Talk:A Haunting

Ad?

the "about the show" section seems more like and advertisement then a neutral description. someone should clear this up.

"About the Show" simply tells a page viewer what the show is about (Duh!). It doesn't say to watch the show, but what to expect should they choose to watch the show. Also, sign your comments. --Defender 911 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

With that said, yes the article reads like an advertisement, or at the very least, the perspective of someone who really likes the show. It uses all this flowery language about "frightening real-life horror tales" that sounds like its trying to sell the show to the reader. --Foot Dragoon 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It may sound like it's trying to sell the reader. However, I can't find anything similar to an ad. Also, it isn't your place to decide what happened. Were you ever there? In fact, have you even heard of anything like this outside of TV? Of corse not! You have nothing to base that on. Also, about the "omitting", perhaps they simply omitted the witmess accounts due to the fact that they only had a small amount of time on the air. And finally, biased Points of View have no place on a talk page about improving an article. With that sait, would it kill you to leave a message on my talk page rather than putting it here? --Defender 911 21:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You sound kind of angry right now. If my tone came off as hostile, I apologize. But really, although it's true talk pages are meant purely for improving the articles and not for users to chit-chat about the subject at hand, there isn't some crazy rule that "ALL POV MUST BE PURGED FROM THE DISCUSSION PAGE!!!" Seriously, just look at the discussion page for any controversial article.

And I'm not sure how you define an ad, but semantics aside, the point is, the article reads like it's promoting the show by describing the stuff as "frightening true horror tales" rather than just saying the show documents eyewitness accounts of hauntings.

And I'm not so sure what the reason is for leaving messages on the talk page. I'm still talking about the article in general (albeit with a huge amount of tangential stuff) so I'm not quite sure what you're asking for with the leaving messages on your talk page. I'm more or less a Wikignome so I don't think I've ever used user talk pages before, so...what exactly would be something to put in a user talk page as opposed to here? >_> --Foot Dragoon 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, talk pages are about improving the article. However, when users make mistakes on the talk page, the user is notified on the same page. If possible, notify them on their own page. --Defender 911 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether people like this show or not, the article does seem very one-sided. Take the statement "...only showcases supernatural events..." which implies that the stories are factual representations of reality, which is, to say the least, disputable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.248.206.14 (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Add section "Critiques" to article

Unfortunately the Docudrama article itself is still in flux and apparently of no help in the moment to clear this matter up.

Maybe a section explaining shortcomings of the show would balance it? A draft:

Critics of the show point out that only personal perceptions are presented in a dramatized way. The scientific community does not get a chance giving a possible natural explanation for the events experienced. The investigators brought in appear to believe in the supernatural accounts from the start and might even have a conflict of interest.

Can please somebody help rewriting especially the last sentence, as it clearly is not NPOV.

(Personal note: I do not believe in ghosts, but I somehow enjoyed watching my first episode for its spine tickling ability. On the other hand I feel a bit disappointed that this was shown at the Discovery channel, a channel I associate with _documentaries_ and _information_. IMHO it would perfectly fit if it would be aired via AXN). --Stevemiller (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Carbon monoxide poisoning mentions it as a cause for haunted houses. See 8. Carbon monoxide poisoning and "haunted houses" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.51.147 (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just going to add something here too, A Haunting is dramatized and is more for Entertainment as compared to other shows such as Ghost Hunters and etc. This show is more of a focous of the story about it instead of a tedious scientific investigation to try and knock something. If one chooses to watch it from a scientific perspective it is hard as it is difficult to sort out the actual account from what is added for drama. Then you have to take on the roll of basic facts of the time and seeing if there is a more logical explanation. Most of the episodes I feel are overdramatized to find enough on. As I mention later on this page, I've found three in outside sources, and in my opinion most of these are overactive imaginations or in fact real accounts of strigoi (not demons as the show calls most of them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.77.73 (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I added an altered version of your paragraph. I don;t think it is possible to make such a statement entirely neutral, as my past experience on Wikipedia is that attempts to insert "Critique" sections are usually met with aggressive responses from fans of the show/phenomenon in question. Gird your loins...the true believers will now descend upon this article! Johnashby (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Imo, the current "Criticism" section sounds like it's only purpose is to discredit the show. I think that the same information could still be displayed, but in a way that sounds less like the writer's only intention was to point out faults. Spirit Stiff (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Given it's been three-weeks since I added the citation tags, and the section has not made any improvement whatsoever, I guess t should be removed. I've tried looking for references about A Haunting on Google News/Topix, and could not come up with much, let alone criticism. The only negative comments I can find were from other forums, which are not considered to be reliable. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  01:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Current state of the article isn't neutral

As of the time I checked this article at 2:10 PM, US Central Time (DST), on the 24th of April, the article is not neutral and assumes that the show is entirely fictional. While it is a fact that the visuals and interviews don't entirely match up, the article is STILL supposed to be neutral as per wikipedia rules. I suggest getting someone who's never read a word for or against the show to write the article.

Edit: Forgot to sign. Ovni (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL. As of 2016, the article has gone the other way, and is presented as fact. Two other major TV Ghost shows have been proven to be fabrications. Bipedia (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Have a Few Comments

First point, In the Criticism topic, anyone who feels that the use of wicca being used to begin a Haunting and to solve it as being room for criticism, needs to go back and understand wicca and not make false accusations. There is clear seperation between white magic and black magic. This should be listed more for types of events. Anyone who actually knows what they are talking about would never even bring that up as a way to discredit the show's reality.

Second point, if Interested there are three episodes that I have found outside sources on besides the show. The three being "Sallie's House", "Summerwind" and "Stalked by Evil". You can find more outside sources and opinions on these cases which helps the show prove to have some reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.76.207 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I un-did your edit - the show has blatantly named them as 'wicca' on atleast two occasions, so there was no need for the TV.com reference (which is not even an reliable source :p). Second, there are no [current] sources to bck up the claims in the section. Unless citations are added within a reasonable amount of time, the content may be removed by other editors per WP:A. I'll see what I can dig up --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  12:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't update, but I'll just post what I have right here: Sallie's House: www.legendsofamerica.com/OZ-HauntedAtchison-2.html Summerwind: www.prairieghosts.com/summer.html Stalked by Evil: www.caller.com/news/2007/oct/18/corpus-christi-ghost-house/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.77.73 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Christian Propaganda?

Admitedly, I've not seen all of the episodes, but the ones I have seen have culminated in exorcisms and have only featured devoutly christian families. Is this purely coincidental, or is this another example of American christian fundamentalism attempting to pass off as "science", just as in states where the teaching of human evolution is forbiden in place of creationism? Guv2006 (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of episodes that portray clergy men as either useless or pusillanimous in some haunting. I recall in atleast two, clergymen they called were either hesitant to bless a house, or just did not want to be there all together. In others, I have seen some where people who are being 'haunted' have turned to wiccans for help, or used psychic medians - which have sometimes given them more success. The show's producer claimed that he was merely documenting people's stories, regardless of their validity, and wanted people to make their own decisions about them. I also highly doubt that this is an example of 'american christian fundamentalism' since only a few cases take place within the 'Bible belt', and most take place in the American MidWest or New England. ;p --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  15:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I stand corrected. Guv2006 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this series still on television?

Is this series still on television. I know there are repeats on Discovery Channel daily but there hasn't been a new episode out since November 2007. Did Discovery end the series or is it on hiatas? --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the recent edits to this article have dealt with the show's cancellation. I have yet to find a reliable source that can explicitly confirm the show's cancellation or future direction. New Dominion, the show's production company, has not put out a new episode since 2007. In accordance of Wikipieda's verifiability policy, I have removed all mention that the show has been canceled. Furthermore, I have also removed the 'last aired' field in the info box, as the show is still airing (even though there is no guarantee of new episodes). I will attempt to contact New Dominion via email to inquire about the show's future. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Discovery Channel responded to my inquiry by stating, "At this time there are no new episodes set to premiere." :-\ So that basically takes us back to square one. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Haunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090325/REVIEWS/903259997
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130902084431/http://www.newdominion.com:80/2012/12/07/a-haunting.html to http://www.newdominion.com/2012/12/07/a-haunting.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A Haunting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://shopping.discovery.com/product-66099.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20090325%2FREVIEWS%2F903259997
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130902084431/http://www.newdominion.com/2012/12/07/a-haunting.html to http://www.newdominion.com/2012/12/07/a-haunting.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)