Talk:Ghost Hunters (TV series)/Archive 1

message: Copy of a Letter to Cyberia23
I defend the apparent repetition by pointing out that the initial mention of Ian Cashmore relates to distinguishing the show Ghost Hunters from the show Ghosthunters that was also made by Ian Cashmore, and disambiguifying that right up front, and then mentioning him again under 'critisms' section along with other criticisms. People might have a hard time telling 'Ghosthunters' from 'Ghost Hunters,' especially since they were both initially made by the same people. You have a hard time telling 'TAPS' apart from other paranormal groups, calling them 'TAPS Groups,' which is baseless and innacurate, a case of extreme simplification and injecting fallacy into the article. --Ira-welkin 01:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, be a smartass. Cyberia23 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: My argument is that the debating and critcism crap is far to lengthy for what this page is about. All those paragraphs can be summed up with a simple explanation. Wikipedia is not a debate board, it's about solid factual information. The article should consist of what the show is about, the unique aspects of it, whose in it, what do they do, some detail about episodes (which the episode list does a fine job of) and some links which can point to all the hoopla and controversy out there. This article was best the way it had it originally a few weeks ago, now it's a long winded diatribe of unecesary preaching and bickering. If I gave a crap I'd say screw all you guys and revert this page over and over in an edit war until one of us gets banned and the winner can have it their way, but you know I have better things to do. All I can say is thanks for making a mess of this place. It's freaking TV show, not a religion, get a life. Cyberia23 08:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Pressures to Reduce Article Information 

message: Firstly, they are not 'Executive' Producers. Not much is known outside the fact that they have been given the title 'Producer.' All that is known for sure is that they, because of this title, have -some- input into the format of the show. 
Erroneous Statement:*NOTE - Both Jason and Grant are listed in current show credits as "Executive Producer".
*NOTE - I have purchased the latest episode off of Itunes and just reviewed the credits. You are absolutely wrong. There are two executive producers: 
1) Craig Piligian 
2) Tom Thayer 
And Two 'Co-Executive Producers'
1) Rob Katz
2) Alan David
 
In addition, there are two other producers listed:
1) Jay Bluemke
2) Michael Becker (Co-Producer)
Jason and Grant are listed as merely 'Producers.' Thusly, the latest known fact is that they are 'Producers' only. Until you can give an episode number where they are listed otherwise, I submit that there is no known record of them ever being listed as 'Executive Producers.'
Their being given this title coincides with the: 
1) Lessening of using tension building techiques such as 'Flashing Scary Faces' 
2) Lessening of dwelling on intrapersonal issues and an increasingly positive atmosphere on the show, choosing to talk about the field of paranormal research more rather than forgetting computer mice and tables. 
The only episode which lists Jason and Grant first as producers is the final episode of the second season, 
*NOTE: Wrong.  See  tinyurl.com/q8d3c ~ UNSIGNED comment by 75.6.194.162
*NOTE: I did go there, not only does the listing of producers EXACTLY MATCH what I have written, it also incorrectly states that Jason and Grant are 'brothers,' which reduces its credibility. But, as it shows exactly what I have charted out above and that YOU are wrong, thank you for providing this information. --Ira-welkin 19:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Jason and Grant's Roles as 'Producers' on the Show 

message: *NOTE: pointing readers to TAPS website for facts is misleading, as TAPS controls all content on their website. This is akin to pointing readers to MOST HAUNTED website, which alleges that the show is real and nothing is hoaxed. ~ UNSIGNED comment by 75.6.194.162
This is like saying that you cannot believe any word of any autobiography because the author stands to make money. The burden of proof falls on persons to find evidence supporting the falsification of evidence. The fact that they do not lose money by making this show proves nothing. --Ira-welkin 04:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Potential or Alleged Alternative Motivations for Jason and Grant to Run TAPS -ONLY- for the Last Two Years of its 12+ Year Existence 

message: The unhelpful demeanor came to a head here with C. Darrow, and I don't think I need to say much else in addition to the records to show why I repeatedly warned him with vandalism templates until he was blocked. Instead of arguing his point (after it was clearly proven invalid) or discussing his views on why he repeatedly removed the completely valid text, he continued to assert the same empty and possibly false statement that he was the author of the website in question, a statement that is utterly irrelevant. The two paragraphs erased do not contain original research nor ideas specific enough where their expression can be copywrited or protected. --Ira-welkin 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: C Darrow should never have been banned in the first place. But the job was to dissaude others from contributing and apparently it worked. Nice. VX 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of a 'Direct Lift' & 'Violation of Rights' 

message: If items of a factual nature continue to be erased based on continually shifting reasons, i.e. FIRST because there is no reference THEN because the reference ALLEGEDLY doesn't allow paraphrasing of its  core ideas, then I submit that we may need a dispute template again. Because of one person.
Rather than that, I think it is pretty plain that comments against the validity of TAPS or the Ghost Hunters that are referenced in the external links on a page that shows NO RESTRICTIONS OF ITS USE let alone a prohibition against MENTIONING the ideas within are valid.
Firstly, none of the phrases used in the article are used directly, making it impossible for you to claim violation. Secondly, if you are the author you should have known that those arguments were linked at the bottom of the page. You seemed to show no knowledge that they were there. Thirdly, by publishing this work on the internet without any restrictions on the rights, you have placed the work in the public domain. --Ira-welkin 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accept the fact that the removed material may not be admissible. Perhaps discussing -what- it was that was removed would help, because then the community can talk about it and maybe you will realize why it does not belong. --Ira-welkin 21:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the reason given for removing it is erroneous at best, firstly, and I would like mediation in here. Several contributors have been harrassed because they have criticism to contribute.VX 05:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reading this again, it is no wonder I was confused. It is almost as if one person or username is manning this cite at all times. As soon as I hit "save," I got a message that someone else has edited the page already and this happened several times. It is the same aggressive defensiveness you see in the "discussion forum" at TAPS. Above, I misplaced text in the wrong area earlier today, so I have edited it. Interestingly, it addresses the very same behavior seen above. Certainly there is no excuse for not following wikipedia's rules for signing edits, etc., and I have been guilty of this out of ignorance but this behavior from someone who knows is outrageous. VX 15:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text Removal Guidelines 

message: The topic of the Ghost Hunters and/or the group TAPS is too specific to engage in wide-sweeping debate over the legitimacy of the entire spectrum of Parnormal Activity or Anomalous Phenomenon within. Hence I believe it is inappropriate to place the article 'Ghosts 'all in the mind'" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3044607.stm) from the BBC in the 'external links' for this article. There is not only no mention of the article's topic, but only the most tenuous connections to it. 
Pertaining to the Ghost Hunters debate and as a matter of my personal opinion, if TAPS had the time to waste to 'debunk' such an inconclusive study based on guesses and intuition, it wouldn't take much effort and might make the skeptical community more respectful of their techniques. This is relevant to the current discussion because it is quite clear that the claims of this 'scientific report' are just as easily assailed by reason as the TAPS investigations.
The studies of electromagnetism prompting the feeling of 'presences' are quite known to TAPS and they always take it into account, using it to debunk activity on their own investigations. Statistical analysis alone is not proof of anything, particularly when the controls for the experiment are only hazily outlined. 
If I were to say: 'It is my assertion that police cars exist more in places with violent crime, because I have noticed more there,' I might be basing my conclusion on what seems to be accurate evidence, but in fact I am not making any meaningful conclusion. In fact, police cars could exist at much higher 'rates' at the police station parking lot. Though critics wish to label the Ghost Hunters 'desperate' to find evidence, several quotes from them show that they do not feel they have found anything conclusive as of yet, only interesting clips which can still be disproven. They certainly would get laughed out of the field for claiming something as general and final as 'Ghosts all in the mind' based on such inconclusive evidence.
Also, as it seems that C. Darrow's opinion is clearly that the Paranormal does not exist at all, and it seems odd that he has so far kept his contributions limited to solely the Ghost Hunters page (with an example of going to another user to complain about the article). If he feels strongly about the paranormal and has relevant facts, one would think he might wish to contribute to other pages as well.
--Ira-welkin 14:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Paranormal Can Be Discussed on the Paranormal Page 

message: I think the last set of edits from this suspicious new person demonstrate why it is so hard to keep this article factual. 
I have at least fought to keep valid factual CRITICISM in. 
I have no problem with criticism. I have no problem with defense. If it is -factual-. But as many have pointed out the threshold between valid point and mindless, slanted babble is very thin and apparently difficult for some people to discern. 
As a community we have to keep meaningful standards. I would no sooner put in 'TAPS are nice and their funny jokes sure make people trust them,' even though it is pretty much true as far as a lot of people are concerned. Because its CRAP as a FACT even if it has a strong factual basis. Its something that can not be made up for the reader. 
If you can look at the board and show the moderators stopping a supporter from arguing with a critic, then your argument is bad. If you can look at this: http://www.tapsforums.com/index.php?topic=51325.0 and say it doesn't contradict your point, then you are being just as biased as you seem.
I have no problem with factual, meaningful, relevant criticism. There IS some. It belongs on this page. That isn't why people are opposed to the argument that you are advocating. --Ira-welkin 23:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Familiar? 

message: I would suggest this article contain both sides of the Ghost Hunter Phenomenon, with a capital 'P.' Since Ghost Hunters IS a phenomenon of popular television, contributing to a number of "urban myths" within the paranormal community, it is important to include the role of the critic in the article on it. Otherwise it can not be an accurate portrayal of the phenomenon (and there are many of these groups around, many using heavy marketing strategies--this is something very unique and timely going on--although we see its reflection in history, known by other names. Critics who analyze the evidence presented by Ghost Hunters are as much a part of this phenomenon as is the group, it's creators and contributors. How to have a Wikipedia article on Ghost Hunters without allowing it be typical TAPS marketing is the question then, and I see above that someone would like to limit criticism to only what one side considers "FACTS." 
Whether we realize it or not, in this new age of pop-paranormal investigation, we rely on the critics to balance out the general discourse here, and to set the standards for it. Ghost Hunters employs the use of debunking, paying homage to it themselves, though some believe this could be utilization of reverse psychology, to enhance the impact of whatever real evidence is found by the group. 
Other debunkers are found on the internet, and these people often employ frame by frame analysis of the footage shown on TV. It is not necessary to cite each and every one of these tutorials, this is done in the discussion forums at TAPS as well as in some of the anti-TAPS or, "Taps Revealed" forums for discussion and illustration. But it is important to note whether TAPS is meeting the pop standards, found in the framework set by their critics.
As Ira is so concerned about the INTEGRITY OF WIKIPEDIA; don't allow the article to leave out the "redundant" criticism that has just as much integrity as the evidence TAPS presents and is just as much a part of the phenomenon. It occurs to me that critics of the paranormal might have their own wiki entry except they are not organized for television as an entity--they would likely be subjected to lawsuits if they organized as the "anti-paranormal" aspect. Still, debunkers naturally follow things like TAPS; they fit together like hand in glove. We need to see more of this in the article and, as an aside, I think Ghost Hunters would do well to come to terms with "the critic" rather that attempt to become the standard against which all paranormal evidence is brought. I think this is the thrust of the controversy, this aspect of the Ghost Hunters Marketing, and the paranormal community resents it, with good reason. TAPS has yet to uncover significant evidence which is not easily debunked. 
It is revealing how TAPS marketing is prevailing in this Wikipedia article and something needs to be done to address this overall issue. I cannot understand why, since Ghost Hunters is, to so many of us, more drama than documentary, Ira is demanding the proof of *real* science. He wants to frame even the "criticism" parts of the article. Let's remember this is not TAPS personal marketing / advertising forum and something needs to be done to reflect what TAPS is really all about--stop with the mythmaking already and let's lay out the phenomenon in a more authentic way, one that actually give the critics a chance to weigh in. VX 06:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It May Not Need a Dispute Template But

message: I deleted the name Brian Bell from the cast list, it should have been Andy Andrews - the skinny dude from the first season. For some reason I thought his name was Brian Bell and I don't know where that name even came from. I might have misread of the screen I guess or he might have been someone else with TAPS, but his name is not on the TAPS website. If there is a Brian Bell maybe someone can look it up. I didn't find his name anywhere. Cyberia23 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I just remembered where his name is from, the IMDb lists him as a cast member. But I have no idea who he is. The only Brian I know is Brian Harnois. Cyberia23 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds he's just like Brian Harnois. I don't remember him at all. Weird, I'll have to catch the marathon nest week and see who he is. Cyberia23 23:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Correction

message: 1. Let's take Darrow's "St. Augustine Lighthouse case" off the table as a point of contention.  It's going to lead to an endless battle of quoting, defending, countering, counter-countering, links to evidence, links to
counter-evidence, etc. Tit for tat, and we both will try to get in the last word. Proving nothing in the process.
If you (Ira) want to add an external link to a page that disputes the critical analysis of Darrow's page, that's great. I think he/she explains things very well, and especially to the younger viewing audience. I cite the crescent hotel analysis to show your critics aren't unreasonable or stupid. (It's nice to see critics with so little ego involvement.) 
2. Let's take Cyberia's outline of what he thinks the page should contain to heart. What was it now? "what the show is, who's in it, what it's about". 
3. Working from that, let's see what else is absolutely necessary to describe about this show for the reader. The statistics? Not really necessary I guess. The Roto Rooter clarification? It really seems
uneccessary, Ira. 
4. I do think, for the sake of the entire community, we should remove content that has the skeptics looking like they are crazed fools. Phrases set up to make skepticism seem pointless aren't working anyway, and maybe everyone can feel a little better, especially considering that you do have a good group of skeptics, and I would think you would want that, to work with it. (However that's nothing to do with this article, just a general idea for consideration.)
O'tay?
VX 01:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PROPOSAL FOR EDITS

message: Well, since you haven't completely changed things like you said you were, the article is still just fine. I wouldn't have gotten so worried if you didn't say you were going to take out a lot of stuff. Everybodies opinion is fine. I was only worked up about statements you made which you never acted on. I actually like the changes. Sorry to be such a jerk, it was just a tense situation. Now everthing is SUPA FLY YO! ;) --Ira-welkin 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I don't think I said that. VX 05:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say this Ira, it's not a matter of everybody's opinion. Not anymore at least. The issue now is that the article in its current state and even the way it is organized is not acceptable. Know that I am not out to get my opinion in anymore. I've stated my only prior motive; and have achieved it. Now, my intent is to clean this up and make it a presentable article that represents the show and wikipedia, and myself, as well as I can. VX 06:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: I realize there are/were a lot of things I must learn before being able to contribute to Wikipedia proficiently. However, I think this article is appropriate in light of how discussion was conducted for this article. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
--VX 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do Not bite the Newcomers

message: At this point I am feeling protective of the edits LuckyLouie and I have made in here tonight. I am in complete support of the changes so there are now two of us who are feeling good about the article as it stands, tonight. Beyond adding appropriate POV type content, if anyone has a problem with this I will seek mediation. Not trying to be defensive, but protective. I imagine that Cyberia and Ira will be delighted with the drastic changes but statements have been made previously that the article was okay in it's earlier form. 
I want to point editors to this page which offers ways we can handle the potential conflict, if any, from this point on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes
It's pretty close to perfect now; I respect the work that took, the contributions of Louie. VX 08:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AFTER JUNE 19 MAJOR EDITS: Read if in Dispute

message: I noticed VX's signature in the article text - users aren't supposed to sign article statements becuase it could apply ownership to that text and violate the GNU licence. I don't understand why VX's name was there in the first place, what was VX signing? 
Two, I deleted the brackets around Ghost Hunters which relinked it back to the article we are already reading. 
Did some rewording - like "they have glossy black vans" - who cares that they are black? It's trivial and just clutters the read. 
And the top description line "Ghost Hunters is a reality TV show..." belongs at the top of the page since it's an introduction line. All Wiki articles follow this format. Cyberia23 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the main article. You sign comments in discussion. Cyberia23 21:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todays fix (Jun 19 06)

message: Everything looks great so far. --Ira-welkin 20:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: Hello there. My name is Nicholas Turnbull, and I'm a mediator at Wikipedia:Guerrilla Mediation Network; I am responding to the mediation request tag made above by Ira Welkin. Ira, I appreciate there is clearly some type of dispute going on here, but your explanation really doesn't shed any light on exactly what the issue in question is, and alas us mediators do not have time to wade through hundreds of kilobytes of past debate in order to try to determine what the crux of the matter is. As such I regret I cannot be of assistance until you follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Guerrilla Mediation Network, and cannot accept your request for mediation until you do so - since I don't understand what you would like me to solve. I need you to explain the following, in a clear, concise manner, and in less than 500 words:
* what the problem is 
* who the people involved in the problem are
* what you'd like the outcome of mediation to be
Please let me know when you have done so, and I shall be happy to be able to assist you in remedying the dispute. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to request for guerilla mediation 

message: I wasn't trying to be a jerk by cutting out that note, and maybe you can include a sentence in the criticism refering people to that external link. I just don't think its appropriate to stick a summary of an external link in the 'notes' section, when it falls more appropriately under the criticism section. But the big problem is with the summarization of external material: if that were possible, I would have mondo defensive statements and arguments all over this page. ;) But here's the kicker: in my opinion, the Race Rock footage is the most confusing of all their evidence, because of that strange anomaly. I can't explain it, but I can tell you that just two nights ago me and my fiancee spent 25 minutes watching it zoomed in on a loop, trying to discern what happens. The light could be caused by anything from a hanging lamp to a window reflecting a light from down below. There are a few other strange aspects to the video.
I just have to say that though the footage has that extremely strange anomaly, I think they probably could have rigged up a less obvious means of moving the chair if they were really just trying to fake footage. --Ira-welkin 16:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, opinions vary on what the group might or might not do, about their motivation. Clearly the chair incident could easily have been rigged. I know I've seen plenty of evidence that makes it appear that this is precisely the case, convincing evidence. In my mind, after analyzing the footage, it was a staged event. I don't see how it takes too much time to see this. I don't think the group ever uses elaborate means, and lots of the things I've seen which look funny are, essentially, obvious. The reason I even got involved in this project was in watching the show one day and seeing what I believed was Grant moving a table with his leg--very obvious to me--he was even seen sitting on one butt cheek on camera and they showed him sitting like that, with an expression of surprise, several times. The reason he was on one butt cheek, to me, was obvious: he had just used his other leg, the one still in the air, to kick the table and chair! I think the fans have a great tendency to overlook such easily produced stunts because they WANT to believe. ;) VX 21:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the Race Rock

message: After consideration through a comment left on my talk page, and after reading this article throughly, I have added a NPOV tag. My reasoning is that in the subsection, Response From Critics is not as neutral as it should be, with some bias towards the program directors. There is also bias towards the ghostly hauntings versus scientific research. I will also be nominating this for 
I will be working on this article to conform as much of it as I can to a neutral stance, similar to what I did for the Waverly Hills Sanatorium article. 
As a side note, I have also added an unreferenced tag. It has a lot of content that is not cited. Seicer 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After careful consideration, and after review and correction of another page that did not fit the NPOV criteria, I modified the content to resolve any disputes. There was evidence of favortism towards the TAPS web-site, which is not a factual source and cannot be considered a credible nor a scholarly source that is warranted for an encylopedia. Modifications included removal of content describing TAPS web-site (we are not advertising their web-site), removal of any favortism towards the 'facts' of their investigations (they are still uncited and unverified by the scientific community), and removal of any other biased works. Citations are still needed throughout, where indicated, for reference. Seicer 04:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem, I'll continue to watch this article as needed. Seicer 02:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View 

message: I also think the Ian Cashmore sentence (in Critics) is now "without a reason for being". It seems to be in dispute that he disassociated himself because he didn't like the drama of the show. Also, I don't recall seeing skeptics making an issue of lack of historical research. I think it was the TAPS fans themselves who wanted more history about haunted places.  LuckyLouie 22:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. It looks like it used to. I don't recall the skeptics wanting the Historical reasearch either. Not saying "the skeptics" didn't or did want it, but somehow this news got into the article. I might have been taking it from back before June 19, if I put it in there. I personally don't care about the history--I think it's a change and maybe it's supposed to reflect how TAPS is so responsive to their critics requests. Either way, taking it out doesn't bother me because it doesn't seem important. History of a site isn't something you see done on a regular basis on that show so ... VX 22:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I was bold again. I moved Cashmore's reference from Critics up to the top of the page and I revised the criticism it was attached to to be more generic criticism (i.e. too much drama) that you often hear about the show (published in many reviews). Now we don't have to worry about getting a "cite" for Cashmore's reason for leaving the show. I hope this sits well with everybody. LuckyLouie 23:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it works out much better that way. Seicer 02:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ian Cashmore & show history

message: Sorry, I don't yet know how to properly footnote a citation. But here is the SciFi PR release regarding the ratings quote:  LuckyLouie 00:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To use the footnote citations that are automatically generated, use the ref tags. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Example Seicer 02:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Check the example I cited in the URL above. It's the most efficent way I have found so far to generate footnotes. Seicer 21:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I tried following the instructions for adding a footnote to cite the ratings reference. If I did not do it right, I hope someone can correct it. LuckyLouie 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings Citation

message: Can a TV show be labeled pseudoscience? I honestly don't know. But after viewing a number of "Ghost Hunters" episodes, I have noticed that the show consistently promotes acceptance of the methodology and findings of "ghost hunting".  
The actual on-air TV show is substantially different from the description given in the  "episode format". On the show, credence is given to the "Ghost Hunters" peculiar science over that of conventional science. EMF meters are alleged to indicate spiritual energy.  "Lights out" investigation is alleged to create the "best environment" for the discovery of supernatural phenomena. Debunking is used merely to separate "false hauntings" from "real hauntings". And so on. 
This is why I wonder if the article on "Ghost Hunters" should carry the Pseudoscience tag, and I am soliciting comments. Some of the reasons for my query:
*	According to the Pseudoscience article, the definition is "any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific".
*	"Ghost Hunters" seek to study ghosts by means of technology, measurement, and investigation. They make claims and conclusions based on knowledge, methodology, and practices that are not subscribed to by the mainstream scientific community.  For this reason I think the TV show's premise is pseudoscience and promotes what I believe is a pseudoscientific POV.
*Recently, Robert L. Park has listed "The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science". Many of these apply to ghost hunting in general, and "Ghost Hunters" in particular: 
1.	The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. 
2.	The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. 
3.	The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. 
4.	Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. 
5.	The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. 
6.	The discoverer has worked in isolation. 
7.	The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. 
Please Support or Oppose, together with a comment, and sign and date by either adding four tildes (if you have an account), or your name and date if you don't.  Thanks. LuckyLouie 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that mainstream science has completely turned a blind eye on paranormal research, I think all of it, from ghost hunting, UFO investigations, to looking for Big Foot can be labeled "pseudoscience". Cyberia23 20:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If this type of commenting continues, and further revisions of the page degrade the quality of an unbiased topic on a factual encylopedia, I will request it be locked and revisions be made only through an administrator or an appointed editor. As it stands, an encylopedia is for factual arguments and statements, not for uncredited or unscientific claims. Thanks. Seicer 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, you are terrified that the 'discussion' contains multiple views! Of course it is unbiased, YOU and all the HUGE SKEPTICS say so! How fair! Go ahead, request some administration. I am interested in what they have to say. You and your skeptical friends basically said everyone should feel like an uneducated moron for not being 'smart' enough to realize how fake something that thousands of other people respect and belive in. I surely am being out of line in being offended. I'm sure any actually unbiased administrator will agree with YOU ;) --Ira-welkin 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  And I'm sure that if the TAPS and Ghost Hunters sites themselves are not valid, than niether are those sites of skeptics who utilize images and film obtained from the show via COPYWRITE INFRINGEMENT are somehow quite valid, according to your fearful perspective. Calling quotes from the ghost hunters talking about their acceptance of skepticism 'defensive' while being TERRIFYED at permitting valid factual arguments from supporting sources is foolish and childish. But whatever. Call an administrator if you want. --Ira-welkin 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  You need to accept that this is a controversial topic. Do you sit in the Christianity article and make it say: 'This farcial mass of beliefs is useless because it is likely untrue?' Why don't you? --Ira-welkin 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Can anyone tell me why the 'analysis' of the St. Augustine light house ignores the fact that it was twice mentioned that the security lights didn't go on when the figure in the video is seen? You know you have no answer for it, I would just like to hear somebody PRETEND they have something to say. --Ira-welkin 18:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the record, I am a spiritualist, but I recognize the fact not everyone is going to agree with my viewpoints. To make the article well-rounded and unbiased, I conformed the article to the Neutral Point of View guideline, the official policy of Wikipedia. If you have some qualm about it, talk to them about the NPOV and your viewpoints. It's not approperiate here. PS, add paragraph points to make the statements stand out. I did't know who you were replying to. Seicer 18:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Incorrect. No one is against the Ghost Hunters show, but the article itself needs to come off on an unbiased viewpoint to the general reader. Not everyone is Christian, not everyone is a Spiritualist, and not everyone is an Atheist. Pandering to one religion is not opening up the article to all viewpoints and reads as a biased article. This is against the Neutral Point of View policy and against Wikipedia standards. There are zero claims in the article that the show is staged. If this claim is made, it could be made with a critical comment that "some believe" to make it an unbiased comment. Seicer 19:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not a moderator, but a user came and asked for my assistance after I successfully cleaned up the Waverly Hills Sanatorium page that contained a lot of unreferenced and biased content. It runs along the same lines of what I am seeing here in this article. While I do not have the power to "lock" this article, I will go through the proper channels to ask for further assistance if the NPOV and "deadvertising" revisions are reverted to their previous state. And Seicer is a he :) Seicer 21:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's thoughtful, especially since we're voting on something else now. But I do think it needs the tag. If I am remembering correctly, Cyberia agrees, you agree, I agree. Seicer would probably agree. I think we have the concensus. Why not just do it? VX 23:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ON THE ONE HAND....I don't feel we've heard anything substantial from Wikipedians who might oppose it. I admit I have trouble understanding Ira's posts because they are often interwoven with accusations and personal attacks. I'd really like to see any opposing opinions communicated in a non-inflammatory manner. ON THE OTHER HAND....putting the psuedoscience tag on the article would likely force a discussion to take place LuckyLouie 23:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "Ghost Hunters" Pseudoscience? Request For Comments

message: I don't feel I've gotten significant enough response to the question of should the article on "Ghost Hunters" carry the Pseudoscience tag? So I am tabling the issue until such time as there is reason to examine it again, or someone else resurrects it.
:That's thoughtful, especially since we're voting on something else now. But I do think it needs the tag. If I am remembering correctly, Cyberia agrees, you agree, I agree. Seicer would probably agree. I think we have the concensus. Why not just do it? VX 23:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ON THE ONE HAND....I don't feel we've heard anything substantial from Wikipedians who might oppose it. I admit I have trouble understanding Ira's posts because they are often interwoven with accusations and personal attacks. I'd really like to see any opposing opinions communicated in a non-inflammatory manner. ON THE OTHER HAND....putting the psuedoscience tag on the article would likely force a discussion to take place LuckyLouie 23:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: We can change the little blurbs recently added to the list of Ghost Hunters Episodes forever. But it occurs to me to take this section completely out since it IS advertising for the show. Take it out if contributors can't leave it without their personal perspectives on the paranormal activity. Put in a link to the TV Guide for readers to use---why offer it at wikipedia if it is only used for a NPOV forum. Plus, I'm tired of being the object of Ira's ire. Here and on my talk page. I'm even having editing conflicts in this discussion page, with Ira!
VX 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We sure were. It was because you were trying to move something I wrote in the above section out of this section where you accidentally placed it and rewording your post at the same time I was trying to move it. Not really much of a thing to complain about. --Ira-welkin 18:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please just stop putting in your personal perspective then, and used neutral point of view. Or leave neutral point of view when it is there instead of putting in your perspective. Also, you accused me of editing you viciously  and harrassing you a few days ago when I didn't even have an internet connection or access to the internet, so I am certain that now that I have one again you are going to percieve my harassment of you to be even worse. --Ira-welkin 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ira. Get bent. VX 18:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Y'know, I'm Done

message: I urge folks involved to read this page. No_personal_attacks
I also ask that the discriminatory comment regarding parapalegics be removed by the user. 
LuckyLouie 00:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask that when people tell me to 'Get Bent,' whatever that means, that people react as though something offensive was said, and then not treat me as though I am a jerk for making my statements in a clearly more composed manner. --Ira-welkin 00:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Personal Attacks

message: The article itself still needs tweaking but I just think it's an "interesting" discussion page. Right now it's out of wack, timeline-wise. Maybe I'm just neurotic about unimportant details... VX 11:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the cleanup, VX.  Maybe at some point in the future we could archive the flame-war sections so they appear as links, but don't take up so much space. LuckyLouie 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: organized discussion by start date of sections

message: This discussion page is over the recommended size limit. I've created an Archive. Go to the file cabinet icon at the top of the page and click on "1". (Can someone help me by cutting and pasting the older stuff into "Archive #1? Thanks) LuckyLouie 17:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know if you want me to do this, but I want to work on it alone so I keep it in order. And, I need to figure out HOW to do it. VX 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply cut the material from this page, and paste it into the archive page. LuckyLouie 23:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving: HELP