Talk:Ghost Hunters (TV series)/Archive 3

Peer Review?

I think this article is doing well so far, aside from the bickering going on about it in discussion. If everything is kosher with the Ghost Hunters page, I'd like to see about submitting it for a Peer Review to see if it can become a featured article. Or call me crazy for thinking this. If Star Wars Episode One can become a featured article, and I remember all the BS involved with those articles, I think Ghost Hunters can too. Cyberia23 21:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, if it passes Peer Review that means it's a well written article and in a format accepted by Wikipedia standards. If it fails, then we can see what Wikipedia has to say about it. Cyberia23 21:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

One thing I think, most featured articles have an image with them. I was wondering if someone could get a screen shot of the opening credits of Ghost Hunters or something that won't cause people to flip out over copyright BS. Some TV show articles have a title shot picture and they place them under TV Screenshot fair use. Cyberia23 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ghost Hunters page is in Cabal Mediation review at the moment, and pending the outcome, some things will likely change. Probably not the best time for a Peer Review. The constant bickering on the Talk page tends to command all one's attention. So you begin to overlook the needs of the article itself. For example, I was noticing the "Episode Format" section reads like a TAPS brochure promoting some idealized professional investigation process. What actually happens in the show is quite different. There is a lot of interpersonal drama concerning staff assignments and who's doing their job correctly, various equipment snafus, postulation about demons, poltergeists, and entities, and a fair amount of advice given to the occupants on how to deal with their 'ghosts'. LuckyLouie 21:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

RE; a screen shot of the credits, here's one. http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/4909/producerswd6.jpg LuckyLouie 21:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Great find, LuckyLouie! I was hoping someone here would already know how to put an image into this article. Yes, I don't think the article is ready for a peer review yet, but I am confident it will be at some future time--thanks for suggesting it. It will be really helpful to get all the contributors working together on these types of things. VX 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with the episode format, it should be expanded to included further truths about the show, as Lucky indicated. ;) Lucky is good at wording those types of things, so why don't you go ahead, give it a shot, and then if there is anything other parties find disagreeable, we can hash it out then. Does that sound OK? --Ira-welkin 01:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust. I'll see if I can throw something together soon. If not soon, later this weekend. LuckyLouie 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no hurry! If I have any ideas for additional sentences, I will post them here first. But yeah, we all got things to do! --Ira-welkin 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots, Credits

I just noticed the cast list in the article follows the imdb entry, which is dated 2004(?). The current season's episodes aired on SciFi are updated, wich add Jason and Grant's producer credit and delete long-gone cast members like Andy Andrews. LuckyLouie 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think "long-gone" people should still be given some credit as they were on the show and still mentioned on other sites like the IMDb. Cyberia23 23:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should say "current and past cast" or something. I don't know. Regarding the producer credit, I checked Jason's myspace and he lists his occupation as "Main talent on TV show, also a producer". LuckyLouie 00:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense but that image is kinda weak - I was hoping for a shot of the lighthouse with the title bigger on the side, without name credits. Cyberia23 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I made an image for the main page - see how you guys like it. If you like/don't like it then offer an opinion don't bash or give me any "ZOMG! BALETE!" or lame stuff like that. I can always modify it or find something else. Cyberia23 23:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good, recognizable image for the show, eh? VX 01:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG! BALETE! :-) OK I'm kidding. It looks fine. I bet we could get an even better, cleaner one, but I read the Wiki policy on images and it's unfathomable to me. I'm confused about what we can and can't use. LuckyLouie 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The image copyright thing around here is really a crap shoot. I've posted images with no source or copyright info before and they either get hit with a violation within hours or continue to remain here untouched for months, some going on 2 years now. I guess it depends on who finds it and when, and who thinks it's a violation - but most of it is BS. Supposedly screenshots are allowed for illustrative purposes, but some get taken down others stay. I've even seen Wikipedia "Pictures of the Day" that have no source content, and the same for pics in featured articles that have no copyright info. Cyberia23 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, being the image manipulation dork that I am, I was bored and made an animated gif of the Ghost Hunters logo giggling around like it does in the show. I could put that here, but that's probably going overboard. It would be funny though. Cyberia23 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the image you put up but how do we know if we like the giggling text if we don't see it? You can always change it back. VX 04:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say jiggling - not giggling, I can't type sometimes. I'm not posting it here, I might put it on an image host site somewhere when I get it done and post a link if your really want it. Cyberia23 08:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I spelled it wrong too. It would be cool to see your work. VX 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Try this link to it -> animated GH logo. It's cheesy :) Cyberia23 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I kinda like it. The thing is it's not always moving. Every once in a while it flashes. Yes, I like it. VX 22:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to select a completely different image for the TAPS article, one that defines it in a way that says, TAPS is the paranormal investigation group, not the show. But this image clearly represents the TV show, I think. VX 22:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Could probably get the TAPS "running ghost" logo for that, but that could require permission from them. Cyberia23 23:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a 5 second delay then it jiggles. I thought if it jiggled constantly it would get annoying. Cyberia23 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Jason and Grant Ghost Hunter Producers

I recently saw a screen shot that lists Jason and Grant as producers of the show; also this information is revealed in Jason's Myspace page. I don't think we need to cite this fact, but it is of note to skeptics and fans alike so I added it in both articles. Discuss below, if necessary. VX 19:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So Jason and Grant produce the show, and Thayer and the other guy are just executive producers? Cyberia23 20:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what it says in the little box thing, under the pic, too. I've always thought of the Executive producer(s) as the money behind the film, but I guess it's different throughout the various industries. The definition of television producer is a bit different. VX 20:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A producer does a lot of things. It depends really on what is stipulated in their contract. The common thought is that they "pay" for everything. Better to say they "manage" everything and are trusted to spend the budget provided by the studios efficiently. They are the boss more or less and some can even tell the director what to do. But, then again that depends on their contract if they can give creative input or not. Particular famous directors get studio money thrown at them and the producer has to kiss their ass. Of course they can always say "not in the budget" if the director wants something spectacular or not in the script. Cyberia23 10:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If we add anything to the article, discussing the fact that Jason and Grant are or have been producers then maybe we can link to the wiki articles on Executive producer or just the producer article. If their role as producer differs from what the wiki article describes we might want to spell that out? For instance, say, "though television producers" generally have creative control over every aspect of the ....," Jason and Grant's roles as producers differ in that they do not get involved in scheduling." Or whatever the case may be.

Is it necessary, though? VX 13:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new "Storylines" Section of article

You guys have asked me to flesh out some ideas about how to include the non-investigative side of the show in the article. I pasted it here. LuckyLouie 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you hesitant to add this? Looks about as accurate as it gets. Put it on in! VX 00:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I un-pasted it from here and put it in the article. It's a rough draft. Please discuss. I may have some details wrong. LuckyLouie 00:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Only a few very minor points, such as that Tango was tricked into wearing the tiara by Steve, and thought it was a head-lamp, or that they really said 'Why don't you try to show you have a sensitive side?'/'Why don't you show you have a rugged side.' But altogether not bad. I don't have a lot of time right now but it is definatly a step in the right direction. --Ira-welkin 00:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, made those changes. You will need to explain the tiara thing to me. How was he tricked? (i.e. I'd know if I was wearing a tiara or not, LOL) Also the episode numbers don't need "citations", I meant to imply they need the information fact-checked only. LuckyLouie 01:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't flip. I took out "(when he is not with TAPS he holds down jobs as various as assistant surgical technician, camera person, and manager of an ambulence dispatch service) ", it's just way too much detail and unbalances the other characters. Why don't you put it in a bio stub of a Wiki for Dustin? LuckyLouie 03:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No biggie! I just wanted to put that in there to show that his 'technical' ambitions were grounded in reality, not just exaggerated claims. Not an issue. --Ira-welkin 06:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the new storyline section should come in a little sooner, like after episode format. VX 17:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at this damn article too long, I can't tell. Is the flow wrong? With the photo and the new section, it seems a little bit better and not so much like a battleground. LuckyLouie 04:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Cyberia is correct and it could be sent to whatever process he's talking about above. It's a good article now. I think you should move the storyline up a bit; this is just an intuitive edit/suggestion--there is no reference I am looking at to tell me this. It just seems that storyline comes in before criticism, at least. VX 13:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Anybody care to research and add the incident when some nut watching the show started sending sexual emails to TAPS members? He eneded up emailing the White House threatening Bush in Jason's name. LuckyLouie 23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the Criticism section looks so ugly is that the paranormal project group insists on a cite for every sentence of it, otherwise they put an "unsourced" template on it. LuckyLouie 08:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine the way it is I guess. I can't decide where to move the section so it must be best where it is now.

Louie, what are you talking about, which criticism section? Ours? VX 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. The one in this article. It has several footnote cites. I was just commenting on its aesthetic appearance. LuckyLouie 18:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think having the citations in it makes it look bad. Ideally, all information would be cited like this. ;) I at least think it still looks good! I didn't know this about project paranormal requiring things... Could you explain more? --Ira-welkin 18:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)--Ira-welkin 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. Just explaining why the cites in just that section and no other. If you go to my talk page a user left a note about unsourced statements. The same user placed an "unsourced" template over the Criticism section. The same user placed a template on the TAPS article's talk page - wiki paranormal project or something. LuckyLouie 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ira while I got you here, are you done with the mediation business? Are there other things about the article that need work? Can we submit it for peer review, and 'featured article' like Cyberia said? LuckyLouie 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, been working alot. Yes! Sounds good. --Ira-welkin 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

OK. I slapped this together and threw it on the page. Here are the links for the cites if anyone cares. Discuss.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_412447.html

http://www.netcrimes.net/archive/2006_06_01_archive.html

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/paw/pr/2006_january/2006_01_05_3.html

LuckyLouie 02:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that certainly adds some interest! ;) VX 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's Vandal Season

People are adding links, removing links, making edits and running away. LuckyLouie 17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No it's WABBIT season... Cyberia23 20:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Such a "rigid" read

You know, I remember well the days of constant nit-picking and POV disputes in the past that pounded this page into submission a while back, but with all the "surmised", the "speculated", the "supposed", and the "assumed", the "so-called" and whatever suspicious [skeptical] adjectives thrown in every other sentence to describe the team's work, really makes this a seemingly cold-hearted [cold] read. Almost like it was written by someone with a seriously closed mind. It's just my opinion, and changing it would probably start the POV rage all over again - but do we really have to be so stern about this show? Most other "paranormal" articles on this site aren't so strict with the wording. Cyberia23 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by cold-hearted, but in my opinion, if this were a cartoon or a drama we could be a lot looser and say stuff like "Tensions mount when the team's highly scientific instruments record a frightening, ghostly presence" etc. The problem is that the show does not bill itself as fiction, it claims to be reality -- but *its* reality completely contradicts mainstream science.

Since science, after decades of research, has yet to find proof that ghosts exist, the paranormal references in the article are labeled as "alleged" and "speculated" (as they are in ghost). So if anyone is cold-hearted and closed-minded, you should blame science. After all the squabbling and fighting with this article, I thought it was a pretty damn good compromise. The other articles you suggested probably appeared more open-minded and fancy-free because they have huge and lengthy "skeptical analysis" sections that balance the more controversial stuff. LuckyLouie 05:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I meant to say just "cold". I must have added "-hearted" subconsciously I guess. Suspicious adjectives should have been "skeptical" adjectives. But anyway - I was just looking for the right words and half asleep at the time of thinking this. Cyberia23 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Um... I was bold and went ahead and altered a sentence in the introduction - it seemed to me that by describing the hosts as "hunting ghosts" presupposed the existence of same, so I changed it to "investigating" and "claimed". The article heading/name of the show sufficiently indicates their approach.LessHeard vanU 20:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with your edit. Even if you presume the existence of ghosts, they are not actually hunting them but investigating and looking for proof. Mapetite526 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was not "I" who I meant when commenting on presupposing the existence. Wikipedia does not indicate an acceptance for the existence of ghosts or other paranormal entities - but does acknowledge that there are those who do. I was trying for a more "neutral" wording in accordance with that. I think that "encyclopediac" language does tend to be more formal (i.e. rigid) in areas where there is contraversy or dispute, since an encyclopedia does not take sides.LessHeard vanU 21:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Episodes

I have started watching season 1 & 2 for the first time. I noticed the listing here for s2ep10 says NY. The Worthington House is in NH. Not sure if that should be noted or if its considered unimportant. Other than that, this article is very informative! M8gen 18:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the reference is to Rolling Hills, which is in NY.LuckyLouie 18:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably my goof originally. Cyberia23 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

DVD Section?

Is it appropriate to mention that there are DVD's of the show somewhere? The DVD's for season two in september feature a few unaired investigations, and have some more unreleased and extended footage. Lots of this footage is clowning around, but much of it is also further research, further investigation footage, and also unedited versions of the 'edvidence' of activity, often in multiple speeds and zoom sizes. --Ira-welkin 18:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Edited note about DVDs in the criticism section to include multiple DVDs for sale. VX 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You can post DVD info, as long as you don't provide a link to a place selling it, since that would be technically be advertising and/or spam. Cyberia23 22:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ira. Can you give us a bit more info? Can you define which/how many scenes are extended/unedited? Can you clarify the nature of the additional research shown? Can you clarify "unedited" as opposed to "extended" and why you believe it is unedited? I think we'd like to understand if these are sold and intended by TAPS to be used for legitimate analysis, or if they are simply the usual "extended scenes" found in most entertainment DVD's. One clue would be the length. If, for example, the "uncut" scene is 45 minutes long (length of an original DV cam tape) it adds a tiny bit to the legitimacy. But you know I'm a skeptical guy, and my skepticism extends to everything, not just Ghost Hunters. If someone were selling a "Bigfoot" DVD with "unedited scenes" of the monster stomping around the woods, I'd be just as skeptical. :-) LuckyLouie 22:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this type of content works into the information about all the stuff the group sells, like T shirts, hats, whatever else. Mention it all together. VX 22:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I asked a 3rd party who owns the DVD's to review them for me also. So far, I've found out two of the "bonus scenes" consist of Jason and Grant arguing. The disc itself lists deleted scenes for episodes 7, 8, 9, and 10. Is this what you're talking about? Or is there another section? LuckyLouie 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is a 'deleted scenes' umm... 'reel' or whatever you might call it for all 10 of the episodes in Season one on each of the three discs. You can actually see lots of these at scifi.com. (You can also see lots of the season two extras there, before they are on DVD). Yes, there are some non-paranormal related bonus scenes like coaxing vertigo-suffering Steve to go on a lift. But there is also longer clips of their evidence as well as more insight into many investigations. --Ira-welkin 03:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In what context would you like to put this information into the article. I made a suggestion, above, otherwise I cannot think of one. VX 04:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ira, I don't have a lot of time for this right now, but perhaps you could make a list of the extra scenes? My concern is that a short sentence saying "the DVD contains unedited versions of the edvidence of activity, often in multiple speeds and zoom sizes" might be slightly misleading, unless there is a LOT more than just multiple angles of Frank The Soundman's fall. But a short, punchy paragraph describing both the "fun" stuff and the "evidence" stuff in the DVD may be good for the article. And this brings up a thought I've been ruminating about recently. I realize the article must be NPOV, but in its present form, it comes across as a dry, clinical, quasi-scientific documentary about people in white lab coats taking measurements. Read it over. I mean, really read it. The entertainment aspect of the show has been completely lost. And in that respect, it's not a truthful article. What about the kooky, human side of the gang? The tiara-wearing? The "dude run"? The matching caps and coats? Brian's resignation and rehire? Steve's phobias? We have failed to describe 1/2 of what this show is all about. If this can be done without making it sound like an ad promoting the show, I think a stab at it should be attempted. Opinions? Please bear in mind I am not "the leader" here in this discussion. My opinion is just my opinion. I'd like to hear what others think. Let's discuss. LuckyLouie 04:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the human, funny side has been completly lost. And I really don't think huge detail about what's in the DVD is important, I was just kind of describing it in depth here so you would know what it is really like. I think over the next day or two I could consider some passages, place some of my wordings here first and see what is said. --Ira-welkin 05:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we needed to get dry about it. It was confused previously. This is just part of the process--just take a stab at it; it will be edited forever. This is what wikipedia is about--too bad there are fans of the show who've been saying negative things about the validity of wikipedia articles--this article is definitely accurrate, at this point. I look forward to reading what you come up with. At this point I'm not sure about what you mean, but I'll wait to see. ;)--VX 06:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)