Talk:Ghost hunting/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Audentis.Fortuna.Iuvat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Suggestion: Under skepticism, I think it would it be helpful to add a mention of Eleanor Sidgwick. She was a member of Society for Psychical Research, which is mentioned, and was critical of mediums. She published a few papers about her skepticism. - 10:41, 16 March 2018 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schendoa1 (talk • contribs)

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, [1] and [2]. 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^phi _{(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^phi _{(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)

The new evp is here and all u lot have got it all wrong how the new evp that can now record and capture dead people and entities from the other side .iv bin recording for nearly 5years with this new tool . Its is mind blowing how it works even i dont no how it works i cant say how i got it .but its bin doing things . If u want2 no more or see what iv got please get in touch brianasp1@live.co.uk and iv got many voice recordings as well this is new no 1 has it even all ghost shows would use this new tool Saturn1011112222 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2018 (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>[http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/shady-science.html Reality Check: Ghost Hunters and ‘Ghost Detectors’]</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225640,00.html Study: No Scientific Basis for Vampires, Ghosts], [[Associated Press]], 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[3] 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)

We do indeed. See, for example, cryptozoology. Wikipedia has a longtime issue with adherents and apologists attempting to bury terms like pseudoscience as far into an article as possible. We're not here for that. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

There are no sources that define Ghost hunting with the help of the label from the start.[4] We are not removing the term from article entirely. Capitals00 (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm all for respecting consensus. Is there a guideline, or maybe a discussion or RfC you can point me to that decisively concludes "we don't call any subject a pseudoscience in the first sentence"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No actual discussion or consensus has been held yet for overall. I was only mentioning the standard practice and similar discussions that have been held elsewhere. Capitals00 (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2017 (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?. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (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)

"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

Reorganization of Article

The main issue that I've seen with this article is that it neglects to do what Wikipedia is intended for -- explaining what the topic is. This article seems to address more of the controversy and opinions surrounding ghost hunting (specifically the skepticism and belief statistics section) rather than explaining what ghost hunting actually is. Although I concede that this sections are important and necessary, I believe that it is also important to keep the focus on the main topic, which is ghosting hunting, not the skepticism of ghost hunting nor the belief statistics of ghost hunting. Next week, I plan to begin edits on this article including adding sections that address ghost hunting in popular culture, such as ghost hunting television series that seem to be increasing in popularity, as well as books and movies that have been influenced by paranormal investigation, in neutral, encyclopedic language. I also think that it would helpful to explain, for the purpose of encyclopedic knowledge, how paranormal investigation is typically conducted. If anyone has any knowledge on these topics that would like to assist in this endeavor, it would be greatly appreciated. Audentis.Fortuna.Iuvat (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"how paranormal investigation is typically conducted." Isn't this a parapsychology topic? Dimadick (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Audentis.Fortuna.Iuvat. The main topic (the belief you can detect spirits with gadgets) is a fringe theory, so the article falls under our WP:FRINGE guideline, which is part of WP:NPOV. We are required to clearly identify how the fringe theory differs from the mainstream view. In this case, the mainstream view is that ghost hunting is a pseudoscience. Which is why we can't characterize it a "controversy" or give "both sides" equal weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie. After looking over the two pages you linked (parapsychology and WP:FRINGE), I would have to disagree. parapsychology relies more on psychic, telepathy, and things of that sort rather than using specific equipment such as EVP recorders and EMF detectors, and full spectrum cameras to make observations intended to prove the existence of paranormal activity. Additionally, although ghost hunting is considered a pseudoscience, I don't see that issue with explaining what ghost hunting is because, currently, the article doesn't really address this at all, despite that being the main topic. Whether or not someone believes ghost hunting to be real or a hoax, it is something that people engage in. By writing about what ghost hunting is and what it consists of, I don't believe that this would be violating any neutrality or the WP:FRINGE guideline. That's why I made a point to say that it's important to keep sections such as the skepticism section because it as important to the topic as explaining the topic, itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audentis.Fortuna.Iuvat (talk • contribs) 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If you follow the policies I’ve referred to above and use reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:FRIND, there shouldn’t be any problem. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

By the end of the week, I intend to add content about ghost hunting in the media from articles such as Ghost Adventurers, Haunted Collector, The Conjuring, Ghostbusters, Paranormal Activity, in addition to what is already mentioned about Ghost Hunters in the article. I believe that this is important to address, because these portrayals reveal the enduring popularity and fascination of modern society with the paranormal. I plan to organize this content within its own subsection titled "Ghost Hunting in modern media" or "Ghost Hunting in pop culture". I might also shift the paragraph pertaining to ghost tours to this section.

I also intend to expand the "Methods and equipment section" by adding content about some of the equipment from other articles on Wikipedia that will provide a more in depth explanation of what these tools are and how they aid in Ghost Hunting, such as EMF measurement and Electronic voice phenomenon.

Lastly, I plan to create a separate section on famous or well-known Ghost Hunters such as Zak Bagans, Semyon Kirlian, and Ed and Lorraine Warren. I would also like to move the existing Harry Price content to this section and focus more on the influences/origins of Ghost Hunting including content about Emanuel Swedenborg, who is known as the "Father of Modern Day Paranormal Investigation", Edmund Dawson Rodgers, and Harry Houdini, focusing mostly on the Spiritualism movement and the history behind Ghost Hunting in its most general sense.Audentis.Fortuna.Iuvat (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I've begun making edits in my sandbox which I plan to transfer to the main article later today (3/14/19) or within the next two days. Here is a link to my sandbox if anyone wishes to contribute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Audentis.Fortuna.Iuvat/sandbox3 Audentis.Fortuna.Iuvat (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It's better to summarize the important points of a main article — rather than paste in 90% of its existing text. See WP:SUMMARY. You may want to revise most of your new sections accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, please avoid adding film examples about ghosts and hauntings that have no specific or significant connection to ghost hunting/paranormal investigators, such as Paranormal Activity, Poltergeist, and some of the Annabelle series. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie I added the section about Seymon Kirlian back because I think he was significant to ghost hunting. He was the inventor of what is called Kirlian photography, which introduced the use of technology to paranormal investigation. Without this contribution, ghost hunting would've remained as it had in the Spiritualist era, relying solely on seances and the like. I added a sentence explaining this in the article so that his significance to the topic is more clear. Audentis.Fortuna.Iuvat (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR, synthesis, etc. We require independent sources to cite that kind of analysis to. Also, “Kirlian photography introduced the use of technology and cameras as a method to find evidence of ghosts during paranormal investigations“...is promoting pseudoscience in Wikipedia’s voice. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ghost hunting

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ghost hunting's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EW":

• From Reality television: Fretts, Bruce. (July 21, 1995). "The British Invasion The Real World returns for fourth season – The MTV hit invades London". Entertainment Weekly. Page 3 of 4
• From The Conjuring 2: Collins, Clark (August 7, 2017). "James Wan gives update on The Conjuring 3". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved August 8, 2017.
• From Dybbuk box: Collis, Clark. "Little Box of Horrors." Entertainment Weekly, August 3, 2012, pp. 50–55.
• From Vera Farmiga: Rome, Emily (May 18, 2013). "'Middleton' stars Vera Farmiga, Andy Garcia in a tale of self-discovery". Entertainment Weekly. Time Inc. Archived from the original on May 23, 2015. Retrieved September 10, 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From The Conjuring: Collis, Clark (November 16, 2012). "'The Conjuring': First look at 'Insidious' director James Wan's new horror movie". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved March 10, 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)