Talk:Ghost Hunters (TV series)/Archive 2

message: A user removed a link to a critics page, then placed a 'needs source' template over the Criticism section. Cute trick, but I reverted it. LuckyLouie 02:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with their actions, but you have to admit that a seventeen year old in a room postulating is not somehow more viable of a source than TAPS, especially to an encyclopedia. Especially when those 'external links' are full of copywrite infringment. --Ira-welkin 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to agree with Ira-welkin here. A link to an unverified site violates WP:EL as it could contain "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research". If anyone wants to dispute this, let's chat about it here and not engage in an edit war :)  Seicer (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading over WP:EL, I can see where those 'independent investigation' links would be a problem. Since they do exist, can they be mentioned but not linked to? Or must they be ignored altogether? I believe James Randi has a critical mini-review of the show on his site, albeit dated where some of the concerns in the Criticism section are addressed.  Do we feel this meets the critieria for reference? LuckyLouie 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Add what you wish, but the source is out there. Age of the debunker being 12, 13, age 5, it doesn't matter. A five year old probably could debunk some of the crap Ghost Hunters puts out there, no kidding around. The shows critics are EVERY bit as valid as the tricks they play on the show. ;) VX 05:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And, I'm reading the link you gave Seicer, and I strongly believe the sources are valid. In discussing the shows critics, we simply cite the sources. It would be such a shame to leave this work out, because it doesn't purport to be scientific or valid, like Ghost Hunters work supposes of its "science." We're not referencing anything of science, it's impossible to do that since the group TAPS doesn't submit to independent review. Plus, I'm sure there is another way to reference the critics; they are an important part of this whole GH phenomenon. Or perhaps they deserve a wikipedia article all their own.... VX 06:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Louie. If the criticism section is messed with again, I plan on revising the criticism section and getting more specific about it. I thought that would be avoided, and without that it's a much better article, but I'll try to be brief about each and not belabor it all....gosh, what a hassle.  VX 06:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing with Wiki policy. But it IS comically ironic that the critics big issue with Ghost Hunters is their "factually inaccurate material or unverified original research". The TV show is free to make unverified claims, but the Wiki article is not. Consider this quote from TAPS Grant Wilson: TAPS takes mysterious situations and stories like those at the Crescent Hotel, and tries to recreate them. It doesn't take ghost tales at face value and doesn't consider people's experiences evidence unless TAPS can capture it on audio or video. "It's good science," Wilson said. (http://crescent-hotel.com/ghosts/press_scifighosthunters2005.htm) Good science? In the same TV episode, Grant lauds the questionable thermal images he's captured as "The Holy Grail of paranormal research". Mixed messages? It would seem so. I would hope the criticism section might attempt to convey, if not the particulars, the essence of the critics argument (which I feel might be summed up as, The ghost hunters claim to be practicing science, but they're really not). LuckyLouie 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Concerning vandalism. Unsigned comment posted another copy and paste, the same as his/her last one. Instead of commenting to my question regarding it, the user pasted it again in a new section. I'm just considering this vandalism. The user may need to be cited for this....I don't care one way or another. This article seems to be drawing some flaming users. ;) VX 22:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism