Talk:Ghost Hunters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghost Hunters article.
Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Archive

Archives
1 2 3


Contents

[edit] Ghost Hunting

Should there be a mention of the book Ghost Hunting by Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson with Michael Jan Friendman as it details information about some of the cases from before and after the show as well as other information?


[edit] Sourcing Issues

Nearly all of the orignial sources cited in the "criticism" and other sections either have broken links, or don't exactly resound with credibility--one is actually someone's personal blog.

I realize this certainly isn't an uncommon problem in the Wikiverse, but at the very least broken links to yahoo! geocities sites should be fixed--or excluded if unsupported.

Also, source [5] seems to be a former user of the TAPS forum taking their banishment a little to personally. There have also been several instances during the shows run where they have declared that homes and structures are not haunted based upon the findings of a TAPS investigation. Giantpiemaster 03:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Older Discussion Archived

The discussion sections that are currently 'active' remain. Everything else is now archived in the Archive 1. You can click on the "1" at the filing cabinet icon to get there. The archiving was to help cleanse the page of past bickering and allow the page to be more easily navigated. It was not intended to stifle or 'close-off' discussion of older topics. Anyone wishing to pursue meaningful discussion of an older topic is welcome to do so. (Please don't reply to this here. Let's leave it as a 'notice'). Thanks. LuckyLouie 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I archived again. Archive 1 is full. Archive 2 has been started. Same stuff as written above applies. Thanks. LuckyLouie 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

More archiving into Archive 2. - LuckyLouie 04:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive 3 begun - LuckyLouie 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved more material to Archive 3 LuckyLouie 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Opinion

In removed what I consider an NPOV opinion posted in the Criticism section. Regarding TAPS not releasing detailed records for peer review, etc. a contributor wrote:

"(this is likely due to a confidential nature which TAPS has with certain investigations. Certain individuals and groups wish for the findings to be kept secret, much like a catholic confessional)"

This is speculative opinion, and does not explain TAPS across-the-board policy of not releasing ANY records, even for public locations, such as Waverly Hills, Eastern State Penitentiary, etc. LuckyLouie 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I specificaly remember at least one episode where they hid the faces of the owners for their privacy. Mapetite526 15:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That's true. They withold case data about private individuals...like you said, for their privacy. But they also withold case data about locations that operate commercial ghost tours. Certainly ALL those locations don't have issues of privacy. TAPS can give whatever reason it wants for not releasing any data for peer review or indy exam, it doesn't mitigate the fact that they don't release any data - period. LuckyLouie 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate articles for episodes

Many tv shows here have articles on every episode there, i think GH should have a separate article on each episode, explaining what was shown, who were the investigators, and other tid bits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.30.112 (talk • contribs)

Detailed synopsis of each episode is available on SciFi's "Ghost Hunters" site. Since the group's "findings" are controversial, perhaps a link to this mught suffice? LuckyLouie 17:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No, don't start adding detailed synopses for each episode. What are you gonna say anyway? Ghost Hunters isn't really a story driven show like other TV shows and don't need to be detailed. Cyberia23 19:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It may be more reasonable to have separate articles for each season, broken into heading for each episode therein. However, you would have to consider how much this would denude the main article - you shouldn't put the same info on two or more articles.LessHeard vanU 20:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
i like the idea of episode details. especially if each location includes a note stating if the investigation was concluded as haunted, has paranormal activity, inconclusive, or not haunted etc. but i also dont think including epidode details, more than whats already listed, would help or hurt the article. if the details were added, they could include who investigated, what evidence was found, what evidence was diproven, what drama the investigators had, etc M8gen 20:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
A paragraph summary below each entry might be okay. I thought you guys were talking about individual articles being written up for each one. That would be a little much IMO. I present an example below, but you have to change the table's script a bit. It may be confusing to edit. Cyberia23 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Example:

# Original Airdate Location
219 May 3, 2006 St. Augustine, FL - St. Augustine Light
TAPS records ghostly voices inside the lighthouse, one of which Jason and Grant believe said "Help Me". Later a shadowy figure is seen moving up and down the staircase above them. At one point it peeks over the edge to look down at them. A motion switch light did not activate until Jason and Grant made it to the top. They use this as evidence that a "real" person wasn't on the staircase.
I wouldn't mind seeing a column added to the right as to whether they think it was haunted or not. At least in the earlier episodes, they would spend some time trying to get Jason to admit it was haunted (or not). -- Mapetite526 21:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
TAPS claims to record ghostly voices...Jason and Grant claim a motion light switch did not activate until they reached it...TAPS claims it is evidence of....etc. (You'll have to be strictly NPOV regarding the factual nature of these investigations. ) LuckyLouie 04:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah "claims" like 30 thousand times - and good reason why we probably shouldn't add details since every freakin word will be nitpicked. Cyberia23 05:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
In a contentious area like the paranormal it must be that the article reflects an encyclopedic approach, in that claims must be reported as such unless it can be proven that a)instances occurred, and/or b)that they were caused by paranormal activity (and there are just as many people who will dispute any such finding, as there are who will support). As Cyberia23 comments, it would not be good for the article if inferred acceptance of any claimed "evidence" was made - the best method is detached third party reporting. I would also comment that it is encyclopedic practice to refer to individuals by surnames (unless there is very good reasons not to, such as differing family/namesakes being discussed in the same article - and then the full name is given).LessHeard vanU 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
should be okay if we state facts of each episode. it is a fact that they claimed to find paranormal activity.. a little note stating soemthing like: these are claims made by the show and we do not question or support their claims but are presenting episode events. M8gen 16:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a disclaimer is needed. If you simply insert the comment "claim/ed" in the first sentence detailing the content of the episode then you can list whatever activity and/or conclusions the programme makes - you have indicated that it is the programme that is making the statements, not Wikipedia.LessHeard vanU 20:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, if you guys want to go with expanded summaries then by all means do so. I think it's a lot of work so I'm not gonna do it ;P (I'm lazy) Besides, I don't have every episode memorized and I've missed a couple myself. I know some of the early episodes - like the private home investigations were pretty boring and the team caught nothing and managed to give logical explanations for what the residents were experiencing. I also suggest using various synonyms of "claimed", (like alledges, asserts, declairs, maintains, supposes, states, etc...) as it will keep it NPoV but make it not such a repetitive read. Cyberia23 20:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Paranormal TV shows need not necessarily have huge episode summaries. Take a look at how the Most Haunted wiki entry handles it. LuckyLouie 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Irish Castle

Not entirely sure if this is the right castle or not, I think they said Birr (it sounded like "Beer") so anyway - if someone can confirm the name that would be great. Cyberia23 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's probably this one, Leap Castle: http://www.explore.ie/features/index.php?aID=34 LuckyLouie 04:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Leap? Not sure. Well anyway, I just put Ireland Castle for now. Cyberia23 05:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It's Definately 'Leap Castle' but it's not pronounced 'Leep.' Insert non-formatted text here
Leap Castle has an article here - funny, it's supposedly near Birr Castle - in the same county at least. I can't wait to watch this episode, I hope it's good. Nice to see some haunts outside the USA. There are a lot of creepy places especially in the British Isles. Cyberia23 09:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Plumbers by day?

Someone once took the number of GH episodes and multiplied it by the average number of days TAPS claims to spend in production and added all the convention, seminar, autograph signings, publicity and paranormal retreat appearances they have scheduled and came up with some ungodly number of days, which seems to indicate they are not literally "plumbers by day and ghost hunters by night". (One day every 4 months is not a "day job") Must we allow SciFi's PR fiction to be quoted as fact? Granted they may have some arrangement with Roto Rooter, but can we at least agree they are no longer plumbers "by day"? How about saying "...featuring Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson, Roto-Rooter plumbers who investigate claimed hauntings and ghosts as part of The Atlantic Paranormal Society (TAPS). " LuckyLouie 05:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sure they make enough money from the show that they can forgo their "day job". But since the show still says they work for Roto-Rooter I don't know where that anon-user got the info that they didn't work for them anymore, so I changed it. I guess the reword you suggested would be better. Cyberia23 07:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

They don't work for Roto-Rooter anymore. I think that shoud be a fact listed in the first part of the artical.--76.171.9.67 07:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so but give a source to verify it. A "credible" source, not just "I read/heard it somewhere". Cyberia23 09:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hard to source such info, they keep the lid on tight. My best guess is that they are technically on the books as employees of Roto Rooter, but they only make publicity appearances and videotape for the show. Therefore they can still say they are Roto Rooter plumbers, so what the article says in the opening paragraph is nominally true. LuckyLouie 16:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Source please...

I removed the following: "The show is no longer succesful and has lost the majority of its fans." - We would need to have a source for a comment like that. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if there was a source, it would be entirely some critic's opinion and doesn't belong here. Having gone three seasons it's obviously successful. Cyberia23 01:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New episodes?

I notice that there haven't been any new episodes aired this season since November or so? On the page here it says the next one is scheduled to air in "June 2007"...based on what? Why has this show been off the air for so long?? Sigil7 03:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I hear its because almost everybody started hating TAPS after season three. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.206.4.89 (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
Right here - here center of page. Ghost Hunters will come back this summer AND.... AND... for the show's haters, you will blessed with a FOURTH SEASON as well. Cyberia23 19:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Is anything documented on what happened in season 3 to create such negative sentiment towards the show?

[edit] Unsourced?????!!!

I have reworded this this to make it apparent that the entirety of what is being described is coming from the aired episode, so that no other source than the official televised episode is required. All shows have stuff like this in it, and it needs to stay in.: "In the third season, Hawes and Wilson have at least twice seen their own reflections on the thermal camera and become convinced they have caught evidence, debunking the possibility of the footage being their own reflections on-site only to have their younger co-workers point out to them that the footage is indeed their own reflection later on in the episode.("Live Halloween Special") In another third season episode, senior team member Steve Gonsalves believes he sees a disembodied face in the footage he is reviewing, but it ends up being revealed by the other team members later in the episode as a reflection of a pizza box."

This is just straight from the show! What more sources do we need? If we were writing about a book and said "It says this in the book." and we cite the book, do we really need it to be written about by someone else if we have established the notability of that book? Good god maybe I just don't understand something vital here, but how could nearly any of the articles about literature, shows, or music be written if the source material itself isn't a valid source, provided the subjects notability. What? Right!? --Ira-welkin 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ira. Yes, they see things or hear things, and then they later find out it's not what they think. This is probably done for suspense and to keep the episode interesting. Complaining about what happens in an episode is not really appropriate "criticism" as WP defines it. Plus, it's only your opinion. A fan may watch Steve screw up and the others bail him out and interpret that as "an example of the strength of TAPS teamwork" (or something). It's all very subjective. Valid criticism are sourced statements similar to those already in the paragraph. This article has been stable a long time. I have moved your criticism stuff to TRIVIA in hopes of heading off a battle between fans and critics here. LuckyLouie 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

*In the third season, Hawes and Wilson have at least twice seen their own reflections on the thermal camera and become convinced they have caught evidence, themselves debunking the possibility of the footage being their own reflections on-site only to have their younger co-workers point out to them that the footage is indeed their own reflection later on in the episode.[1]

*In another third season episode, senior team member Steve Gonsalves believes he sees a disembodied face in the footage he is reviewing, but it ends up being revealed by the other team members later in the episode as a reflection of a pizza box.

Sorry Ira. This (above) isn't really working as trivia either. It's no more notable than anything else in the show. If we start listing every time they make a mistake, then the trivia section will fill up with crap and cruft ("In episode 107, Brian feels something touch him but it turns out to be a cobweb" etc.). -- LuckyLouie 15:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well some third-party critic should write about it because i think that it lends credence to the frame-by-frame debunking of Grant's reflection in season 2. --Ira-welkin 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I know you're angry with the group, but it's best not to use the Wikipedia pages to go after them. You should write an article for Salon.com or www.randi.org. --- LuckyLouie 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the info about Donna Lacroix and the others. These "refs" were broken. Which could also be a clear sign of Vandalism. Until Proof is given that she is leaving. That is not to be put back up. Espeically since the whole was probably added by an IP who may hate the show. Angry Sun 00:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Docudrama or Reality television?

I haven't seen this programme. Looking through the material on the page, it sounds like a reality show, but currently the intro says one thing and the infobox says another. Looking at the current definitions of Docudrama and Reality television and from my own limited experience of each genre Ghost Hunters may be one or the other, but cannot be both. Any views? Mighty Antar 19:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's Reality Show. It's about actual people hunting actual ghosts. It's actually happening. You can even see a date on the Thermal Monitor. Angry Sun 23:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location

Where is the TAPS headquarters located, i know it's in warwick RI, but what is the actual address? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.205.181 (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the TAPS website, the address is: 3297 Post Rd, Warwick, RI 02886 (www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com) 67.169.210.196 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link to SkepticalViewer

There's an external site that does balanced/skeptical reviews of Ghost Hunters: Skeptical Viewer. I'd add it, but I'm one of the authors on the site. Is it proper for me to add the link myself? (Objections?) Otherwise, if anyone else would be interested in checking out the site and evaluating whether or not they'd like to add it, I'd appreciate it. Stephen e nelson (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Donna issue

I'm not really buying User:Soul Eater Zero's claim that Donna supposedly left TAPS because of how the show's producers were treating her. If she left TAPS because they were treating her like crap on Ghost Hunters then why did she leave and go do Ghost Hunters International? (Which is still part of TAPS by the way). Plus, this supposed "blog" link looks really fishy - for a girl who claims she's "well educated" she can't spell worth a damn. Looks bogus to me, of course it could have been written in haste and anger, but more likely it's BS since the link looks like copy/pasta from something else and isn't the original source of this statement. Either additional sources are needed to prove it's a legit statement by Donna or it should be deleted. It's a bold claim and that link still isn't cutting it. Does anyone else think so? Cyberia23 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The blog link isn't even a blog, it is an angelfire site. If there was ever a blog post by Donna about this, which I do not actually doubt there was, the angelfire site looks like someone just copied it and posted it there, perhaps so they could use it as a reference in a Wikipedia article. There is no way to verify whether or not Donna wrote the material on the angelfire site.
Let's assume that we did have a blog post that is confirmed to be written by Donna; we would then have to figure out if its inclusion is notable or not. Additionally, it is a primary source, in my opinion, so we would have to be careful about not violating WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.
But that is getting ahead of myself, because we do not actually know for certain if these words are Donna's words. They're hosted on an unidentifiable free angelfire site. Until a proper source is found there is not much question on whether or not it can be removed. daveh4h 15:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, it's obvious that the link is not the original statement by a long shot. It's not even dated. Originally, "Soul Eater" posted a link directly to an article on TAPS's official website. I took it down, becuase going there, it appeared that you had to register to the TAPS forum before you could access the site - to me that was spamming, so I deleted it. You shouldn't have to join something to see a linked resource. Right there that set off a red flag. Now we get this new link to Angelfire, again, clearly not a legitimate source.
Your also right about notability - first off this article is about the show itself - not the "drama" or the affairs of its cast members. If Donna maybe had her own page here, (which may also concern notability issues), then such statements (if verified) should go there. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a forum post (even hosted by the official website, where the TAPS members could presumably lay claim to their own screennames), MySpace post, or website post does NOT satisfy WP:RS. I also wonder if this is simply a repeat of stuff that's been previously discussed above on this page, for example see #Trivia section above - I'm not sure what "info about Donna Lacroix and the others" was removed (and right now I don't feel like hunting through the page history to find diffs), but I do have to wonder if this is simply a re-occurrence of the same stuff as before. --Umrguy42 (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
(struck through above) found the diff[1], not really the same issue in that go-round. but still. --Umrguy42 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Forum posts are usually not considered a reliable source. Blogs usually aren't either, but they are used as sources more often than forum posts. The problem with the citation this person provided was that you had to register to view the forum, and even then there was no direct link to the forum post that he or she was referencing. But this is a moot point now, since it seems the user has removed this material. I skimmed "Donna's myspace blog" (who knows if it is hers) and didn't find anything. I agree with Cyberia though, if Donna had an article then this material may be included in it, but as it is right now--with no other sources available--it is probably not a notable event. daveh4h 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)