Talk:Paranormal State

Whether the show fails to find paranormal stuff or not

I'm intensely critical of these paranormal shows, too. But: We don't know what episodes the critics have seen (many get advance episodes which have not aired yet). A critic who says the show fails to find paranormal activity could be referring to one small fact on the show, or an entire episode; it's irrelevant, because the critic found that to be essential to his/her review. The following claim

Strangely enough, they really have yet to show an episode where they did NOT find paranormal activity. Everything from finding psychic girls to young boys seeing dead people to excorcisms of powerful demons has appeared on the show.

is original research, however. It's also not verifiable. If verifiable, then a citation should be given, and the criticism put in the "Negative Reviews" section. It's not up to us contributors to take issue with what a critic says; other critics will do that. We should only cite those other critics. Because the above-referenced change significantly changes the tenor and intent of the "Positive Reviews" section, I've removed it and put it here until citations can be given. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that they do find some evidence every episode. We should have this article represent all angles. Liquidblue8388 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is PS scripted or real?=

The following comment

Since the show is not a real "reality show". The show is scripted with a real feel.

is unsupported by citation, and is opinion. If a critic has said this, then that should be added to the "Negative Reviews" section and cited. Placed where it is, it leaves the reader with a biased opinion as to the article's neutrality about the show. Additionally, what a "real" reality show is: That's something which this article should not get into, as this article is about the show and not a debating template for what "real reality TV" is or is not. I've removed the quote and placed it here on the Talk page. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reality shows typically have some script. If it fits within the genre it works as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.166.131 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Origination of the show?

The introductory sequence of the show makes it sound like one student started a paranormal club and voila! they're a TV series. There is some indication in the article that the producer of the show had a little more to do with getting it started, but the issue is still left rather unclear in the article.

For example:

• I assume that not just any kid at Penn State can join this club and get on TV show. Who does the interviewing and hiring?

• The show has all sorts of neat little graphical sequences, on-screen text, taped in narration, many cuts and pans of the cameras, etc. Who does this work?

• Who reads or researches reports of paranormal activity and selects where to go and shoot?

In other words, I assume that the role of the students in the "paranormal society" is similar to that of the contestants on Survivor - that if not actors in the traditional sense, at least they're not very important to any practical or creative direction of the show. But I don't know that at all. If you could believe in ghosts you can believe in kids able to make a TV show. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• The lead is left over from the contributor(s) who initiated this article. As for myself, who did a lot of expansion, I didn't really find any quotes or articles as to how the producers came to be aware of the student-led club, how the deal came about (except for the one comment where Buell admits he had a second deal for a show with the producers). I definitely never read anything about how the producers decide who appears on the show. It may be out there, but not in the articles I read. As for the production values, the production companies do that (this seems a pretty obvious point). And the article clearly says that the producers and their staff research the situations that the team investigates. The sources cited indicate that there is a synergy between the students and the staff in this regard, although those articles are not entirely clear on how this works. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Temperature dropping"

Apparently they frequently use an IR toy to see if the temperature is dropping from a ghost. What's funny is that you see a fixed scene on the TV screen with red, yellow, blue areas that remain constant. They point the dot in the middle closer and closer to the bluest area in the scene and start reading off the temperature, but it looks like this "temperature drop" just reflects where they're pointing the dot. Is that so? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Advanced Equipment

A line in the main article states that "Show co-executive producer Alan LaGarde is credited with giving the students advanced electronic equipment which they did not previously have, and in making contacts with police, doctors, psychiatrists and other government officials and medical professionals. This permits the student-led team to more positively rule out non-paranormal explanations." The article referenced for this information, seen here: LaGarde helps produce A&E's 'Paranormal State' does not imply at all that LaGarde gave PRS any equipment, but it does imply that he did give them contacts with police, and possible other unknown experts. I feel this particular part of the article should be removed or edited, and I will do as such in a few days if no one has any objections or explanations why I shouldn't. Experimentmonty (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Change to lead removed

The following was added to the lead paragraph on 10 February 2008:

John Montgomery, a second year member of the PRS, claims that the series is the best way to showcase the unexplainable events which otherwise would garner little interest from the public.

First, this is inappropriate for the lead paragraph. Second, it is unsourced material. Third, it is opinion, which should go elsewhere in the article. I removed the sentence, and placed it here in case anyone wishes to find a citation and place the sentence in an appropriate place in the article. Thanks. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge? NO WAY!

This is about the television show. This is not about the organization. Wikipedia does not merge the article on the "As The World Turns" simply because it was once owned, produced and sponsored by Proctor & Gamble, or "Texaco Star Theater" because the show was owned, produced and sponsored by Texaco, and starred a Texaco employee (Milton Berle). - Tim1965 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely merge. The PRS article shows no notability beyond the show. A relevant example would be TAPS, the group featured in Ghost Hunters. In addition to the notability they have with the show, they also publish a magazine and do broadcasts independent of the television show. The PRS has no outside claim to notability beyond Paranormal State, and wouldn't otherwise meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. It currently doesn't need a separate article, and if such a need ever arose it could be split off. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually they seem in the process of doing a magazine type thing from what I can see on their main site. Also they do public appearances. I think it would be smart to see what happens with them after the first season is over before pulling their separate article. TAPS article, if I remember correctly, was published before they saturated the public with t-shirts, magazines, and radio bits. --Slayergenxxx (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Tim1965. Don't merge, this is about a show. --Crash Underride

I am also against the merge. The Penn State PRS has been around for a long time before Paranormal State, and will most likely stick around long after Paranormal State finishes. Both the organization and the show are definitely notable in their own right.Experimentmonty (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has to do with how long they were around before the show. My point was that they haven't done anything notable besides the show. Tons of paranormal groups get AfD'd because they aren't notable (TAPS was around before editors started applying notability rigorously), so I think a merge is entirely reasonable. Whether they end up doing something notable beyond the show in the future I think is also besides the point. Wikipedia doesn't predict the future. But I'm fine with it if everyone thinks there should be a separate article. No biggie in my book. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely merge. They are not notable in any other sense. 130.111.16.222 (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?????

Someone tagged the article with NPOV. However, there is no discussion of NPOV issues here on the Talk page. Unless that discussion shows up within a week, and NPOV issues can be identified, I think that tag will be removed (unless someone has objections, and that means identifying the NPOV). - Tim1965 (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a crazy amount of negative stuff on this page. It was obvious. Gingermint (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer

On A&E there's some sort of disclaimer about the occult or something, what does it say?

• It's the standard "The views and opinions in this show do not necessarily represent those of A&E and/or it's affiliates, etc" jargon. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan's Demon Stalker

Somebody clarify the first sentence. Chip is stalking Ryan? Also, when will people learn that in a quotation one uses brackets "[ ]" and not parenthases "( )" when the author is inserting additional information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.9.7 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

76.208.171.179 (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence (The demon following was later revealed to be Belial.) reads like a joke. I'm thinking it needs to be either clarified or removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.159.17 (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot of negative and, frankly, weird material in this article with no support except somebody's blog. It all looked mostly unsubstantiated and even somewhat actionable. It seems that someone who hates the show or is in a court case against A&E or whatever had some kind of axe to grind. I started editing the material and then, after realizing the "support" for all of this was just some guy's blog decided to eliminate it. Wikipedia should not be used to propagandize. Gingermint (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I support your action, but it seems User:Tabascoman77 reverted your edits. I have removed the 'controversy' section entirely. It's entirely sourced to blogs, which are not reliable sources by Wikipedia guidelines; and since it contains negative allegations about living people, this is not acceptable per WP:BLP. It should not be re-added without reference to reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Trainwreck of negativity

Seems me that half the page is now about a single controversy... and it's a pretty big overkill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.76.243 (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the unsigned person above's comment. The whole article lacks encyclopidia format. It is an extremely tedious read. I am not a paranormal fan so I would be the last person to attempt to improve it.Mylittlezach (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)