Talk:Ghost Hunters (TV series)

Satire

This show needs to be labeled as reality satire. For one, ghosts are not real. There is no reason to treat the program as some sort of scientific reality-based program. Secondly, the show is scripted and fictional. This has been proven and is INDESPUTABLE. Scifi makes no claims about the truthfulness of this show, so the article should follow suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.29.75 (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please prove proof that TAPS's findings are INDESPUTABLY wrong. Thanks. Kf4mgz (talk)

Please don't attempt to provide any proof. The channel and producer to not label it as a goof and reliable sources aren't overly critical regarding it being a fake or not. If you want to dispute its inclusion on the Sci-Fi network I reccomend you send them an email. If you want to dispute the validity of ghosts there is more than likely tons of forums you can debate the subject at. If you really want to improve the article on Wikipedia try finding some good sources and include them as appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

On a similar note: The scenes of them taking calls from the pretty girl look staged. That is the nature of reality TV but has anyone seen a source discussing that (over production?) or is it just my observation?Cptnono (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anon says... "For one, ghosts are not real."... and you have INDISPUTABLE (by the way you spelled it wrong) evidence that they don't exist of course. Let's see it. Maybe what is shown on Ghost Hunters is fake, and there is no reliable scientific methodology to finding proof of the existence of ghosts, but you cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that ghosts do not exist. It's like saying "God doesn't exist because I say so." You have absolutely no evidence to prove it. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyberia, let me give you a brief explanation of how science works since you seem to be slightly unversed in it. In every field of science (of those which use the scientific method) there is something called the "burden of proof". This can basically be seen as a filter which helps keep out the crap and pseudo-science. Basically what it states is that not only do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the burden of proof for such claims falls upon the person making claims against things which are already established or which are not established at all. Therefore, since there has never been any solid SCIENTIFIC proof that ghosts exist, the burden for extraordinary evidence falls upon those making the claim that ghosts do exist. Do you understand what I'm saying? It is not the responsibility of scientists to prove to you that ghosts don't exist, it is your responsilibity to find overwhelming evidence USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD which shows that they do. If this were not the case, then there would be more chaos than there is already in scientific fields. For example, I could say "There's a purple dragon in my garage. BUT you can't see him. Why? He's invisible. You can't detect his heat or measure his footsteps. Why? Because he's incorporeal too. So how do we know he exists? Well because I said so of course, and because you have no evidence to show otherwise!!!!" Sorry but that's not how science works. That is how religion works and why it is called 'faith'. It is not your job to prove that the purple dragon in my garage doesn't exist, the burden of proof falls on me to prove that the dragon really does exist. So unless you have INDISPUTABLE evidence that ghosts do exist, and have the research ready to be reviewed by peers in a scientific and academic circles, then no, there is no evidence that ghosts exist, and simply countering with 'there's no evidence that they don't' shows a complete failure to understand the scientific method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.156.244 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand how science works just fine there anon - I'm not a idiot. My point was to say things like "the show sucks", "is a total fraud", "should be taken off the air" because we all supposed to know that ghosts don't exist and can't be ever be proven, is not a valid reason for saying such things in this article. Those kind of comments are personal opinion anyway and are not permitted in Wikipedia. Cyberia23 (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you were one of those anon users (you know who you are), you should have followed these useful links before commenting: straw man, pseudoskepticism, agnosticism, argument from ignorance, burden of proof, and {{relevance fallacies}}. serioushat 02:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion let alone debate on the subject or semantics. That is not how this project works. Please find reliable sources and use them but keep anything less out of the article.Cptnono (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

How can the criticism heaped upon them after the Halloween episode not be talked about at greater length? There are a number of notable sources that go on at length about the highly disingenuous nature of a number of Ghost Hunters activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.75.89 (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading about Sites Investigated

• Ep. 401 March 5, 2008 Fort Mifflin Selletti, SFO, Anthony L., Fort Mifflin: A Paranormal History, A. L. Selletti Press, Chester, PA, 19013, October 2008, ISBN 978-0-615-22847-1, 248-pages

I have removed this section. The article is about a tv show. If people want to know more about this topic, they can read the article about Fort Mifflin. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this. All relevent links are there for people who want to do further reading into the sites. If the Further Reading section contained books, etc about the show; then it would be all right. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Should the "further reading about sites" stuff be redistributed to the actual articles about the sites? Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely it could if it's relevant to that particular article. A book about Fort Mifflin is definitely something that could be used in the Fort Mifflin article. I would list it as a resource, though, instead of having its own section for it. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, the information is already in the subjugate articles. ie Fort Mifflin already has the information there. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Live at Fort Delaware DVD

When is the DVD suppose to come out??? I've got X-mas money for it because my friend couldn't find it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.198.92 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The list of DVDs in the article is correct up until Fort Delaware. It hasn't been released yet. The show was filmed not that long ago and it can take a few months for a DVD to be produced. Someone slapped the release of the DVD in the list not to long after the show aired assuming one will be made. It should either be removed or tagged until the DVD actually comes out. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of faking evidence

I think the details of the evidence faking should be explained – not just say "stuff was faked" and leave it at that. Unfortunately all the websites "talking" about the faked 2008 Halloween evidence are personal blogs and forums. There are no "reliable sources" like Hollywood Reporter or other entertainment news talking about it and it's probably because they have better things to report on. What happens on other reality shows is "bigger entertainment news" than what happens on a nerdy show like Ghost Hunters. There are plenty of video criticisms on youtube covering this incident, but we're not supposed to link to Youtube per Wikipedia policy, so to report the issue you get what get when you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel with a few fan-blogs and forums complaining the show is rigged. I tried to fix the links and wording of the section. Hopefully editors will stop criticizing the criticism – but that's like asking for world peace.Cyberia23 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't "criticizing the criticism," so to speak. I've become really critical of the show myself since season 1 when they hardly came across any evidence, and Jason and Grant seem almost bitter recently about calling a place haunted sometimes instead of truly excited like they were even as recently as Waverly Hills Sanitarium. Really it just comes down to the fact that seeing blogs being used as valid references is a pet peeve of mine. Sorry for causing trouble! KhalfaniKhaldun 16:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It was nothing against you. The links that were up there were removed once before by someone and I put them back, and now again they were deleted (by you this time), so I just wanted to be clear on why those sources were picked and it's because there isn't anything better. As a person who watched that live show and saw the controversial scenes I can say what the bloggers are saying is at least accurate - it was suspicious as it looked like Grant was faking the collar pull and the audio of the voice sounded piped in, and I figured they were good examples of what Ive seen critics saying. I can understand how they can be unreliable as they are just someone's opinions and there is no solid evidence – but no credible information source is talking about it. Seriously, even if GH caught empirical evidence of a ghost on video, no "credible news" source would talk about that either. Cyberia23 (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

'Original Research'

Mentioning a third incident from the same episode the other two incidents in that section is is -not- original research. Citing material from a TAPS produced and marketed DVD is -NOT- original research. If SOME parts of the shows and DVD's are fair to write 'they look for ghosts by doing this' about and other parts of the SAME shows and DVD's aren't fair because they cast the group in a different light, I don't think I understand wikipedia correctly.

The thing I don't like about this article is the mere claims of TAPS in the heading are presented as fact. It makes it almost needed to include ways in which they violate their own statements. Of course, the solution is to not present their claims as fact. --Contributions/216.17.75.89 (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the DVDs is original research, or at best synthesis, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. When adding information it needs to be reliably sourced. Nev1 (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The interpretation of the show's intro then that TAPS literally do what they say is no more or less original research. The DVD's show large numbers of crew members filling the locations. The show tells that TAPS look for ghosts and use EMFs. What is the difference? Could I be merely 'interpreting' seeing these people in the DVD? Are you -sure- you are making sense here? --Contributions/216.17.75.89 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The DVD is fine as a source for saying that they use EMF detectors for example and that there is a large cast and crew on site (although I would have thought that's obvious, it is a TV show after all), but the part where you say that makes their finds unreliable is original research as you're drawing your own conclusions. You don't know what precautions they take and your assumption is uninformed. They may take none at all, but you need a reliable source to talk about it. Nev1 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In these edits, you are making a personal analysis of the video content - the video sources do not explicitly make statements supporting your additions. Please locate a reliable source for these additions.

As for the "I don't like it" issue; none of the section headers appear to be claims of fact - which statements, specifically, are you disputing? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Should I add in 'TAPS Paramagazine DVD' as a reference? If that is not allowed, please erase all other references to show or DVD in keeping with what is apparently your policy.

The only reason the TAPS goals aren't stated as fact is that I just earlier changed it to say 'purport.' So its been like that for years without anybody caring that it was stating PRO-TAPS things in a way that you suddenly have a huge problem with now that I do it. And unlike TAPS claiming 'we don't believe all evidence we see,' there is no need to 'interpret' seeing 20 people standing around with boom mics and equipment. They simply ARE there. --Contributions/216.17.75.89 (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how something we can clearly see is not allowed. If a 'Dick Van Dyke' show article says 'Dick trips over an ottoman in the intro,' would that be original research? Or would somebody have to write a book. I think it is clear that television programs can be sources. I don't understand where the interpretation aspect comes from.

Consider this passage:

"TAPS purports to not believe every piece of evidence gathered is proof of the paranormal."

Until I came along today it just said 'TAPS do not believe every piece of evidence...' Why didn't you jump in and change it? That is just malarky and is just something they SAY on the show, being reported as fact. Not something we can factually see. Why did this not bother you? --Contributions/216.17.75.89 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not seem to be nearly as fast to answer me as you are to erase my statements. I wonder if you have a satisfactory answer. --Contributions/216.17.75.89 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the answer I gave earlier but which you appear to have missed. Here it is again: The DVD is fine as a source for saying that they use EMF detectors for example and that there is a large cast and crew on site (although I would have thought that's obvious, it is a TV show after all), but the part where you say that makes their finds unreliable is original research as you're drawing your own conclusions. You don't know what precautions they take and your assumption is uninformed. They may take none at all, but you need a reliable source to talk about it. Nev1 (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why the revised paragraph that merely says the unseen crew is present in great number was removed. You think it's really so obvious there is a large crew there when they never show them and are always like 'who is that upstairs? jen and steve are outside, who could it be?' when they know there are 20-30 people around... they try to act like they aren't there and like they have account of all people on site at all times. Which isn't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.75.89 (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous Claims Presented as Pure Truth

By not saying 'purports' in certain sentences this article is simply spewing Ghost Hunters claims as fact. That is not acceptable. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It states their belief - not a statement of fact. The wording is pretty clear about that. However, the mention of portraying the plumbing job should probably remain (although the wording needs improved) - but a reliable source should be found for that. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That highlights the issue. Nobody is talking about these guys. Most of the sources ON here are from homecooked blogs that have their own domain name so seem more legitimate. As people have said, TAPS could discover obvious proof of ghosts and even then no notable source would be likely to cover it. That creates a problem: a -vortex- of sourcability that finds only TAPS created information to have a notable source. Hell, even things FROM their DVD's and show are apparently off limits simply because... I'm not sure why. Nobody ever explained if it was possible to say 'Dick Van Dyke is seen tripping over an ottoman' in the intro to his show, or if someone would have to write a book about it first or else it's 'original research.' I wonder why nobody answered this.

If it really does simply state their belief, then surely 'PURPORTS' is a better word than 'DOES.' If you are claiming as you do that it does just state their belief, why not alter the article to in ANY WAY reflect that? --216.17.75.89 (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence states their belief. Adding "purports" suggests that they do not trully believe it. Unless you have a reliable source stating that they do not truly believe what they claim to believe, the original wording is adequate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is another alternative: they make these claims to dupe people into thinking they have more rigorous standards than they ever demonstrate. They always claim to reject evidence, try to -disprove- it, etc, but then they jump up and down when they see their own reflection saying 'my god a ghost!' until the junior members point out that it is just their reflection. THAT is what I mean. 'Purports' simply means 'they say' they believe it, not 'they lie about it.' From Merriam-Webster: 'purport: To intend to show; to intend; to mean; to signify; to import;"

Stop making it into some crazy word that means 'act like they do but secretly they don't.' It's the ONLY safe way to show they are merely making these claims, otherwise the article starts spewing out TAPS propaganda as unqualified fact. Doesn't that make any sense? It simply means they claim that. It -IS- what they claim. You or I haven't seen them actually DO these things, and no books are written about it, so it is safest to put that they claim to do so. It doesn't mean they definitely don't, but wikipedia can't just put everything somebody claims as fact either, simply because they said it. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The current sentence states "TAPS does not believe every piece of evidence gathered is proof of the paranormal." It is quite clear that this is their belief, it is not a fact. Your proposed change read: "TAPS purports to not believe every piece of evidence gathered is proof of the paranormal." Unless you have a reliable source stating that they do not actually believe what they claim to believe, then adding "purports" adds nothing other than POV bias. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording

Here are some phrases from the article.

"which may be why the Sci-Fi Channel categorizes the show as a docu-soap."

Oh, may it be? Why else might it be? Any theories, or other original research? This doesn't sound right does it. But of course it is left in.

"In earlier episodes, part of the hour showed Jason and Grant during their plumbing job or personal lives but that has diminished since then."

Indeed? How do you know it has diminished? Is it because they mentioned it specifically, or because someone was analyzing the episodes over time and reached the conclusion, on their own, that they weren't showing these segments 'as much.' It seems like someone was just watching the show and putting in what they felt was happening. I am pretty sure no book or publication states this view, but somebody had it on their own.

--216.17.75.89 (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I love how these phrases don't bother you. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't planning to respond - you've made it clear repeatedly that you either do not understand or choose to not accept Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that you're more interrested in pushing a POV bias rather than accepting the concensus of opinion from multiple other editors. However, I did fix one of the items that you identified as it was an issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. I am a huge jerk who just wants to push his view but you still agree with me about the view I'm a jerk for having and have changed it. Thanks. I -would- have had no problem accepting the 'consensus' of opinion if it wasn't hypocritical. Now that you have changed the article the claim of hypocrisy on your part can't be made as strongly.

I strongly dislike how people find it so easy to ignore valid points online made by someone who doesn't agree with them. I never thought you were just some crazy person 'determined' to do 'Thing X' at all costs, but because I don't share -exactly- the same views as you, you had no problem assuming I was just some nutjob who just wanted to push my own view. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider the source of my seeming inability to comply. For -years- phrases have been in the article that are faulty for the same reasons ones I put in that were IMMEDIATELY taken out. The reasons given for most of the reverts to my edits were the same reasons the other phrases were unacceptable. I found it to be completely ridiculous that those were left in, while what I put was taken out. All or nothing. That's all I wanted. It burned my blood to see crap like 'maybe that's why Sci-Fi says so!' while 'you can clearly see them walk to their marks, ask if everything is ready, and then begin to act like they were walking down the corridor the whole time' is somehow ORIGINAL RESEARCH. That, to any outside observer, is stupid. Now that the other statement is removed (of course years after being put in, as compared to the 20 minutes or so my observation of the content of the show was online) I have less grounds to be upset. Does that make -any- sense to you at all? --216.17.75.89 (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the list of acceptable primary sources, television programming IS identified as a valid source, in and of itself. This limits the ability of the editors here to simply erase segments that have been sourced to such materials. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice how both changes I pointed out were made, but I was still treated like some kind of slathering freak? --216.17.75.89 (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the ire of that IP address but I certainly have to say: after making the changes they request, those of you who argued so vociferously with them look like you have a little egg on your face to those of us on the outside. You did after all make the changes they requested. 'Assume good faith' is one of the tennants of wikipedia too, or didn't you know that? --97.116.86.49 (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It can look that way if you only look at this thread on the talk page. Look more closely at the anon's edits to the article and all posts to the talk page, and it gives the full picture. He was actually pushing many more changes with his edits to the article and in the earlier threads. Most of his edits were not NPOV and contained considerable original research.

Of the two changes identified by him in this thread - I agreed with one of them when he brought it up in an earlier thread - but I also stated that the wording needed improved as his original attempt at rewording it was again not a NPOV ... and the other change from this thread wasn't brought up by him in earlier discussions or edits, so was a new issue in this thread. The fact that these two final issues were valid does not mean the arguments against his other earlier edits were invalid. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, be that as it may, I too wish somebody notable would write about these things so they could be put in. But, alas, nobody but TAPS fans care. --97.116.86.49 (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's where many people get caught by surprise with Wikipedia: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. There's much which I believe to be true - but which I can't edit into articles because I've been unable (thus far) to find a reliable source to support those positions. I suspect the same issue exists for the anon - he may believe it true, his claims may even be true to some degree; but he also needs to accept the restrictions of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reality show, Documentary

The lead and infobox (and cats) say this program is a reality show and a documentary. This isn't referenced or mentioned anywhere in the body, violating lead and WP:V. Sources should be added or these statements should be removed. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen mention of the show being a "reality" program in multiple news articles (a quick Google search turned up several) ... but those could certainly be using the network's press releases as their source for clasifying the program. For the other, I found mention of "documentary-styled", but nothing thus far specifically calling it a "documentary" program. I need to run some errands for now, but will look closer at what sources I can find later today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For reference to being a "reality" series, I found several on-line references; some of those that are in more reliable sources that are free to view: New York Times - television review, TimeDaily.com (passing mention), BuddyTV - television review. These are just a handful of the many mentions, additional ones can be readily found/listed. To me, there's adequate sources available to leave the "reality" description.

As to the "documentary" description, I support removing that description from the article ... very few sources support that (one is the BuddyTV link, above). I noticed that even the show's own "About the show" page on the official website only describes it as a reality program, not as a documentary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Roto-Rooter Employment

I was doing some research and I came across this article: [1]. I think someone should add this possible discussion somewhere on either this article or their individual personal pages. Also in my research (due to the epidode on TV) I discovered they co-owned the Spalding Inn [2] and I added that info to their personal pages. All pages say they work for RR, but I think it would be important to label that they may just be there for legacy reasons. Does anyone agree/disagree? 97.123.114.50 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the statement that Roto-Rooter is their "day job" is a little dated. I will change. Cyberia23 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You are Right, Cyberia

Absolutely is the fact that I provided a reference to that they bought a bed and breakfast named the 'Spalding Inn' my 'personla' opinion as you put it.

I am too busy right now to put up sources for the seminars and from notable sources claiming this calls their credibility into question, but they exist and I will this afternoon. I do not have high hopes that you won't immediately erase it even when it is highly sourced, as you seem to be highly protective of the TAPS crew and wouldn't want anybody to know they bought a bed and breakfast and charge money for 'investigations' in it. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So they own the Spalding Inn, is that worth mentioning in the article about the TV show? The Spalding Inn website doesn't mention anything about seminars as you claim and neither did the link you provided. It's not relevant here, although it may be in the articles on Grant Wilson and Jason Hawes. Nev1 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

They had it declared haunted on the show. I will find the articles and post it in the talk page. It was featured on the show, declared 'haunted' and they do sell $200 tickets to investigate it. I will find this crap when I have time. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Their ownership of the inn is irrelevant to this article, but perhaps it can be mentioned on the TAPS article iteself or under Grant and Jason's articles. I'm not doubting they are offering tours or historic, haunted, or otherwise, and it may seem like a conflict of interest but it's not relevant here in this article. Cyberia23 (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's been on the show it probably is relevant. I'll await the sources the IP thinks they can provide. Verbal chat 18:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it was on the show - it was the "Spaulding Inn" case where GHI came in and guest-investigated it for them - but I don't recall Jason and Grant ever saying they bought it "because it was haunted" or they planned to conduct ghost tours there - so mentioning it for the show article doesn't seem worthwhile. They acted more like it was just a bed and breakfast that they decided to buy together... "Oh and what a coincidence! It just happens to have some weird activity going on"... at least this is how it seemed it was played off in the episode. Cyberia23 (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible useful reference - NY Times article, 10 Nov. 2009

Dunno if it'd be needed, but if it's useful for anything, thought I'd post it here - [3]. (I have to admit, I found it cuz Amy Bruni Tweeted it ;D) umrguy42 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

broken ref

the link in reference #7 (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-08-10.html) appears to down or broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donhoraldo (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)