Talk:Ghost Hunters (TV series)

message: Cite note #12 which goes to http://ghostdivas.mypodcast.com/200911_archive.html does not have any information, citing an error.  This calls the paragraph that references it into question.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.73.28 (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Non-existent

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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 . serioushat 02:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Satire

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Further Reading about Sites Investigated 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Live at Fort Delaware DVD 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Accusations of faking evidence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Outrageous Claims Presented as Pure Truth

message: I was doing some research and I came across this article: .  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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Roto-Rooter Employment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  You are Right, Cyberia 

message: Dunno if it'd be needed, but if it's useful for anything, thought I'd post it here - . (I have to admit, I found it cuz Amy Bruni Tweeted it ;D) umrguy42 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible useful reference - NY Times article, 10 Nov. 2009 

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks like the link was formatted incorrectly. I'm fixing it now. — e. ripley\talk 18:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, make sure that you sign your talk page comments.  You can do this easily by typing four tildes in a row like this:  ~~~~ -- when you hit save, it'll automatically fill out your username and a time and date stamp. — e. ripley\talk 18:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken ref 

message: As Grant's final episode has not yet aired (in fact, he doesn't wrap production until next month), I feel that he should be kept on the current investigators list until May 16, the day his final episode airs. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 00:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree. Also, from the FAQ on Jason's blog, in case there's confusion - Grant is leaving the show, and scaling back his work with TAPS - but he's not leaving TAPS entirely. umrguy42 16:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grant's departure 

message: sorry not real familar with all of this. I was looking for a list that showed every season and every episode in that season. Like that has been done for Law & Order. You can click the # season u want to look through and a page comes up wityh every episode for that season , a little on what its about , WHEN IT wqs aired and so on, like any special guest Stars. Ghost HUnters need that to. If I am overlooking it and it is here somewhere please help me find it. If it isjt, please think about having someone to do that. Thankyou  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.153.89 (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: List_of_Ghost_Hunters_episodes Look a little deeper... --ChadH (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the seasons 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ghost Hunters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421123443/http://www.cliqueclack.com/tv/2008/11/14/was-the-coat-pull-on-ghost-hunters-live-event-faked/ to http://www.cliqueclack.com/tv/2008/11/14/was-the-coat-pull-on-ghost-hunters-live-event-faked/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509170710/http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/abouttaps/members.html to http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/abouttaps/members.html
*Added  tag to http://www.syfy.com/gha/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091002002409/http://www.syfy.com/ghosthunters/ to http://www.syfy.com/ghosthunters/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was just wondering how someone becomes part of TAPS as an investagator? 2601:987:280:6C20:617B:BBAB:33E1:A247 (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does someone become part of TAPS family 

message: and certain episodes that I have seen I have dreamed of it before I seen it on the show like the one where the  Cameraman got knocked down I dream of what happing
 through everything was going on so I know what it was .  I don't understand it .your friend MaryLou 2601:547:1580:68F0:45FF:DBBB:7CAF:9FDE (talk) 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreams relates to Taps. Before seeing it on the t.v. show?