Revision as of 00:51, 17 April 2017 editKarlpoppery (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,255 editsNo edit summaryTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:57, 4 November 2017 edit undoCapitals00 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,265 edits →Lead sentenceNext edit → | ||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
:: Yeah, I don't think you get what I'm saying. A single sentence paragraph is considered poor literary form, as per ]. They should be minimized as the mirror tabloid-type reporting. ] (]) 12:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC) | :: Yeah, I don't think you get what I'm saying. A single sentence paragraph is considered poor literary form, as per ]. They should be minimized as the mirror tabloid-type reporting. ] (]) 12:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
::: Feel free, as you have, to make a better paragraph, but removing it is not an option while it remains a section in the article and a significant perspective. I like the current lead. ] <small>]</small> 16:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC) | ::: Feel free, as you have, to make a better paragraph, but removing it is not an option while it remains a section in the article and a significant perspective. I like the current lead. ] <small>]</small> 16:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::{{ping|LuckyLouie}} You can see the lead developed after years of consensus, until it was unilaterally changed last year without discussion or satisfying edit summary. We don't call subject a pseudoscience from the first sentence. It has been described as pseudoscience in the next sentences. This has happened on few other articles before such as ], and consensus was not to refer them as pseudoscience from starting sentence. ] (]) 00:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Tags, citations and sources == | == Tags, citations and sources == |
Revision as of 00:57, 4 November 2017
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghost hunting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ghost hunting. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ghost hunting at the Reference desk. |
Origins/Criticism
I added the Origins and Criticism sections. - LuckyLouie 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Redirect
Why oh why does 'Ghostbusters' redirect here? If anyone searches that word, they're far more often looking for the 80's movie. Very rarely are ghost hunters called by that term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.186.237 (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Expansion
I expanded the Origins and added a Growth section. - LuckyLouie 08:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I added 'Ghost hunting equipment and methods' and 'Types of investigators and groups' sections, as well as dozens of references. LuckyLouie 00:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
response to Spam template
I removed the Asia Paranormal ref to the photo. I removed the link to Asia Paranormal and replaced it with a footnote. I cleaned up the external links. There is now only one external link to the 'exhaustive list' of ghost hunting groups, and one external link to an article to represent the skeptical side. --LuckyLouie 17:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have also removed two links used to source the "Ghost hunting equipment and methods" section, and . They are comprehensive and serve to show what tools ghost hunters use, but the fact that they are an advertisement is unfortunate. -- LuckyLouie 18:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weasels
I deleted a few weasels. I think perhaps the sections need to be from a particular perspective, so that weasels can be avoided. Also need sources in the Origins section. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Remove weasel, insert my own weasel, viz, "critics often believe" Don't change this to "scientists." Please don't use edit summ. to give orders to Wikipedians. --- LuckyLouie 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I needed that for getting annoyed at the way people weasel things on purpose to discredit. Like this and this and this. Still, people give orders to each other all the time on the summaries. Like this: "the point on the talk page has already been made; it's one or the other: recognize that _nobody_ recognizes existence of psychics, or define psychics as those who allege to have abilities". I'll try to notice and do better. This article is a lot better than a lot I've seen. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Paranormal
The word "paranormal" is not a substitute for "alleged", "supposed", "said to be", or "believed", and should not be used as the sole indicator of non-factuality. --- LuckyLouie 21:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Types of Teams
The last item depicting frauds and con-men doesn't seem to sit right with me in it's current placement, but removing it completely wouldn't benefit the article, it needs a place here. Ideas? Groupsisxty (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is another classification which is groups or individuals who have personal gain as their motivation. Some of the ways used for such gain are ghost tours, writing and selling books, selling equipment, paranormal acreditation classes, being paid to speak at lectures and conventions or television notoriety.
I'm not saying that everyone who does any of these activities falls into this category, but the more that they do the more they fit the bill. John (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Category:Pseudoscience
Borrowed the links below from Homeopathy for reference;
- NPOV: Pseudoscience
- NPOV: Undue weight
- NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
- NPOV: Giving "equal validity"
Basically, ghost hunting is often performed by non-scientific people using tools that appear to be scientific but simply aren't. EMF detectors, IR thermometers, etc are used to perform functions that they are neither designed to do, or in ways that simply can't be scientifically evaluated.
This isn't to suggest that 'ghost hunting' can't be done in a scientific manner, just that it typically is not. --Xinit (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Lead sentence
There is no scientifically testable and verifiable evidence in favor of the existence of ghosts, despite centuries of interest in the subject.<ref name=autogenerated1></ref><ref>, ], Thursday, October 26, 2006</ref>,
This sentence stands on it's own, and fails good writing style. It was mentioned it needs to be in the lede some after I took it out. Any ideas then? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Something of this sort needs to be in the lead, as otherwise the lead fails to correctly summarise the article. Verbal chat 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really agree. Look at the lede for Ghost Hunters
Ghost Hunters is an American paranormal documentary reality television series that premiered on October 6, 2004 on Syfy. The program features Jason Hawes and Grant Wilson, who work a day job as Roto-Rooter plumbers and by night investigate places that are reported to be haunted.The show should not be confused with the original 1996 Inca Productions show Ghosthunters produced for the Discovery Channel. The format was sold to the U.S. to become Ghost Hunters. The only remaining link between the two shows is presenter Ian Cashmore who anchored the UK/Europe show. Cashmore piloted the U.S. show, but chose not to remain part of the U.S. venture after he filmed the promos.
Summarizes the article quote well, but doesn't mention the lack of evidence, or anything about the controversies around it. I think it can either 1) Be moved, or 2) Expanded to prevent a one sentence paragraph. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have improved the lead of the other article you mention per WP:LEAD. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Verbal chat 07:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think you get what I'm saying. A single sentence paragraph is considered poor literary form, as per WP:Layout#Paragraphs. They should be minimized as the mirror tabloid-type reporting. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free, as you have, to make a better paragraph, but removing it is not an option while it remains a section in the article and a significant perspective. I like the current lead. Verbal chat 16:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- @LuckyLouie: You can see the lead developed after years of consensus, until it was unilaterally changed last year without discussion or satisfying edit summary. We don't call subject a pseudoscience from the first sentence. It has been described as pseudoscience in the next sentences. This has happened on few other articles before such as Homeopathy, and consensus was not to refer them as pseudoscience from starting sentence. Capitals00 (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Feel free, as you have, to make a better paragraph, but removing it is not an option while it remains a section in the article and a significant perspective. I like the current lead. Verbal chat 16:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think you get what I'm saying. A single sentence paragraph is considered poor literary form, as per WP:Layout#Paragraphs. They should be minimized as the mirror tabloid-type reporting. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Tags, citations and sources
The bulk of this article was built up around 2007 with what sources were available at the time, apparently the height of the ghost-hunting 'craze'. Since then, I'm sure much better WP:RS have arisen that could help improve the article. Someone who has the time (I don't) might be inclined to make those improvements. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- I finally found the time and made the improvements noted above. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Requested move
Ghost hunting → Paranormal investigation — Move to a title that would encompass a more thorough discussion of subject, and redirect this title to Paranormal investigation. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support I assumed this was a subarticle of such an article. Verbal chat 15:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, stupid question. Rather than move this page, should we just kill the redirect of Paranormal investigation that points here, and flesh out a paranormal investigation article? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Conditional supportOppose. If we do move the article, we should amend the article to specify "ghost hunting" as merely an aspect of paranormal investigation. But then comes the question: what else, if anything, does paranormal investigation comprise of, besides ghost hunting? Or are they merely synonyms?. — CRAZY`(lN)`SANE (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, me being an investigator of the paranormal, don't only hunt ghost. I do a lot of it, but I also investigate anything paranormal (UFO, poltergiest, etc). It's really a sub-set of it. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Conditional support Virtually anyone can call themselves a paranormal investigator and publish books, or get newspaper articles about themselves, especially around Halloween. I'll be interested in seeing what WP:RS are available for such an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just to tease you, here's one: http://www.forteantimes.com/features/interviews/5/joe_nickell.html I think most would agree he is a paranormal investigator, not just a ghost hunter. He investigated the Phoenix Lights. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- And yet there's a million like this. By the way, I didn't intend my comment to reflect on you personally, just noting potential WP:RS difficulties of such an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. The way the article is currently written it is nominally about ghost hunting. Maybe an easy fix but do that first, then proceed with the move. — AjaxSmack 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- "User:X reverted edits by User:Y - This article is about ghost hunting. If you want to include other types of paranormal investigation, please get consensus for changing the article title first". I can already see it. In other words, it's not inappropriate to move an article to a more general title and then start adding information the other types of subject. In my opinion it's even preferable because the article's scope is discussed first and content is then added after there's consensus to broaden the article's scope. The alternative would be to add content first and then discuss whether or not it should be included. Jafeluv (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support move. An acceptable alternative would be Paranormal Skeptic's suggestion to create a new article for Paranormal investigation, but I think this article would better serve as a section in that article. Jafeluv (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Re this edit: in my search of both reliable and self-pub sources covering this fascinating cultural phenomenon, I found the terms "ghost hunting" and "paranormal investigation" virtually interchangeable. I did note a great many groups and individuals referring to themselves as "paranormal investigators" apparently in an effort to distinguish themselves as more serious/professional/generalists than others engaged in the same "line of work". But since there's no recognized governing body, accreditation, or authority that reliably defines and categorizes each person or group as one or the other, the WP article should avoid making the distinction. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
HAUNTED HOUSE
HOW DO I BUY SAGE FOR HAUNTED HOUSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.175.187 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
"Belief Statistics" fact contradiction
How can 37% of Americans believe houses can be haunted if only 34% of Americans believe in ghosts in the first place? What does the other 3% believe houses are haunted by, if not ghosts? Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class paranormal articles
- Unknown-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- Start-Class Spirituality articles
- Mid-importance Spirituality articles
- B-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- High-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles