Talk:The Atlantic Paranormal Society/Archive 1

message: Today TAPS released their first video game, and I added the reference to the article. --12.206.2.37 00:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added 'Apparitions' Video Game to Activities 

message: It seems to me that if one goes to the Atlantic Paranormal Society official site you can clearly see from the links on the front page that they engage in the selling of merchandise, magazine subscriptions, and advertising space in magazines. One can see from their schedule that they are constantly making various lectures or holding 'special ghost hunting' opportunities to pay a few hundred dollars to go ghost hunting with them at famous sites from their TV show. To not include these clear activities in a list of the activities of the group is strongly biased. In what sense is it fair to remove these factual statements? I had worded it thusly: 
"They attempt to raise money to fund their activities by selling magazines, merchandise, DVD's, and advertising space in their magazines. They also accept compensation for their services due to the large amount of travel that they put in. In addition, several of the TAPS team are on the Sci Fi network payroll as consultants to the show Ghost Hunters. One other primary objective of TAPS is to make the rounds on the college lecture and convention circuit, as various members are constantly booked at such events, and command high rates to come and speak. It can also be seen from their schedule on their website that they have begun offering more and more 'Meet TAPS' type events in which, for a fee, you can go ghost hunting with them at famous sites."
All of these are facts. Perhaps it could be worded better. I submit it to the community to do so.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.46.28 (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to the Groups Activities 

message: The group are not important in the slightest, their temporary fame bubble has burst and they do not deserve this big of a section. They charge incredible amounts for their lectures and they are horrible people.
This prominence refers to home and business owners feeling comfortable with letting them investigate and the frequency of requests of TAPS members to give lectures or analyze evidence that other groups have collected, and does not refer to the show. In fact, the prominence of TAPS in their field was achieved well before the show Ghost Hunters featured them. It is the prominence of the group -outside- the field that has expanded because of this show. TAPS existed for a decade before the show was made, and were quite well known as well as running the most visited paranormal website in the world. --Ira-welkin 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group Having Prominence In Field 

message: It's clear now that several members 'left' to go start a spin off series, 'Ghost Hunters International.' Odds are this show will never get off the ground as it contains Andy Andrews, who is the most unfilmable member ever to grace TAPS. Being as many of the members who make up that show very publicly 'left' TAPS, a greater degree of manipulation has been previously suspected. Also mind boggling: the idea that there will be a 'spinoff' series when they haven't shown all the episodes filmed over a year ago. It sure is a screwy world.
What's with the past and present members of TAPS? Don't we think the current members are enough? VX 13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the list appears to contain members and former members who may or may not have participated in the TV show, I think such a listing is a good resource for future researchers who may want to cross-reference this information for purposes of fact-checking and investigations into the group's history. LuckyLouie 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? I'm trying to think of an example of why future researchers would find this important, LL...not coming up with anything. Do you not think it seems rather odd to list the past members of this particular group? VX 00:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had heard of someone that was researching a web article on TAPS and looking for former members to interview. But if TAPS keeps such records in the public domain, then I agree, it has no place in this artcle. LuckyLouie 00:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no lists of past members in public domain on TAPS. It isn't up to one guy to decide what reasons future researchers might have for looking up information. Is that really the intent of wikipedia? Why erase truthful, valid information with no bias, such as 'who was in the group,' on the grounds that it is 'probably not helpful.' Of course it isn't helpful to someone who doesn't like TAPS and thinks that they are all a bunch of fakers. That view ISN'T the only view, and it doesn't deserve to push ALL OTHERS OUT OF HERE. Honestly. --Ira-welkin 00:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "grounds" that it's not helpful? Is this a court of law? From first reading it I found myself wondering WHY former members would be listed. It seems strange. I've not seen this type of thing elsewhere. It's out of place in an article about this group. If you wanted to include ALL truthful information we would need to include what each member wore on all past and present investigations, what they had for breakfast, who their parents are, are they still alive, do they drink tea or coffee.....VX 13:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/members.html has a member list. Not sure if it is current, or shows past members or not. LuckyLouie 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It definatly doesn't show past members, and even doesn't show many of the current ones. --Ira-welkin 23:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership List 

message: Indeed, please keep all this stuff on the ghost hunters official site where hardly anybody will find it.
All your guys are doing is repeating infomation already contained in another article. Cyberia23 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All-Caps is considered shouting. It is utterly annoying to read this type of ranting over and over. VX 13:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you indeed file a petition? If so, what was the result or are you still waiting? VX 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please keep [[Ghost Hunters]] stuff on the Ghost Hunters page! 

message: There is no legitimacy to the claim that they are the most visited paranormal site, based on hits per day. That may have been true at one point but they never made the true stats available or gave any inkling that they were keeping true track. Like their foolish assurance they were a 'non-profit organization' when they didn't even know what that meant.
The line --
"The TAPS website, featuring some of the evidence they have collected in video and audio form, is currently the most visited paranormal website in the world with over 50,000 hits a day"
This needs a citation. Also of note, one needs to gather the site visit count, not the site hit count. There is a huge stat difference there, with visits including just unique visits, whereas hits includes repeat visitors, image loads, etc. As a result, the hit count grossly inflates the amount of visitors. Seicer 21:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact Checking 

message: There is no legitimacy, anyone who perceives any is in denial.
I think this section was a good attempt at addressing the controversy, but falls short in a few areas.
I see what appears to be an oversimplified view, attempting to divide TAPS critics into 4 distinct categories. While some are accurate, there are, in reality, many variations. For example, many paranormal groups feel that TAPS fakes their evidence. However according to this list of categories, they would be classified as as "Critics who don't believe in the paranormal".
This section also fails to address one of the key issues that critics have about TAPS, which is their alleged "debunking" approach to investigation. TAPS is purportedly dedicated to investigating sites that may be haunted from a skeptic's point of view, instead of from a "believers" standpoint. Yet from what we see on the TV show, debunking is actually used to separate "real hauntings" from "false hauntings". (i.e. "That noise you heard on the porch was just the wind, but the apparition we saw in the bedroom was real") From reviewing a statistical analysis of the show, I see that TAPS formally pronounces a site "haunted" 60% of the time, and nearly 80% of the time find "unexplained activity" that is treated as if it's paranormal. Do skeptics pronounce a majority of sites "haunted"? It certainly doesn't seem like TAPS operates from "a skeptics point of view" to me. Some of the group's harshest critics go so far as to say that TAPS merely poses as skeptics in order to sway unbelievers and lend greater impact to their "paranormal encounters" (i.e. The Mulder Effect).
Also there are critics who point to TAPS apparent unfamiliarity with the nature and capabilities of their instrumentation. The IR thermometers being erroneously used to measure ambient air temperature are a prime example.  
And then there's also the whole Roto Rooter issue. No one minds that due to the demands of their radio guest dates, book deals, nationwide personal appearances, and TV show filming schedule, they don't have time to actually work as plumbers any more, but for the group's official site and TV show to promote them as "plumbers by day and ghost hunters by night" smacks of untruthfulness and audience manipulation. It's a small thing, but for a group whose findings hinge on their personal credibility, it's puzzling.
These criticisms are not just coming from the skeptical community. They are being expressed by casual viewers and dedicated paranormal investigators alike.
I'm not sure how these concerns can be expressed in a NPOV manner, but I'm going to do some thinking on it. LuckyLouie 06:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think also about what a wikipedia encyclopedia reference should and should not contain. I am seeing a little bit of what we were wrestling with over in the Ghost Hunter's article. Why there should be two references in wikipedia on the same group is beyond me. VX 13:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After doing some thinking about it, I am asking myself "why muck up an article about TAPS (the organization) with critique and defense?" My guess is that this section was created to contain 'criticism', but in an attempt to be even-handed, it ended up adding in categories of believers and non believers. This page may not be the place for a detailed criticism of the group's actions. Does such critique rightly belong on the Ghost Hunters page? LuckyLouie 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About them statistically pronouncing a majority of sites haunted, that is only televised investigations. They do many more that aren't televised. They usually prefer to show more interesting episodes. There are even three unreleased investigations coming out on the upcoming DVD. But they do investigations year round. --Ira-welkin 21:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ira, I'm not going to argue point-counter-point with you here. Please add suggestions for what should be in the article or how to make it better. LuckyLouie 01:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to include this type of information at all, making the "criticism" section stand glaringly out. Put in a damn note or two about criticism and leave it at that. Why are you trying to make an argument right from the get-go? This isn't about massive controversy; it's about TAPS, simply, the basics first. Then decide if it needs more detail! VX 09:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various perceptions of the validity and legitmacy of TAPS 

message: This section is pointless. 
In the article there is reference to TAPS family. The first sentence is confusing. TAPS stands for The Atlantic Paranormal Society, as I understand it. Does TAPS itself want to call other paranormal groups "TAPS groups?" And, do other paranormal research groups want to be called, or, referred to as TAPS groups?
We are starting to sound, here, like TAPS groups are a growing phenomenon? Is this true or are paranormal researchers looking for their own, separate identity. Certainly the ones I've talked with are. VX 12:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked with SIGHT and learned what a TAPS Family is. I've changed the descriptive sentence to reveal what they are. Now, I wonder if it's appropriate for the list of all the organizations around the world to be included here. From what I've learned wikipedia is not for advertising. Will someone else please critically weigh in on this? VX 13:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pure and simple, it's networking. It's nice to be kind to your network members and list them whenever possible, but doing it on your own website is appropriate and more helpful to the groups, not in wikipedia. VX 13:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to agree here. The network of sites, while useful to a handful of users, is not encylopedia approperiate. I am going to ask that it be removed. Seicer 15:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As with the TAPS membership list, I feel that a list of groups associated with TAPS is a good resource for future researchers to use in investigations into the group's history. I agree that the present long list should be removed from the page. But perhaps there is a link to this list that could be added to a reference of the concept of the "TAPS family". LuckyLouie 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Future researchers can do their own google searches, no? TAPS should list their "TAPS Family" on its own website, where it belongs. Interestingly, I don't see such information in that location. VX 00:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the link to the long list of TAPS family:  http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/linksinvestigators.html How about we dispense with the list and just put the link? LuckyLouie 00:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, since I see at least two wikipedians plus myself who agree the article would be better served by a link and not a list, I am going to make the edit. If anyone disagrees, we can always revert it back and discuss. LuckyLouie 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to agree with LuckyLouie here. It's on another site and is more approperiately served through a link than a bloated list. This shortens the article considerably and is better served per Wiki standard (for external links). Seicer 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so TAPS does have this listing. VX 13:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "TAPS family" 

message: I've taken out a bit of "marketing", streamlined some of the text for readability, and tried to balance the presentation of the group's methods (the previous one made them sound like OSHA, checking people's homes for toxic chemicals and electrical safety). I invite the gang here to check it to ensure NPOV. LuckyLouie 04:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current edits 

message: This article, right up front, needs to tell me, the reader, 
1. What TAPS is.
2. About the type of thing TAPS is. Meaning, it is like myriad organizations of real people around the globe. The overview of the type of thing it is. 
3. How TAPS relates to these other organizations. 
4. Who is directly involved, meaning Grant and Jason and who the insiders are who started the group. Where it is, even why it is (i.e. what was the impetus for the group TAPS). 
Then, it simply needs to say: 
1. What the areas of inquiry are: (i.e. Lead Investigator, Historian, Demonologist, counselor, and so forth). 
2. Equipment used: IR therm, voice recorders, etc. (i.e. How they gather information too.) This is currently done well in the "objectives" section but some more needs to be said first. 
3. Members, past and present: who's been involved. 
4. Who they serve: Maybe move the part about the group's threefold purpose to come in at this point. 
This article needs to do this in a VERY dispassionate manner. For instance, it goes off the dispassionate track when it tells me how the group wants to share their stories with the world note in the threefold purpose. 
:To get off on better footing, for someone wanting to read about them in wikipedia, the article might read like this (along these lines, not exactly like this): 
:TAPS is a paranormal investigative group, meaning, its members visit sites purported to be haunted for the purpose of validating or invalidating these type of stories. Though the group was organized in (such and such year) it is similar to groups that have gained popularity in the last decade. TAPS leads an effort to network with these similar groups, calling the campaign the TAPS FAMILY. 
:TAPS is made popular by the tv show Ghost hunters which features the group blah blah blah. (No need to for the directive "see the ghost hunter page for that...." as is currently written on the top of the page~!
:Then who is directly involved, what the areas of inquiry are, members past and present, who they serve and how, as outlined above. 
:::Currently, OBJECTIVES looks great. 
:::Try to make it simpler, over all, that is all. VX 09:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something LL did very well in the Ghost Hunters article, but after much work by everyone. I suggest a similar thing be done here. VX 09:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did some more cleanup. If you feel it needs a restructure, give it a try LuckyLouie 05:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not found enough detail about TAPS history, definitions of job titles (lead investigator etc.), or how they relate to other groups (except the family affiliation) to flesh out the article as you suggested. Maybe that's why the entry is so minimal. LuckyLouie 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am thinking that TAPS needs to be put into the framework as existing along side of myriad similar groups around the globe, for one. Similar groups need to be referenced to put the group in perspective as TAPS being as highly publicicized as it is, would have readers believe they are the one and only, or, "the original." Already we see paranormal groups referred to as "TAPS Groups." That framework needs to be put in right from the get go, for one. I will work on it, as soon as I can. VX 06:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization and Perspective of Subject Matter 

message: Is not necessary or appropriate since the group itself purports to be highly skeptical, doing debunking of all kinds of things, except its own antics. Criticism is appropriate, particularly in this article, since the group doesn't submit to independent review, which would legitimize IT. It's a bit too early to be doing this type of thing to the article. I wish the person who did this would carry on a discussion about his/her actions rather than behave like a vandal. Thanks. VX 06:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the discussion in the section ..."validity of TAPS." VX 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template on the Criticism Section 

message: Keep the above section going in case someone else wants to weigh in. OK, by the way, those two criticisms above were just summaries of the issues themselves. HOW to state those issues is the real crux of the matter. As Ira suggested, one side shouldn't appear to be 'righter' than the other, and this goes along with Wiki policy. However, I don't think the way to do this is point-counter-point. That is not an effective neutral presentation method simply because the last one to counterpoint always has more weight. Let's examine how some other controversial articles handle their Criticism sections. LuckyLouie 23:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree, there has to be a responsible way to state the views of both sides without it seeming to cancel out the arguments of either side. The critics have some good points and so do the supporters. I think we are getting closer to a resolution. --64.198.46.28 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions on HOW to state Criticism

message: It is proposed...that we remove the text of the present Criticism section in this article, since it is a confusing morass of point-counter-point. We can replace it with a note and link to the Ghost Hunters article's Criticism section.  I hope everyone agrees that this temporary solution can stand until Mediation begins or consensus is reached.  LuckyLouie 00:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should just leave it like it is. VX 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary Solution to Criticism Debate 

message: I started a discussion on it in the Ghost Hunters article, since it's my favorite of the two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ghost_Hunters VX 04:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabal Mediation