three
  6.4 Specials

  7 Notes
  8 See also
  9 External links

VX 02:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Okay, we've put in a day's work, I guess. I hope you can now see that I've no alterior motives in helping edit this article. I started out coming here to make a quick entry, realized there was much more to it, and got involved. Beyond not having the article make TAPS skeptics look like kooks, which doesn't benefit anyone, there really isn't that much more to it.

I will say I think the other guy who was in here could have been even more helpful than I had he not been met with the same forceful, "knock you down" wind which is what it felt like to me initially. You may not realize this being an old hand. As a new person he was just not familiar with THE PROCESS. Even I didn't realize my entries were intended to be permanent. The article didn't look finished to me, thus my confusion. Try meeting these people with a different attitude and it will work better. Nobody can think clearly otherwise! :) Plus, I am getting tired of this. VX 03:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Additional note(s):

You might want to add a brief one line or less about Ghost Hunters not to be confused with Ghosthunters. --VX 12:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Well, since you haven't completely changed things like you said you were, the article is still just fine. I wouldn't have gotten so worried if you didn't say you were going to take out a lot of stuff. Everybodies opinion is fine. I was only worked up about statements you made which you never acted on. I actually like the changes. Sorry to be such a jerk, it was just a tense situation. Now everthing is SUPA FLY YO! ;) --Ira-welkin 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think I said that. VX 05:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)VX

I have to say this Ira, it's not a matter of everybody's opinion. Not anymore at least. The issue now is that the article in its current state and even the way it is organized is not acceptable. Know that I am not out to get my opinion in anymore. I've stated my only prior motive; and have achieved it. Now, my intent is to clean this up and make it a presentable article that represents the show and wikipedia, and myself, as well as I can. VX 06:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)VX 06:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

--VX 12:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do Not bite the Newcomers

I realize there are/were a lot of things I must learn before being able to contribute to Wikipedia proficiently. However, I think this article is appropriate in light of how discussion was conducted for this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --VX 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC) --VX 12:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello & Volunteer

I agree the article as it is, is mess, and the discussion looks, er, out of control. The article doesn't seem to flow logically no matter who did it or what they intended. The section with all the arguments about Saint Agustine Lighthouse is very POV and defensive. Some of the language is a bit too wordy. The user VX's outline proposal seems to make sense and conform a bit better with the Wiki TV Project template. I am not extremely familiar with how Wikipedia works, but I am learning "on the job" and I am willing to lend a hand. LuckyLouie 05:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey there--welcome from another person new to editing and contributing at wikipedia. I'll be happy to help, if I can. I've seen other talk/discussion pages edited, but I don't know if it's permitted to clean them up.

I'm focusing on the article itself. I edited/wrote the part about the critics extensively and then finally got it down to three paragraphs. Now that I've done that, a lot of what was in the rest of the article is not necessary, and, out of context in places.

I know that sometimes after doing a lot of this stuff I need to step back and take a break to look at it again for perspective; and right now, I agree with you, the article as a whole is a mess.

I don't feel comfortable doing anything I've suggested until I get the go ahead from Ira. I was hoping that I would hear something by the end of today, and, as I've just read through the talk page I see Ira has not answered me and seems to think the article is great the way it is!

I'm almost inclined to say go on and jump in but then you risk starting a fire in here again. VX 05:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)VX

To be diplomatic about it; why don't we go in and make a list of items found in the rest of the current article, bring them in here and discuss them. We can work on the "response from critics" if revising the rest of it makes revisions in that section necessary. I hope not. VX 05:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. The discussion page is very confusing right now. So if we can stay in this section (or make a new one) not jump around all over I will be able to follow. LuckyLouie 05:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, understandable. Taking the outline I drafted, see if we can make notes inside it. 06:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)06:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)06:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)06:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)~~

1 The Show (what it is, as said in the top few sentences)

2 Episode Format (was "Investigations") I think the text that starts with In the recent audio interview with the TAPS crew (cited at the bottom of this page), TAPS investigator and full-time consultant for the show, Brian Harnois, has this to say:

from there down should be cut and put into the more in depth discussion of everything. Above this the Episode format is covered, I don't know if completely but it appears so.

3. The Ghost Hunters Phenomenon: Success, Growth, and Fans

4. Controversy Within The Paranormal Community (currently Response From Critics) 5. Credited cast 6. Statements! VX 06:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't seem to work "within" your text. It leads to "edit conflict" (?) Aggggh. LuckyLouie 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just start working on the article itself? The other users Cyberia and Welkin can always restore it back to what it was. LuckyLouie 06:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get hit with a "vandal" warning! But, I think if I could make seriously short work of it and then the editing process, as a collaboration, would be much more enjoyable. He didn't trust me last time and fought tooth and nail. I will admit my first contribution was long and needed MASSIVE EDITS. But I was working fast because everyone seemed to think the article was fine as it was. As a writer it's hard for me to accept that. I'm going on the assumption that since my changes were supa fly then my other contributions and edits will be accepted as well. VX 06:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to move a couple things around. I will keep any text I cut on wordpad at my home if I can't immediately find a place to put it temporarily. This may help you, Louie, in your process. VX 06:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, I find it's easier (for me) in MS Word than to work i this Wiki Discussion thingy. LuckyLouie 06:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Instead of trying this in here, I rearranged the article itself, which entailed creating a new, blank section. What needs to happen now is this:

new material needs to be created for the "phenomenon and fans" section. and

material from the section currently titled Supporters and controversy, needs to be revamped and distributed to the proper areas, so to speak. That section, in my mind, will not be there. Take material from it yes and put it into some context.

Does that help? VX 06:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In hopes of helping the article, I decided to be bold. Still working. I will need to put a huge NOTE at the top of this page explaining the cuts and edits. LuckyLouie 06:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I just read your first contribution. From what I see so far, bold is good; we need it. Looks good. Just remember to keep signing your major edits so a bot doesn't think you are a vandal. VX 06:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I should just put the four squiggly lines at the end of each section I guess. That's the sig, right? LuckyLouie 06:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Critcism section...."Until peer review is allowed, the critical community is left to conclude that "Ghost Hunters" is truly "for entertainment only."" I think this is too POV and needs to come out. LuckyLouie 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No ego involvement in this--the edits in that section (as well as your notes--I didn't think to do that--wow--are excellent!!! I'm so relieved you're here! If I weren't riveted to what you're doing I would head off to an honest sleep. So no need to check with me on this stuff. I'm encouraged. VX 06:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks! At this point I need help fleshing out the Success, Growth & Fans section. Someone should try smoothing the Criticism section as well. I guess I need to write a BIG NOTE at the top of this discussion page letting people know what we did (or tried to do). LuckyLouie 06:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC) LuckyLouie 06:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you need to explain. You're making notes in your "edit summary" with each change and it's very obvious what you are doing. It's good. I agree that statement is VERY POV. Thanks. VX 07:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Critics" section is still not working for me. It labors like a steam engine to make a couple of simple points LuckyLouie 07:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am done working on that section now so have at it. VX 07:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)VX

MUCH BETTER. I would drop the "IR thermometer" sentence idea, it seems tacked on. Let me try it as an edit and see whatcha think LuckyLouie 07:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, somewhere I have a copy about that issue and just can't find it at the moment and didn't feel like writing it again... ;) VX 07:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And, I sincerely mean "have at it" because I am a bit fried on that part. It was incredibly long and wordy when I started it. What is really going to be enjoyable for me is doing simple editing on the page now that it is not so defensive. VX 07:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

--VX 12:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Caution: Major Edits Ahead

Before anybody freaks out, let me say I came in to this article and saw it was a mess in need of help. So I have jumped in with two feet and tried to help make a concise, informative and NPOV entry out of what appeared to be a train wreck. Below (Hello & Volunteer) I proceeded to examine the article and attempt minor spot editing using this page as a word pad. It did not work too well, LOL.

Next step was with the help of User VX. A complete revamp of the article according to a proposed outline. The outline is very close to what other Wiki TV projects use, and that's good. In the process I cut a bunch of bickering about thermometers and Moon River and defensive POV stuff. And I cut some "Statements" that, for the life of me, I could't figure out the purpose for. If ANYONE has problems with these edits I will GLADLY restore the original material. Or they can restore it themselves. Better yet, come on in and let's work together on making this article the best it can be.

It's still not perfect, but I think it's way better and now has a chance at being readable. LuckyLouie 07:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My god I couldn't agree more. It is now concise and professional looking.

In addition, there is no more aruging and fighting in here so that is also helpful. VX 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What would be also neat is to have a couple of pictures. I know I MIGHT contribute screenshot of some enhanced footage one of the fan/debunkers has put up, if allowable, and not as one of the larger images on the article page. The more prominent pictures could feature the stars of the show... VX 07:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anticipating that they will want to work Roto Rooter in somewhere, but I don't think this article is supposed to be an advertising campaign. Say something like, "The team gets time off from work for Roto Rooter in exchange for advertising on the show," in "The Show" section. Beyond that, advertising isn't allowed in wikipedia, not for TAPS, Ghost Hunters, or Roto Rooter.

VX 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, more Roto Rooter stuff isn't called for. It already says at the top of the page: " featuring Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson, who are Roto-Rooter plumbers by day and who hunt ghosts at night". No need to go on and on about Roto Rooter I think. LuckyLouie 07:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's what the "Statements" Section was about, getting in a story about RR withougt worrying about the relevance or POV. That's the only thing I can figure, at this point. VX 08:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys. No need to get inflammitory (only sightly, which I commend you on). The roto roter stuff is totally not about PR, many skeptics were claiming that they must get paid a lot for being on the show because they take so much time off from roto-rooter, while the quote explained what the neature of their relationship to roto-rooter was.

You are expecting huge arguments! Calm down.

I think 'statements' was mostly relevant because it explained the groups own perspective on their work. Since they stated that they knew they weren't able to convince skeptics with the material they had, you can at least see that they aren't trying to defraud anybody. Wihtout those statements, one might think that they were just as against the critical analysis of their work as the critics can be against them. The statements just helped to show that they feel that criticsm and skepticism is helpful and important to their work, as well as inevitable. I just think that by taking out those two quotes it makes it more ambiguous what their opinion is on their own work and on the skeptical community. They definatly don't have any problems with doubt and criticism and that is just a fact that I think should be in.

I imagine a lot of skeptics and critics would take a more open-minded view if they knew those quotes. --Ira-welkin 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't about convincing skeptics. VX 11:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Whew. No upset? Good. I don't know, I personally didn't think the statements lent anything but perhaps a tone of defensiveness. Consider avoiding too many statements like that; it only makes a reader think about why its needed...Also, you can be sure to mention more than once that the group does their own debunking. VX 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

One other thing, certainly it might look better to work them into the text, the statements. VX 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, there shouldn't be a separate section where the article neutralizes the Critics issues, one by one. That's not the way other TV articles with Critics sections are set up. I think we can figure out a better way to get Ira's concerns addressed. Cyberia? Opinions? LuckyLouie 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to have it looking like point counter-point again. VX 17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that most readers would realize that it is needed considering that the whole field of the paranormal is so controversial. So there's no point in avoiding making the group 'sonund defensive' by saying that they appreciate and welcome critical analysis. Ommiting such statments makes the group sound defensive, almost. I don't know. But this is shaping up to a point where no one can feel slighted. fix --Ira-welkin 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ira,

I say this in the spirit of friendliness: I don't think the Critics section inferred that "TAPS does not appreciate and welcome criticism". If it does infer ANYTHING like that, then we should fix it so it DOESN'T. That way, we can avoid any need for TAPS to defend themselves by saying "we appreciate and encourage critics".

What d'you think? Cyberia? VX? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? ..........  :-)

LuckyLouie 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we discussing taking out a section header? I don't understand what the issue is anymore. :) VX 11:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Was not discussing taking out a section header. Was discussing adding a "statement" about TAPS appreciating and welcoming criticism. LuckyLouie 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not to be argumentative so do you really want to open up discussion about this. (Ghost Hunters, not TAPS). "Appreciates" criticism? Welcomes it? That's getting back into POV; some would say they certainly DO NOT appreciate or welcome it.

They don't submit to peer review is factual. Once I understood NPOV it made this all so much easier for me. VX 11:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

--VX 12:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

AFTER JUNE 19 MAJOR EDITS: Read if in Dispute

At this point I am feeling protective of the edits LuckyLouie and I have made in here tonight. I am in complete support of the changes so there are now two of us who are feeling good about the article as it stands, tonight. Beyond adding appropriate POV type content, if anyone has a problem with this I will seek mediation. Not trying to be defensive, but protective. I imagine that Cyberia and Ira will be delighted with the drastic changes but statements have been made previously that the article was okay in it's earlier form.

I want to point editors to this page which offers ways we can handle the potential conflict, if any, from this point on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes

It's pretty close to perfect now; I respect the work that took, the contributions of Louie. VX 08:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)VX

The only things I'm finding now is information that is currently bracketed (notes) in the article itself and one or two teeny editing things--right now it's looking tight to me but I have been reading it a lot. Need some time off to come back and look later with fresh eyes.

I don't know anyone from the show and I am fairly new to it, so I am not the one to confirm their number of viewers, whether an item is factual or not. VX 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) --VX 12:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Todays fix (Jun 19 06)

I noticed VX's signature in the article text - users aren't supposed to sign article statements becuase it could apply ownership to that text and violate the GNU licence. I don't understand why VX's name was there in the first place, what was VX signing?

Two, I deleted the brackets around Ghost Hunters which relinked it back to the article we are already reading.

Did some rewording - like "they have glossy black vans" - who cares that they are black? It's trivial and just clutters the read.

And the top description line "Ghost Hunters is a reality TV show..." belongs at the top of the page since it's an introduction line. All Wiki articles follow this format. Cyberia23 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were supposed to be signing our changes. Understand those were MAJOR changes and I didn't want to get hit with a vandal warning. Thanks for taking them out. I didn't realize at what point they should come out. VX 11:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)VX

Not in the main article. You sign comments in discussion. Cyberia23 21:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"The only remaining link to the two shows...Ian Cashmore." This paragraph, is it necessary? Something about it, for me as a new person to the history of this group, is confusing. It makes me ask, as an editor, why is Ian Cashmore so dang important in this article? We had him down to almost one sentence in the last version which I thought was better. VX 11:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cashmore is huge in the UK. Honestly, to TV history afficionados, I think the show's lineage IS important. There's a hotlink to Cashmaore's name so a person can learn more. My only beef is that Cashmore and his relation to the show is mentioned briefly at the very top of the page -- before contents. So if a reader skipped over that, they might be confused later on in the Criticism section when Cashmore's name is introduced again. Which is why I moved it in my first edit. But if it's Wiki format, I guess it's Wiki format. But this is a minor beef and not at all critical. LuckyLouie 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) --VX 12:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Everything looks great so far. --Ira-welkin 20:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe what I am seeing here!

.... VX 07:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)VX 12:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to request for guerilla mediation

Hello there. My name is Nicholas Turnbull, and I'm a mediator at Wikipedia:Guerrilla Mediation Network; I am responding to the mediation request tag made above by Ira Welkin. Ira, I appreciate there is clearly some type of dispute going on here, but your explanation really doesn't shed any light on exactly what the issue in question is, and alas us mediators do not have time to wade through hundreds of kilobytes of past debate in order to try to determine what the crux of the matter is. As such I regret I cannot be of assistance until you follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Guerrilla Mediation Network, and cannot accept your request for mediation until you do so - since I don't understand what you would like me to solve. I need you to explain the following, in a clear, concise manner, and in less than 500 words:

• what the problem is
• who the people involved in the problem are
• what you'd like the outcome of mediation to be

Please let me know when you have done so, and I shall be happy to be able to assist you in remedying the dispute. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy of letter to above:

Thanks NicholasT. The problem has long been worked out. I was a new contributor to Wiki (still am) and was feeling totally attacked and intimidated when I went and learned how to call for help. The criticism wouldn't have been so bad but the personal insults hurled at me made me feel I would not be able to get a word in edgewise without help. I persisted, fought back and we decided to leave the issue in question out of the article completely. Since then a couple of us were brave and made some dramatic changes to the majority of the article. Seicer has come in to give this article a different type help now so thanks but we have already resolved the issue in question. Not to say there aren't more now, but... VX 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not me who proposed the mediation, I think somebody called it because we were arguing, but that was over a week ago and the dispute has since been resolved in a civil manner. ;) thanks alot! --Ira-welkin 23:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

About the Race Rock

I wasn't trying to be a jerk by cutting out that note, and maybe you can include a sentence in the criticism refering people to that external link. I just don't think its appropriate to stick a summary of an external link in the 'notes' section, when it falls more appropriately under the criticism section. But the big problem is with the summarization of external material: if that were possible, I would have mondo defensive statements and arguments all over this page. ;) But here's the kicker: in my opinion, the Race Rock footage is the most confusing of all their evidence, because of that strange anomaly. I can't explain it, but I can tell you that just two nights ago me and my fiancee spent 25 minutes watching it zoomed in on a loop, trying to discern what happens. The light could be caused by anything from a hanging lamp to a window reflecting a light from down below. There are a few other strange aspects to the video.

I just have to say that though the footage has that extremely strange anomaly, I think they probably could have rigged up a less obvious means of moving the chair if they were really just trying to fake footage. --Ira-welkin 16:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, opinions vary on what the group might or might not do, about their motivation. Clearly the chair incident could easily have been rigged. I know I've seen plenty of evidence that makes it appear that this is precisely the case, convincing evidence. In my mind, after analyzing the footage, it was a staged event. I don't see how it takes too much time to see this. I don't think the group ever uses elaborate means, and lots of the things I've seen which look funny are, essentially, obvious. The reason I even got involved in this project was in watching the show one day and seeing what I believed was Grant moving a table with his leg--very obvious to me--he was even seen sitting on one butt cheek on camera and they showed him sitting like that, with an expression of surprise, several times. The reason he was on one butt cheek, to me, was obvious: he had just used his other leg, the one still in the air, to kick the table and chair! I think the fans have a great tendency to overlook such easily produced stunts because they WANT to believe. ;) VX 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)VX

Response From Critics Edits

Existing sentence: "There is also some criticism concerning the time spent gathering evidence, suggesting a thorough investigation requires days or weeks of data collection per site in order to make a judgement on paranormal activity or haunting."

Ira revised and added: "The group has stated that editing makes it seem as though they spend far less time on a site than they actually do."

Hi Ira. Please be careful of trying to refute critics concerns with "defensive statements" from TAPS. Thanks! LuckyLouie 00:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. To present such views would make the article less biased against TAPS, which won't do. Only critical views are appropriate. --Ira-welkin 05:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I hardly see a reason to get so 'defensive' about a simple factual explaination. --Ira-welkin 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was HARDLY critical as it was, Ira.  :-) LuckyLouie 06:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Here we go, an edit I made today. Someone, not Ira, had changed my text to read:

According to these doubters, the show lends itself to other paranormal television shows such as ...

What in the world! Please, don't do this to the article! VX 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I had to make a really clunky sentence in this section because of Ira's desire to defend TAPS by putting in the part about how editing makes it appear the group spends less time per site. They don't spend several days at most of the sites and they certainly don't spend weeks per site, so why this was put in can only be for the defense. Every television show is edited--this is not what bothers the critics. Could we maybe put it back the way it was and leave out the "editing makes it appear shorter" stuff that is pointless? Please? When you put something like that in Ira, it starts the ball rolling on the point, counter-point mess which is why before this article looked like a train wreck! VX 22:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. How about this? I revised it to read: "There is also criticism concerning the time spent gathering evidence. Critics would prefer mutliple days or weeks of data collection per site in order make a judgement on paranormal activity or haunting." Since TAPS does not *typically* spend multiple days at their sites there is no need to disarm the criticism. LuckyLouie 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I know you all think I'm the only person who supports the GH here, but I didn't change it to say 'according to these doubters.' K? Please don't ascribe whatever you want to me. I didn't even HAVE access to the internet during the time you claim I changed this. If you put the same stringent standards of factuality on yourselves that you claim to believe in you wouldn't have anything to say. --Ira-welkin 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay Ira, I already figured out you didn't say the doubters thing. So no need to defend, k? I won't even comment on your notion that you may be approaching this article with an eye toward "factuality." VX 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

After consideration through a comment left on my talk page, and after reading this article throughly, I have added a NPOV tag. My reasoning is that in the subsection, Response From Critics is not as neutral as it should be, with some bias towards the program directors. There is also bias towards the ghostly hauntings versus scientific research. I will also be nominating this for

I will be working on this article to conform as much of it as I can to a neutral stance, similar to what I did for the Waverly Hills Sanatorium article.

As a side note, I have also added an unreferenced tag. It has a lot of content that is not cited. Seicer 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

After careful consideration, and after review and correction of another page that did not fit the NPOV criteria, I modified the content to resolve any disputes. There was evidence of favortism towards the TAPS web-site, which is not a factual source and cannot be considered a credible nor a scholarly source that is warranted for an encylopedia. Modifications included removal of content describing TAPS web-site (we are not advertising their web-site), removal of any favortism towards the 'facts' of their investigations (they are still uncited and unverified by the scientific community), and removal of any other biased works. Citations are still needed throughout, where indicated, for reference. Seicer 04:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for my own benefit, I am going to go look at your changes, however, THANK YOU Seicer, for helping out! VX 21:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

For an interesting perspective, look back around June 18 at the article. >:{ VX 22:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'll continue to watch this article as needed. Seicer 02:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

--VX 12:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ian Cashmore & show history

I also think the Ian Cashmore sentence (in Critics) is now "without a reason for being". It seems to be in dispute that he disassociated himself because he didn't like the drama of the show. Also, I don't recall seeing skeptics making an issue of lack of historical research. I think it was the TAPS fans themselves who wanted more history about haunted places. LuckyLouie 22:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Much better. It looks like it used to. I don't recall the skeptics wanting the Historical reasearch either. Not saying "the skeptics" didn't or did want it, but somehow this news got into the article. I might have been taking it from back before June 19, if I put it in there. I personally don't care about the history--I think it's a change and maybe it's supposed to reflect how TAPS is so responsive to their critics requests. Either way, taking it out doesn't bother me because it doesn't seem important. History of a site isn't something you see done on a regular basis on that show so ... VX 22:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was bold again. I moved Cashmore's reference from Critics up to the top of the page and I revised the criticism it was attached to to be more generic criticism (i.e. too much drama) that you often hear about the show (published in many reviews). Now we don't have to worry about getting a "cite" for Cashmore's reason for leaving the show. I hope this sits well with everybody. LuckyLouie 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it works out much better that way. Seicer 02:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ratings Citation

Sorry, I don't yet know how to properly footnote a citation. But here is the SciFi PR release regarding the ratings quote: [1] LuckyLouie 00:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

To use the footnote citations that are automatically generated, use the ref tags. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Example Seicer 02:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could help. I think Cyberia knows how to do that. I am going to need to use the help section for this, as soon as I can. Or, someone who knows how to FIND the citiations should do it or lend a hand. The article could almost be considered finished, if these little things were in place. VX 21:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the example I cited in the URL above. It's the most efficent way I have found so far to generate footnotes. Seicer 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I tried following the instructions for adding a footnote to cite the ratings reference. If I did not do it right, I hope someone can correct it. LuckyLouie 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is "Ghost Hunters" Pseudoscience? Request For Comments

Can a TV show be labeled pseudoscience? I honestly don't know. But after viewing a number of "Ghost Hunters" episodes, I have noticed that the show consistently promotes acceptance of the methodology and findings of "ghost hunting".

The actual on-air TV show is substantially different from the description given in the "episode format". On the show, credence is given to the "Ghost Hunters" peculiar science over that of conventional science. EMF meters are alleged to indicate spiritual energy. "Lights out" investigation is alleged to create the "best environment" for the discovery of supernatural phenomena. Debunking is used merely to separate "false hauntings" from "real hauntings". And so on.

This is why I wonder if the article on "Ghost Hunters" should carry the Pseudoscience tag, and I am soliciting comments. Some of the reasons for my query:

• According to the Pseudoscience article, the definition is "any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific".

• "Ghost Hunters" seek to study ghosts by means of technology, measurement, and investigation. They make claims and conclusions based on knowledge, methodology, and practices that are not subscribed to by the mainstream scientific community. For this reason I think the TV show's premise is pseudoscience and promotes what I believe is a pseudoscientific POV.

• Recently, Robert L. Park has listed "The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science". Many of these apply to ghost hunting in general, and "Ghost Hunters" in particular:

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

Please Support or Oppose, together with a comment, and sign and date by either adding four tildes (if you have an account), or your name and date if you don't. Thanks. LuckyLouie 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that mainstream science has completely turned a blind eye on paranormal research, I think all of it, from ghost hunting, UFO investigations, to looking for Big Foot can be labeled "pseudoscience". Cyberia23 20:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Support or Oppose YOUR view, giving it validity even if it irrelevant. Sign.

People who think like you don't need to be convinced that the show is fake, they don't believe anything anyway. I wish you wouldn't childishly require this to be a forum for your beliefs, and allow it to be a place where people seeking information on the show Ghost Hunters could learn about the SHOW.

You cringingly cling to your attacks, all the while ignoring the fact that your perspective is irrelevant to MANY people and that this is not a forum for your beliefs about psuedoscience, ghosts, or what have you.

It isn't even a forum for anything, apparently.

I guess people should just take down the article. Anyone wanting to know about the show will have to weed through the OPINIONS of people who are out to prove something FAR BEYOND THE SCOPE OF AN ARTICLE ABOUT A TV SHOW. GET OVER IT! YOU =FREAK= AND =FREAK= OUT ABOUT ANY POSITIVE STATEMENTS BEING IN HERE. YOU CAN ALL JUST ERASE THE WHOLE THING AND FEEL GREAT ABOUT YOURSELVES. Now -nobody- will be STUPID enough to hold their own PERSONAL BELIEFS. You don't have the courage to let anybody make up their own minds, and you don't have faith enough in your own beliefs to think that enough people will agree with you if other views are presented. No, you would rather the article say: "Ghosts are only believed in by stupid people." And nothing else. WELL FEEL SMARTER THAN ME THEN BUCKO! --Ira-welkin 18:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If this type of commenting continues, and further revisions of the page degrade the quality of an unbiased topic on a factual encylopedia, I will request it be locked and revisions be made only through an administrator or an appointed editor. As it stands, an encylopedia is for factual arguments and statements, not for uncredited or unscientific claims. Thanks. Seicer 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you are terrified that the 'discussion' contains multiple views! Of course it is unbiased, YOU and all the HUGE SKEPTICS say so! How fair! Go ahead, request some administration. I am interested in what they have to say. You and your skeptical friends basically said everyone should feel like an uneducated moron for not being 'smart' enough to realize how fake something that thousands of other people respect and belive in. I surely am being out of line in being offended. I'm sure any actually unbiased administrator will agree with YOU ;) --Ira-welkin 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'm sure that if the TAPS and Ghost Hunters sites themselves are not valid, than niether are those sites of skeptics who utilize images and film obtained from the show via COPYWRITE INFRINGEMENT are somehow quite valid, according to your fearful perspective. Calling quotes from the ghost hunters talking about their acceptance of skepticism 'defensive' while being TERRIFYED at permitting valid factual arguments from supporting sources is foolish and childish. But whatever. Call an administrator if you want. --Ira-welkin 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to accept that this is a controversial topic. Do you sit in the Christianity article and make it say: 'This farcial mass of beliefs is useless because it is likely untrue?' Why don't you? --Ira-welkin 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why the 'analysis' of the St. Augustine light house ignores the fact that it was twice mentioned that the security lights didn't go on when the figure in the video is seen? You know you have no answer for it, I would just like to hear somebody PRETEND they have something to say. --Ira-welkin 18:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am a spiritualist, but I recognize the fact not everyone is going to agree with my viewpoints. To make the article well-rounded and unbiased, I conformed the article to the Neutral Point of View guideline, the official policy of Wikipedia. If you have some qualm about it, talk to them about the NPOV and your viewpoints. It's not approperiate here. PS, add paragraph points to make the statements stand out. I did't know who you were replying to. Seicer 18:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's plenty 'approperiate' because a handful of people feel that 'neutral' means 'against' and can't live within ANYTHING that doesn't support their FAR-FETCHED claims that the entire show is staged. I don't care who knows who I am replying to. You're all one person, mentally. --Ira-welkin 19:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. No one is against the Ghost Hunters show, but the article itself needs to come off on an unbiased viewpoint to the general reader. Not everyone is Christian, not everyone is a Spiritualist, and not everyone is an Atheist. Pandering to one religion is not opening up the article to all viewpoints and reads as a biased article. This is against the Neutral Point of View policy and against Wikipedia standards. There are zero claims in the article that the show is staged. If this claim is made, it could be made with a critical comment that "some believe" to make it an unbiased comment. Seicer 19:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, Ira, it appears you are having a pity party for yourself because you can't intimidate us anymore, get us banned, gloat over it, and then continue on in your terrible writing of this article. Though I really don't care if it is or is not, it is certainly not "FAR-FETCHED" to think the show is staged. That is just ridiculous. VX 20:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just forced myself to read your rant, above, Ira, and I have to wonder if you know that Seicer is a mediator for wikipedia, probably a volunteer (you can learn more from reading his/her talk page, probably). He/she isn't here to pick a side; you are acting as if Seicer IS. My understanding is he/she is here to fix the article up, and LLouie might have requested the assistance after you began messing with the article again.

It's not fair for you to ruin the work we did in here to make this article conform to wikipedia standards. Do you realize the work that took place around 6/19? Though we may have failed to get it to a more perfected state, some of the edits you've been making have been counterproductive, harkening back to the point-counter-point era of this article (prior to June 18), again, right when you and Cyberia were pleased and happy with it as it was! The article DOES need work, but it doesn't need more "advertising" content. It just needs some references and general editing, IN MY OPINION. Since Seicer has requested help, and has locked the article (correct me if I am wrong about this, Seicer) I am grateful and relieved. I hope you are too.

Oh, and by the way, LL, if there is a pseudoscience tag, and it is appropriate to wiki television, I agree this article qualifies. VX 21:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC) VX 21:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a moderator, but a user came and asked for my assistance after I successfully cleaned up the Waverly Hills Sanatorium page that contained a lot of unreferenced and biased content. It runs along the same lines of what I am seeing here in this article. While I do not have the power to "lock" this article, I will go through the proper channels to ask for further assistance if the NPOV and "deadvertising" revisions are reverted to their previous state. And Seicer is a he :) Seicer 21:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for BOTH those clarifications! Very much. VX 21:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Update

I don't feel I've gotten significant enough response to the question of should the article on "Ghost Hunters" carry the Pseudoscience tag? So I am tabling the issue until such time as there is reason to examine it again, or someone else resurrects it.

That's thoughtful, especially since we're voting on something else now. But I do think it needs the tag. If I am remembering correctly, Cyberia agrees, you agree, I agree. Seicer would probably agree. I think we have the concensus. Why not just do it? VX 23:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

ON THE ONE HAND....I don't feel we've heard anything substantial from Wikipedians who might oppose it. I admit I have trouble understanding Ira's posts because they are often interwoven with accusations and personal attacks. I'd really like to see any opposing opinions communicated in a non-inflammatory manner. ON THE OTHER HAND....putting the psuedoscience tag on the article would likely force a discussion to take place LuckyLouie 23:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Y'know, I'm Done

We can change the little blurbs recently added to the list of Ghost Hunters Episodes forever. But it occurs to me to take this section completely out since it IS advertising for the show. Take it out if contributors can't leave it without their personal perspectives on the paranormal activity. Put in a link to the TV Guide for readers to use---why offer it at wikipedia if it is only used for a NPOV forum. Plus, I'm tired of being the object of Ira's ire. Here and on my talk page. I'm even having editing conflicts in this discussion page, with Ira! VX 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We sure were. It was because you were trying to move something I wrote in the above section out of this section where you accidentally placed it and rewording your post at the same time I was trying to move it. Not really much of a thing to complain about. --Ira-welkin 18:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please just stop putting in your personal perspective then, and used neutral point of view. Or leave neutral point of view when it is there instead of putting in your perspective. Also, you accused me of editing you viciously and harrassing you a few days ago when I didn't even have an internet connection or access to the internet, so I am certain that now that I have one again you are going to percieve my harassment of you to be even worse. --Ira-welkin 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ira. Get bent. VX 18:27, 6 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.

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)

No Personal Attacks

I urge folks involved to read this page. No_personal_attacks

I also ask that the discriminatory comment regarding parapalegics be removed by the user.

LuckyLouie 00:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I ask that when people tell me to 'Get Bent,' whatever that means, that people react as though something offensive was said, and then not treat me as though I am a jerk for making my statements in a clearly more composed manner. --Ira-welkin 00:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that comment Ira but you were exasperating with the long rants and flames. I don't even read them anymore so you won't be told to get bent again (by me).--VX 21:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

organized discussion by start date of sections

The article itself still needs tweaking but I just think it's an "interesting" discussion page. Right now it's out of wack, timeline-wise. Maybe I'm just neurotic about unimportant details... VX 11:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)VX

I just organized the discussion page in word pad. Here is the way it could be, by current section header number on the morning of Jul 7, and I am working on this but with trepidation:

23,24,18,19,22,21,12,13,14,15,16,17,11,9,20,25,8,7,10,6,26,5,3,4,2,1,27,28,29,31,30,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39 VX 11:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)VX

Done! Hope y'all like it.... --VX 12:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the cleanup, VX. Maybe at some point in the future we could archive the flame-war sections so they appear as links, but don't take up so much space. LuckyLouie 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving: HELP

This discussion page is over the recommended size limit. I've created an Archive. Go to the file cabinet icon at the top of the page and click on "1". (Can someone help me by cutting and pasting the older stuff into "Archive #1? Thanks) LuckyLouie 17:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you want me to do this, but I want to work on it alone so I keep it in order. And, I need to figure out HOW to do it. VX 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Simply cut the material from this page, and paste it into the archive page. LuckyLouie 23:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the concept of another page. Reading now. VX 00:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)