Talk:The Atlantic Paranormal Society/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Added 'Apparitions' Video Game to Activities

Today TAPS released their first video game, and I added the reference to the article. --12.206.2.37 00:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Add to the Groups Activities

It seems to me that if one goes to the Atlantic Paranormal Society official site you can clearly see from the links on the front page that they engage in the selling of merchandise, magazine subscriptions, and advertising space in magazines. One can see from their schedule that they are constantly making various lectures or holding 'special ghost hunting' opportunities to pay a few hundred dollars to go ghost hunting with them at famous sites from their TV show. To not include these clear activities in a list of the activities of the group is strongly biased. In what sense is it fair to remove these factual statements? I had worded it thusly:

"They attempt to raise money to fund their activities by selling magazines, merchandise, DVD's, and advertising space in their magazines. They also accept compensation for their services due to the large amount of travel that they put in. In addition, several of the TAPS team are on the Sci Fi network payroll as consultants to the show Ghost Hunters. One other primary objective of TAPS is to make the rounds on the college lecture and convention circuit, as various members are constantly booked at such events, and command high rates to come and speak. It can also be seen from their schedule on their website that they have begun offering more and more 'Meet TAPS' type events in which, for a fee, you can go ghost hunting with them at famous sites."

All of these are facts. Perhaps it could be worded better. I submit it to the community to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.46.28 (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I re-did the order of the article to make more sense. The brief history belongs after the short summary at the beginning, it was utterly out of place sandwiched where it was. I think it makes far more sense to combine the objectives and activities of the group rather than their objectives and their methods, and as I spent some time finding highly factual sources for any new information, I will protest vigorously any attempt to revert this page without discussion. It amounts to side-taking. Nothing I've added about the group is anything it doesn't say right on the main page of their site, so I don't see how it is so 'opinionated.' It says 'the group have a book and magazine available, they offer trips for a price, they offer shirts and hats and stickers,' which they do. If some of their activities like driving around looking for ghosts are worthy of inclusion on this site surely are their other official activities. --64.198.46.28 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Group Having Prominence In Field

The group are not important in the slightest, their temporary fame bubble has burst and they do not deserve this big of a section. They charge incredible amounts for their lectures and they are horrible people.

This prominence refers to home and business owners feeling comfortable with letting them investigate and the frequency of requests of TAPS members to give lectures or analyze evidence that other groups have collected, and does not refer to the show. In fact, the prominence of TAPS in their field was achieved well before the show Ghost Hunters featured them. It is the prominence of the group -outside- the field that has expanded because of this show. TAPS existed for a decade before the show was made, and were quite well known as well as running the most visited paranormal website in the world. --Ira-welkin 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Their popularity among paranormal lecture circuits and talkshows was well-established long before the show GhostHunters, and is probably the reason why TAPS was selected to be in the show. Hence their 'prominence.' --Ira-welkin 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to show the points you make, above, not just say it. Beyond their site being the most visited, (because that means nothing since TV shows always get lots of hits on their websites) what other clues are there to back up your claim. How are you going to show they were prominent in their field before their fame on TV? They don't seem to be doing anything different than any other paranormal group, such as SIGHT, in fact, personally I'm more impressed with other groups, though I cannot make objective statements about why I find this to be the case (at least not right now I can't).

So then, what was the real reason they got the TV show? Could there be a relative in the TV industry? Perhaps some other connection that led to their being featured as "plumbers by day ghost busters by night?" I'm sure there is a story there somewhere. Does it have anything to do with why TAPS is more respectable than other groups currently? Are there perhaps more respected groups within the community? Is this information something that can be put down in NPOV and does it belong? I think it would belong if it could be clearly shown or in some other way stated. VX 21:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article DOES clearly endorse the idea that ghosts exist and needs to be changed to reflect the fact that there is no reason to suspect they do.

This article has definitely been constructed by either a) a fan of the show or b) the people who produce the show. --UNSIGNED COMMENT

Firstly, The Atlantic Paranormal Society is NOT A SHOW. TAPS is a Non-Profit Organization that has existed for 15 years. 'Ghost Hunters' is a 2-year old reality show on the Sci Fi channel featuring TAPS. A huge 'POV' problem with the initial article was that it EQUATED the show with TAPS. There is a 'Ghost Hunters' article. The show can be discussed there, hopefully by people who know the difference between the show and TAPS. Also, the initial article was unabashedly against the show. How does providing equal voice to both sides of the arguement about the show, with statements such as 'when considering the validity of the show, one must take in to account...' with reference to both side's views, constitute a bias? Why does an article unbashedly criticizing the show and providing only a slight amount of information that is potentially irrelevant not set off your POV sensors but a paragraph that doesn't condemn it does? The earlier article was against the show 'Ghost Hunters,' barely mentioned TAPS and when discussing the scientific principles of TAPS immeadiatly began talking about a TV Producer from Britan's opinion of the show 'Ghost Hunters' for showing scenes where the group members argued about equipment, something totally beyond the control of anyone in TAPS, who this article is about. If you have a problem with a 'fan' of the show trying to add information, you should go to the Beatles pages and the various members and erase ALL the facts, because you can bet that only fans of a group or show would know the most facts about it. I have striven to present both sides of the argument, present only relevant factual information, and most importantly NOT ERASE the opposing view point, only provide counterpoint and let the reader make up their own mind. The reader could not have made up their mind before, anyone knowing nothing about the group would have NO IDEA what they were really about from the earlier article.

--Ira-welkin 15:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting because the show, Ghost Hunters, is responsible for the confusion about what TAPS is and what Ghost hunters is, nobody else. One or two sentences on the Ghost Hunters article will clear this up. VX 13:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There now there is no room for complaints. I completely Neutralized it as best I could, added every viewpoint I've heard about, added a lot of strictly factual content, and gave equal weight to every side of the debate. Hopefully future folks with a different view can address it within this framework.

--Ira-welkin 15:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the POV issues have been addressed, it's not that the article was filled with untruths or anything of that nature, but that it had a few weasel words in its midst. I laud your edit.

--SlightlyMentholated 16:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I can definatly see how it was unbalanced in both directions before. Thanks for the feedback!

--Ira-welkin 17:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the second paragraph in this section, might I ask what makes TAPS special or different than any other paranormal research group. Beyond they are plumbers by day, etc.

This is kind of important so I do hope you will respond. VX 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody ever responds. So, since the group's stated purpose, it's threefold mission, so to speak, without references whatsovever, is still in the article, and the criticism section is/was subject to a template, there are ALL KINDS of templates we can insert into this article, unless of course y'all want to work collaboratively on the article. Just let me know. VX 06:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Membership List

It's clear now that several members 'left' to go start a spin off series, 'Ghost Hunters International.' Odds are this show will never get off the ground as it contains Andy Andrews, who is the most unfilmable member ever to grace TAPS. Being as many of the members who make up that show very publicly 'left' TAPS, a greater degree of manipulation has been previously suspected. Also mind boggling: the idea that there will be a 'spinoff' series when they haven't shown all the episodes filmed over a year ago. It sure is a screwy world.

What's with the past and present members of TAPS? Don't we think the current members are enough? VX 13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)VX

As the list appears to contain members and former members who may or may not have participated in the TV show, I think such a listing is a good resource for future researchers who may want to cross-reference this information for purposes of fact-checking and investigations into the group's history. LuckyLouie 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I'm trying to think of an example of why future researchers would find this important, LL...not coming up with anything. Do you not think it seems rather odd to list the past members of this particular group? VX 00:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)VX

I had heard of someone that was researching a web article on TAPS and looking for former members to interview. But if TAPS keeps such records in the public domain, then I agree, it has no place in this artcle. LuckyLouie 00:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no lists of past members in public domain on TAPS. It isn't up to one guy to decide what reasons future researchers might have for looking up information. Is that really the intent of wikipedia? Why erase truthful, valid information with no bias, such as 'who was in the group,' on the grounds that it is 'probably not helpful.' Of course it isn't helpful to someone who doesn't like TAPS and thinks that they are all a bunch of fakers. That view ISN'T the only view, and it doesn't deserve to push ALL OTHERS OUT OF HERE. Honestly. --Ira-welkin 00:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The "grounds" that it's not helpful? Is this a court of law? From first reading it I found myself wondering WHY former members would be listed. It seems strange. I've not seen this type of thing elsewhere. It's out of place in an article about this group. If you wanted to include ALL truthful information we would need to include what each member wore on all past and present investigations, what they had for breakfast, who their parents are, are they still alive, do they drink tea or coffee.....VX 13:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/members.html has a member list. Not sure if it is current, or shows past members or not. LuckyLouie 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It definatly doesn't show past members, and even doesn't show many of the current ones. --Ira-welkin 23:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this membership list is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia. The only information that should appear in the Wikipedia article, should be that information which already appears in secondary sources such as books, magazines, or documentary television broadcasts. If such references cannot be provided, the list should either be removed, or pared down to those names that can be verified. --Elonka 17:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep Ghost Hunters stuff on the Ghost Hunters page!

Indeed, please keep all this stuff on the ghost hunters official site where hardly anybody will find it.

All your guys are doing is repeating infomation already contained in another article. Cyberia23 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

GROSS VANDALISM!!! You have eliminated VERY MUCH SPECIFIC INFORMATION, including information that is more appropriate to THIS entry than to the SHOW. I am petitioning to changing it back.

--Ira-welkin 22:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is an attempt to de-ligitimize the show by an advocate of a negative viewpoint to try to use false logic to reduce the scale of reasonable discussion on the topic of the controversial issue of the paranormal. I refuse to accept erasing the bulk of the informative content of the article on the grounds that it 'relates more to the show.' If that was the case, why tell me did you erase the list of known members of TAPS? Does that have more to do with the show? Again I cry 'GROSS VANDALISM' and petition for the restoration of EVERYTHING in the article. Would you erase all mention of the Beatles from the John Lennon article. THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!

--Ira-welkin 22:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The show and the group are too intertwined to discuss the scientific validity of the group wihout entioning the show, as the fact that there is a show about them influences or might influence their conduct as a group. --Ira-welkin 22:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There I have 'De-Show-Ified' it. If you want to erase things as they are covered in two articles, why not erase the section on the TAPS method from the SHOW page. Better yet, why not leave it, as it is completely pertinent to BOTH? If splitting hairs, at least show some compassion to the people who wish to actually KNOW about the subject, not just a willingness to alter things. If you aren't making changes to improve the level and quality of information avaiable to those who seek it, then you are making MALICIOUS changes, in my opinion. --Ira-welkin 22:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy of a letter to Cyberia23

You erased quite a bit of information about the running of the group TAPS and the way they conduct their investigations from the TAPS page, as it was already on the GH page. That to me shows a negligence for what you are doing, favoring change rather than meaningful evaluation of what you are doing. I have beyond all shade of reason made the TAPS article about TAPS. If you wish to erase this information from the GH article, think about why you are doing it. Does it really help anybody? The debate about the value and worth of both TAPS and the show Ghost Hunters are bound together. Can one dicsuss the credibility of the show without bringing doubt upon the group, and vice versa? --Ira-welkin 22:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy of a letter to Cyberia23

There are groups in the 'TAPS Family,' which is a designation that TAPS gives groups it approves of the investigations methods of, but calling other paranormal groups 'TAPS Groups' is like calling every rock band a 'Beatle' group. I think you should DISCUSS these huge changes rather than just making them. TAPS gets donations from Sci Fi but does NOT GET PAID. You don't know enough to be making these changes. --Ira-welkin 00:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be here. Plus, it lists a HUGE number of other organizations at the end. What is this about, since the sentence describing the section makes little sense--or, I should say it seems to be a way to get other paranormal groups who may or may not wish association to be listed ... because why? Because they are similar? They what? Why are they there and what is this article about? Ghost Hunters has already covered The Atlantic Paranormal Society, no? VX 13:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)VX

All-Caps is considered shouting. It is utterly annoying to read this type of ranting over and over. VX 13:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you indeed file a petition? If so, what was the result or are you still waiting? VX 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that what Cyberia did was vandalism of any type, gross or otherwise. VX 21:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how would one go about signing this petition, if that is required? TAPS is not the same as Ghost Hunters, so keep the articles seperate. And seeing as the TAPS family is huge, there should be other groups listed because they are most likely part of the TAPS family. Validation? Go check their website! Seriously, this is frustrating. brickdude 05:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fact Checking

There is no legitimacy to the claim that they are the most visited paranormal site, based on hits per day. That may have been true at one point but they never made the true stats available or gave any inkling that they were keeping true track. Like their foolish assurance they were a 'non-profit organization' when they didn't even know what that meant.

The line -- "The TAPS website, featuring some of the evidence they have collected in video and audio form, is currently the most visited paranormal website in the world with over 50,000 hits a day"

This needs a citation. Also of note, one needs to gather the site visit count, not the site hit count. There is a huge stat difference there, with visits including just unique visits, whereas hits includes repeat visitors, image loads, etc. As a result, the hit count grossly inflates the amount of visitors. Seicer 21:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus, this statistic is misleading. TAPS visitors go to the site because they are fans of the show, the TV show. Putting this in here makes them seem somehow more legit, than say, SIGHT, which either is or is not true. In either case, it's not accurrate, so please suggest how to change it or remove. VX 21:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, as it's written now it makes TAPS look less legitimate than it is. Please see my Organization, notes, below, on how I suggest a remedy. VX 09:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The evidence that was posted on the TAPS site has been removed due to the site being moved. brickdude 05:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Various perceptions of the validity and legitmacy of TAPS

There is no legitimacy, anyone who perceives any is in denial.

I think this section was a good attempt at addressing the controversy, but falls short in a few areas.

I see what appears to be an oversimplified view, attempting to divide TAPS critics into 4 distinct categories. While some are accurate, there are, in reality, many variations. For example, many paranormal groups feel that TAPS fakes their evidence. However according to this list of categories, they would be classified as as "Critics who don't believe in the paranormal".

This section also fails to address one of the key issues that critics have about TAPS, which is their alleged "debunking" approach to investigation. TAPS is purportedly dedicated to investigating sites that may be haunted from a skeptic's point of view, instead of from a "believers" standpoint. Yet from what we see on the TV show, debunking is actually used to separate "real hauntings" from "false hauntings". (i.e. "That noise you heard on the porch was just the wind, but the apparition we saw in the bedroom was real") From reviewing a statistical analysis of the show, I see that TAPS formally pronounces a site "haunted" 60% of the time, and nearly 80% of the time find "unexplained activity" that is treated as if it's paranormal. Do skeptics pronounce a majority of sites "haunted"? It certainly doesn't seem like TAPS operates from "a skeptics point of view" to me. Some of the group's harshest critics go so far as to say that TAPS merely poses as skeptics in order to sway unbelievers and lend greater impact to their "paranormal encounters" (i.e. The Mulder Effect).

Also there are critics who point to TAPS apparent unfamiliarity with the nature and capabilities of their instrumentation. The IR thermometers being erroneously used to measure ambient air temperature are a prime example.

And then there's also the whole Roto Rooter issue. No one minds that due to the demands of their radio guest dates, book deals, nationwide personal appearances, and TV show filming schedule, they don't have time to actually work as plumbers any more, but for the group's official site and TV show to promote them as "plumbers by day and ghost hunters by night" smacks of untruthfulness and audience manipulation. It's a small thing, but for a group whose findings hinge on their personal credibility, it's puzzling.

These criticisms are not just coming from the skeptical community. They are being expressed by casual viewers and dedicated paranormal investigators alike.

I'm not sure how these concerns can be expressed in a NPOV manner, but I'm going to do some thinking on it. LuckyLouie 06:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Think also about what a wikipedia encyclopedia reference should and should not contain. I am seeing a little bit of what we were wrestling with over in the Ghost Hunter's article. Why there should be two references in wikipedia on the same group is beyond me. VX 13:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

After doing some thinking about it, I am asking myself "why muck up an article about TAPS (the organization) with critique and defense?" My guess is that this section was created to contain 'criticism', but in an attempt to be even-handed, it ended up adding in categories of believers and non believers. This page may not be the place for a detailed criticism of the group's actions. Does such critique rightly belong on the Ghost Hunters page? LuckyLouie 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

About them statistically pronouncing a majority of sites haunted, that is only televised investigations. They do many more that aren't televised. They usually prefer to show more interesting episodes. There are even three unreleased investigations coming out on the upcoming DVD. But they do investigations year round. --Ira-welkin 21:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ira, I'm not going to argue point-counter-point with you here. Please add suggestions for what should be in the article or how to make it better. LuckyLouie 01:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to include this type of information at all, making the "criticism" section stand glaringly out. Put in a damn note or two about criticism and leave it at that. Why are you trying to make an argument right from the get-go? This isn't about massive controversy; it's about TAPS, simply, the basics first. Then decide if it needs more detail! VX 09:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try to get this going again, if ONLY because there now exists a template on this specific section of this new article. Even though, in my opinion, the writer sums it up nicely when he breaks down the various types of TAPS critics, there is no way to show this isn't just one person's perspective. Maybe if you conduct a survey, maybe an online survey in the TAPS forum or something, you could use it. However do you really WANT to draw undue attention to the critics? To do this would open up more back and forth over issues that are simply not necessary for the purposes of this article. I think you need to write the article first. There isn't going to be much more to a criticism section that what we already hashed out over in the Ghost Hunter's article. Heck, we could even just refer readers to that article and be done with it. Y'know? VX 22:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"TAPS family"

This section is pointless.

In the article there is reference to TAPS family. The first sentence is confusing. TAPS stands for The Atlantic Paranormal Society, as I understand it. Does TAPS itself want to call other paranormal groups "TAPS groups?" And, do other paranormal research groups want to be called, or, referred to as TAPS groups?

We are starting to sound, here, like TAPS groups are a growing phenomenon? Is this true or are paranormal researchers looking for their own, separate identity. Certainly the ones I've talked with are. VX 12:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)VX

I checked with SIGHT and learned what a TAPS Family is. I've changed the descriptive sentence to reveal what they are. Now, I wonder if it's appropriate for the list of all the organizations around the world to be included here. From what I've learned wikipedia is not for advertising. Will someone else please critically weigh in on this? VX 13:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pure and simple, it's networking. It's nice to be kind to your network members and list them whenever possible, but doing it on your own website is appropriate and more helpful to the groups, not in wikipedia. VX 13:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to agree here. The network of sites, while useful to a handful of users, is not encylopedia approperiate. I am going to ask that it be removed. Seicer 15:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As with the TAPS membership list, I feel that a list of groups associated with TAPS is a good resource for future researchers to use in investigations into the group's history. I agree that the present long list should be removed from the page. But perhaps there is a link to this list that could be added to a reference of the concept of the "TAPS family". LuckyLouie 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Future researchers can do their own google searches, no? TAPS should list their "TAPS Family" on its own website, where it belongs. Interestingly, I don't see such information in that location. VX 00:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the long list of TAPS family: http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/linksinvestigators.html How about we dispense with the list and just put the link? LuckyLouie 00:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, since I see at least two wikipedians plus myself who agree the article would be better served by a link and not a list, I am going to make the edit. If anyone disagrees, we can always revert it back and discuss. LuckyLouie 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with LuckyLouie here. It's on another site and is more approperiately served through a link than a bloated list. This shortens the article considerably and is better served per Wiki standard (for external links). Seicer 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so TAPS does have this listing. VX 13:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Should The Atlantic Paranormal Society have a Wiki article

No. It is pointless and does not contribute to the information presented in wikipedia.

Each and every one of the links to the Taps family groups listed at the bottom of this article link to their own web pages. This tells me none of these other groups have wikipedia articles. So then, why does TAPS need not one, but TWO?! What is so special about them except they have a TV show? I'm more convinced now that this article is not needed and shouldn't be here or at least shouldn't be listing all their network/advertising partners. Convince me otherwise, please. VX 13:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I do think a separate article about TAPS is legitimate. TAPS is the only one with a wiki entry because they are the most prominent (in the generic sense of the word) and yes, it's because of the TV show. It would be natural for a reader to look up "The Atlantic Paranormal Society" and expect to see *something*. But perhaps that *something* should be minimal yet informative. It should not be a convoluted entry full of critics and defenders. Maybe we could find some examples to guide us on what such a wiki entry might contain. LuckyLouie 18:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Because they are prominent, they have an inclusion in wikipedia television project, or whatever it is called. TAPS should be referenced on that page. There are many many paranormal research groups throughout the country and the world. If you list one, list them all? TAPS is different because it's got a TV show, keep the content on the GH article. I don't see any other area, beyond their fame, which singles them out over any other group. VX 00:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

They were approached to be featured in the show because they were already quite famous among paranormal groups. Why run into an area where you don't even know the origins of the topic and try to change so much? You keep asking basic questions, why not go work on article on a topic you know about? Any options? --Ira-welkin 00:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you trying to make excuses to take out all information you can. Take out episode guide, trying to remove the TAPS article. YOU AREN'T HELPING ANYBODY! Agenda is all you care about. --Ira-welkin 00:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to explain my opinion a bit. As a writer, I often do searches for background information on a subject. Wikipedia is a great resource because I often find raw information I can use that is free of marketing hype. There is a bit of marketing hype in this article right now at the very top where there's a dizzy quote from Hawes or Wilson. I think that needs to get the old "heave-ho". And there's some other questionable stuff. But I do think the TAPS entry, as an entry, should remain. My opinion is just my opinion, and I would like to hear further thoughts and discussion on this issue. ALSO: Ira, please cool it with the personal attacks about VX's motivation for being here. It's not helpful. LuckyLouie 01:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be less biased about who you have a problem with. --Ira-welkin 01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ira-welkin asked me: Why run into an area where you don't even know the origins of the topic and try to change so much?

I answer: why not? That's why we have the discussion pages. I'm just editing and doing my thing. I actually know more about this than you think. Saying they were "famous" in the paranormal community is questionable, at best. VX 16:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Louie, I guess I don't see why this TAPS content couldn't have been included in the Ghost Hunters article and still contain the same amount of info. Wikipedia is apparently doing work on a project that includes television. But since it IS being included, and believe me, I am going to suggest a few other paranormal groups similar to TAPS put their own entries in here too, I just need to question it. The other writers will NOT question it. In fact we see some putting links in wherever they can at wikipedia, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not. At this point, after hearing you weigh in I am satisfied.

Ira: you wrote, "Please be less biased about who you have a problem with." I have to ask, what are you talking about and to whom? Then again, I don't see LL's biases causing a problem as concern the writing and editing of this article. Everyone has a bias. As you have said you know, the object is to get an article with a neutral point of view. VX 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that Ira read the ad hominem entry and please avoid ad hominem comments. LuckyLouie 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess the ad hominem is easier than answering the question posed in the section header. VX 21:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I get what you're saying Louie. Of course. There are some other paranormal groups and people in wikipedia and I'm sure there will be more on the way. Because there are others on the way, we could be pioneering how wiki articles on these are written. This entry needs to be simplified and dispassionate, in my opinion, to make the cut. VX 10:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If a paranormal team exists, it gets an article. That is the way of wiki. Oh and VX, please edit your user page so as we may know exactly who you are, for some of us are pretty confused. You should be part of wikiproject paranormal, seeing as you have some excellent editing skills in this area. brickdude 05:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Current edits

I've taken out a bit of "marketing", streamlined some of the text for readability, and tried to balance the presentation of the group's methods (the previous one made them sound like OSHA, checking people's homes for toxic chemicals and electrical safety). I invite the gang here to check it to ensure NPOV. LuckyLouie 04:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In thinking this over, see below please? VX 09:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Organization and Perspective of Subject Matter

This article, right up front, needs to tell me, the reader,

1. What TAPS is.

2. About the type of thing TAPS is. Meaning, it is like myriad organizations of real people around the globe. The overview of the type of thing it is.

3. How TAPS relates to these other organizations.

4. Who is directly involved, meaning Grant and Jason and who the insiders are who started the group. Where it is, even why it is (i.e. what was the impetus for the group TAPS).

Then, it simply needs to say:

1. What the areas of inquiry are: (i.e. Lead Investigator, Historian, Demonologist, counselor, and so forth).

2. Equipment used: IR therm, voice recorders, etc. (i.e. How they gather information too.) This is currently done well in the "objectives" section but some more needs to be said first.

3. Members, past and present: who's been involved.

4. Who they serve: Maybe move the part about the group's threefold purpose to come in at this point.

This article needs to do this in a VERY dispassionate manner. For instance, it goes off the dispassionate track when it tells me how the group wants to share their stories with the world note in the threefold purpose.

To get off on better footing, for someone wanting to read about them in wikipedia, the article might read like this (along these lines, not exactly like this):

TAPS is a paranormal investigative group, meaning, its members visit sites purported to be haunted for the purpose of validating or invalidating these type of stories. Though the group was organized in (such and such year) it is similar to groups that have gained popularity in the last decade. TAPS leads an effort to network with these similar groups, calling the campaign the TAPS FAMILY.

TAPS is made popular by the tv show Ghost hunters which features the group blah blah blah. (No need to for the directive "see the ghost hunter page for that...." as is currently written on the top of the page~!

Then who is directly involved, what the areas of inquiry are, members past and present, who they serve and how, as outlined above.

Currently, OBJECTIVES looks great.

Try to make it simpler, over all, that is all. VX 09:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This is something LL did very well in the Ghost Hunters article, but after much work by everyone. I suggest a similar thing be done here. VX 09:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I did some more cleanup. If you feel it needs a restructure, give it a try LuckyLouie 05:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not found enough detail about TAPS history, definitions of job titles (lead investigator etc.), or how they relate to other groups (except the family affiliation) to flesh out the article as you suggested. Maybe that's why the entry is so minimal. LuckyLouie 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I am thinking that TAPS needs to be put into the framework as existing along side of myriad similar groups around the globe, for one. Similar groups need to be referenced to put the group in perspective as TAPS being as highly publicicized as it is, would have readers believe they are the one and only, or, "the original." Already we see paranormal groups referred to as "TAPS Groups." That framework needs to be put in right from the get go, for one. I will work on it, as soon as I can. VX 06:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Template on the Criticism Section

Is not necessary or appropriate since the group itself purports to be highly skeptical, doing debunking of all kinds of things, except its own antics. Criticism is appropriate, particularly in this article, since the group doesn't submit to independent review, which would legitimize IT. It's a bit too early to be doing this type of thing to the article. I wish the person who did this would carry on a discussion about his/her actions rather than behave like a vandal. Thanks. VX 06:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I see Inshanee re-added the template, the user seems to love templates, citing them on her page. And that is fine, I agree the section is about as messed up as it could be, pure opinion. For this article. I just think the user is jumping the gun. This article is in its early stages. Plus, she doesn't bother to discuss her actions with the contributors, yet advises in her comments to not revert. I'm inclined to perceive this type of thing as vandalism, but since I agree with her, I will leave it. VX 21:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion in the section ..."validity of TAPS." VX 22:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

POV and other Templates

I think this 'template' needs to be disputed. --64.198.46.28 21:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the template from Sermon to POV. Mr. 64.198.46.28, your current edits reflect some innacuracies and bias:

1. Pilgrim Films & Television are producers of the show, not SciFi.

2. Suggesting that critics are 'confused' is POV.

3. Injecting defensive statements and point-counterpoint into Criticism is POV.

4. Your sources aren't properly referenced per Wiki standards.

LuckyLouie 23:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So, did someone revert back to sermon then...off to check... VX 21:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I am curious again about why there is no section considered appropriate to discuss the criticism's faults and misapprehensions? If it can be shown through citeable fact that the criticisms are misguided, as in a non-official online misinterpretation of the citeable words of television episodes and recorded interviews, then why should the misguided criticisms have a valid place in this article while the rational, citable explanations of why the criticisms are invalid, and a misinterpretation of the words of the group, have no place? Think about what you are saying.

If people in a blog somewhere say that they think Grant means one thing, when it is obvious from his on-the-record words that he meant something different that contradicts what is being said about him, which is more official and suitable for inclusion?

Would you just put that John Lennon clearly said that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus in his article without explaining the context behind it? Learn from history perhaps? Would you kill me three thousand years ago for saying that the earth went around the sun? Know everything?

--Ira-welkin 00:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your further attempted edits Ira, but now I feel the Criticism section is a mess and appears to contradict itself. I guess we'll eventually have to get mediation on this article. LuckyLouie 00:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly the point. Realizing that certain aspects of the criticism take the group out of context makes it clear that such criticism is not applicable in the article. Only criticism that doesn't criticize the group for something that it doesn't purport to be is relevant, outside of a thesis papaer by a student desperate for something to write about. --12.206.4.138 01:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would almost be willing to go along with you on that, however I have watched about a dozen episodes and have actually heard the two TAPS founders make numerous references regarding TAPS ambitions to legitimize the paranormal as a mainstream science. If that somehow does not qualify as a source, we have it in print, here (http://www.basinpark.com/photogallery/basindisplay/pic_details.php?pid=295) when they were interviewed by an Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism writer:

Hawes said the TAPS mentality is "to make the paranormal a respected field."

"We’re looking at it as a science in its infancy," said Wilson. The two were lead to the field after paranormal experiences of their own; Hawes’ about 19 years ago and Wilson’s about 15 years ago.

For this reason I don't think the criticism regarding TAPS viewing what it does as 'Science' is irrelevant, misinterpreted, or out of context in the least. LuckyLouie 02:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Developing the groups own methods in as scientific a way as possible, internally, and claiming to have developed that 'science' to the point where they are presenting papers in international publications such as 'Science,' are two different things. It should be clear from the 'science in its infancy' that the group is concentrating on developing a meaningful internal procedure which with hope will one day be proven viable to the world.

I cite another episode, the first of the second season, in which founder Hawes discusses the fact that the field of Paranormal Research is discouraging because 'You never know if you are doing it right.' Coupled with your own quote, about a 'science in its infancy,' it seems pretty clear that they regard the groups methods and mentality (a word taken from their website) as scientific, but realize their results are not something that can be mulled over by scientists.

In almost every episode in which they capture evidence, Jason points out the fact that critics are going to 'tear it apart,' meaning that he realizes that if somebody didn't trust the group the evidence is next to meaningless.

It's pretty clear that the group is striving to understand the forces around them without being so quick to pass paranormal judgement. In episode five of the first season, Grant says 'When something moves, we might think its a ghost, but perhaps its something completely scientific that we don't understand yet.'

Such a viewpoint, such an open-minded viewpoint about something that they care so passionately about, espeicially as they claim to have had personal paranoral experiences that prompted their interest in this field, is far more respectable than the position of those who wish to negate all of their findings without paying a minute of thought to the topic.

By 'making the paranormal a respected field,' Jason meant not calling 'orbs' evidence, or being overly sensationalistic. By striving to perfect methods of research that yield meaningful results.

You have to remember that many other paranormal groups, including all the others on American television, use psychics. The Discovery Channel, for the love of whatever God, has a show called A Haunting, almost every episode of which is based on incredibly anecdotal evidence and the 'feelings' of 'mediums' are used to investigate situations. Compared to everything else on the subject on American television, TAPS are almost brutally scientific in their method.

The stated primary objective of TAPS is to help people, secondly it is to learn for themselves. If TAPS manage to help someone with a problem, then they feel they have done their job.

As such they do not investigate cemetaries, they would rather tell frightened people their home is not haunted, etc.

People with an interest in paranormal experiments on terms they would approve of clearly have no actual willingness to spend their time and money in that way, or they could point to their own findings, rather than knocking the work of a group like TAPS who have dedicated over a decade of time and money to the effort.

If TAPS have a little more recognition than other paranormal groups, a large part of it might be due to the show. But as their paranormal website was already most visited in the world before the show, perhaps that is why they and not some other paranormal group were contacted to make the show.

--64.198.46.28 19:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of assumptions you're making about TAPS. Simply because they were cast in a reality TV show does not mean they were the best, most recognized, most accomplished, most selfless, etc. Having a TV show doesn't mean you automatically can escape criticism. On the contrary, most TV stars recognize and acknowledge their critics.

If Jason himself points out that critics are going to 'tear it (the evidence) apart,' he is acknowledging that TAPS indeed does have critics. Shouldn't the Wiki article mention these critics and why they "tear the evidence apart"? The criticisms that I've seen are real, i.e. TAPS Ghost Hunters 'evidence' consists largely of pre-edited video sequences. The un-edited footage, as well as any detailed investigation records, are sealed by TAPS. In the show, they often claim to be skeptics and hard to convince. A few moments later in the same show, they claim that demonic and paranormal entities exist and EVP's are dead people talking. In the show, they claim their evidence is not proof of haunting. A few moments later in the same show, they claim their evidence has convinced them a site is haunted. One moment they're skeptics, the next moment they're believers. One moment their evidence is inconclusive, the next moment it's conclusive. And to top it all off - they refuse to let anyone outside of TAPS review anything they present on the show for accuracy or viability. I personally have nothing against entertainment shows, but this one could benefit by having a disclaimer at the head of the show that says it's for "entertainment purposes only". If that were done, all criticism would melt away instantly. But they likely will not add a dsiclaimer, so there are going to be critics. The job here is not to decide if the Critics are right. It's to figure out how to represent them fairly and not make them sound like confused cranks. LuckyLouie 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if they weren't so eager to take the words of TAPS in whatever way they felt best suited their argument at that moment, and strove to understand what was actually meant, they wouldn't sound the way they do.

TAPS don't feel it is for 'entertainment purposes only.' Such disclaimers are not found on many shows that clearly are.

The fact that a show featuring TAPS uses edited sequences is meaningless. Show me one television show using unedited sequences! What you are looking for is found on the DVD's that you acknowledge exist, but surely do not want to run the risk of finding yourself wrong to examine. You don't really want to be contradicted, so you flea the evidence.

Surely you grasp the simple fact that by claiming to be skeptical the group means they do not take the client's claims at face value unless they have discovered evidence with their equipment adding credence to that claim. You would have them mean whatever it took to prove them wrong. You aren't even concerned about what their meaning actually is.

Your criticisms should only be kept in when meaningful.

--64.198.46.28 20:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of assumptions you're making about TAPS. Simply because they were cast in a reality TV show does not mean they were the best, most recognized, most accomplished, most selfless, etc. Having a TV show doesn't mean you automatically can escape criticism. On the contrary, most TV stars recognize and acknowledge their critics. --Misplaced section written by LuckyLouie

Please reply at the bottom and not in the middle of my points. You are also making a number of assumptions, such as that anything was ever said about recognition, accomplishment, selflessness. Also, the idea of having a TV show exempting persons from criticsm. Indeed, we have just discussed Jason acknowledging his critics. First, you said it was a sign of weakness for him to do that. Now, you claim that he hasn't done so and if he did, it would be a sign of strength. You are clearly grasping at straws. This has no place on an encyclopedia. The number of contradictions you made in ten minutes is greater and more obviously fallacious than any accusations you leveled at TAPS. Not so easy to make sense, is it? I have emboldened your direct self-contradiction, and submit to the community that your high level of interest in editing this article reflects your contradictory opinions about something you have little first hand knowledge of (except to look up quotes you wish to take out of context) --64.198.46.28 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

All taken from Wikipedia guidelines:

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.

There is a kind of feasible limit for individual article sizes that depends on page download size for our dialup readers and readability considerations for everybody (see Wikipedia:Article size). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc.

Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedic. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No. 5 below. See also Writing guide: check your fiction.

It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge.

Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions.

Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. --UNSIGNED comment

To User:64.198.46.28.........ad hominem comments do not help to get your point across. This is not a debating board, we're trying to achieve consensus about this article. All opinions are welcome, but I ask that they be given in a sprit of helpfulness and free of emotion. I have outlined what I think should be included in this article's "Criticism" section. It would help if you could outline what YOU feel should be included in the Criticism section. Take a stab at it. We know what you don't want included. Let us know what you DO want included. Thanks. LuckyLouie 21:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea where this outline is. But I think it's clear that all statements that contradict each other should be taken out. If context alone is enough to make a criticsm out of a quote of the group, it is invalid.

Pointing out why their results are invalid to scientific review is acceptable, but trying to portray the group as believing that their results are useful to the scientific community when they mean something different is not acceptable. Pointing out what critics feel would make TAPS' paranormal research scientifically valid would be not only valid, but interesting. --64.198.46.28 21:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear IP user number 64.198.46..., This is not the TAPS discussion board. This is wikipedia and the discussions are to be concerning the writing of this article. Your fanship is noted. Your respectful adoration of Jason and Grant, understood. Please contribute to the ideas about writing this article. However, so far, nothing you've pointed out can be useful. Especially when you start in one squelching the "criticism" section of this article. That kinda stuff belongs on the TAPS BB, where they continually and methodically squelch criticism. The criticism is actually more relevant than you believe. Thanks though. VX 21:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Unsigned Comment. This has nothing to do with art. Please post something relevant and sign your name with four tildes. Not to be unwelcoming, I'm sure you had a point. But what you put in makes no sense and seems out of context. Thanks. VX 21:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fanship is unstated. Your continual assumptions are noted. Also, your inablity to address my logical issues is noted. Mediation will be requested, perhaps then there will be an actual determination on who is being assumptive, opinionated, and unverifiable. --64.198.46.28 21:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think 64.198.46.28 can request mediation without creating an account. But I have requested informal mediation. All of us are getting worked up because we don't know exactly what we shold do. Hopefully some cool-headed third-parties will help. --Ira-welkin 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ira. User 64..., you haven't said anything logical to which I can reply but if you do I'll be more than happy to give it a whirl. You've already been asked by another user to stop with the ad hominem. If you can't take it please don't dish it out. I am exhausted, dealing with TAPS fans, TAPS advertising, TAPS lobbying, ad infinitum. ;) VX 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on WHAT should be included in Criticism

I'm putting this here and in the Ghost Hunters entry because both articles seem to be having the same issue. The question I ask of Wikipedians is "what should be included in the "criticism" section? To help facilitate discussion, I'll put down a couple of items that I think have sources that can be cited, and should be included:

1. There are critics who 'tear apart' Ghost Hunters evidence.

2. There are critics who feel the group is 'unscientific'.

Let's work to get a consensus. Feel free to comment, revise, add, opine. ALL opinions are welcome, but please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks LuckyLouie 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have answered this on the Ghost Hunters section, and I think this is a good move Lucky. --Ira-welkin 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question! Thanks Louie. I think there is no need to break down the critics into categories. Subsequently, no need to write a criticism section. We might simply refer readers to the GH section on "Response from Critics." That's what I think, until the article is completely written. No need put the cart before the horse; the critics section before the article is written. Just my opinion.

Of course it is possible to sum up the group's critics. The material is certainly out there and available for citiation. Ira, what do you mean by you answered this on the GH section....? VX 22:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to take the group's temperature regarding what the issues were. If this or the other article undergoes mediation, the first thing they'll ask us is what the issues are. The next step after that would be to agree on HOW to present the issues. LuckyLouie 23:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think the GH article had an issue. Everyone was happy with it. Someone new came in and slapped a template on BOTH articles when that person should only have put the template on the TAPS article. They assumed because one was rough the other was. So, I don't think the GH article's section on criticism has any major problems. We took a lot of stuff out of it already. I can't see taking out the last paragraph at GH, certainly.

I doubt very much we'll get the person who put the template on, to come in here and comment, if past behavior is any clue, so...let's not cloud two articles with that error. As you can see, there is no template on the GH article. VX 23:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on HOW to state Criticism

Keep the above section going in case someone else wants to weigh in. OK, by the way, those two criticisms above were just summaries of the issues themselves. HOW to state those issues is the real crux of the matter. As Ira suggested, one side shouldn't appear to be 'righter' than the other, and this goes along with Wiki policy. However, I don't think the way to do this is point-counter-point. That is not an effective neutral presentation method simply because the last one to counterpoint always has more weight. Let's examine how some other controversial articles handle their Criticism sections. LuckyLouie 23:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree, there has to be a responsible way to state the views of both sides without it seeming to cancel out the arguments of either side. The critics have some good points and so do the supporters. I think we are getting closer to a resolution. --64.198.46.28 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporary Solution to Criticism Debate

It is proposed...that we remove the text of the present Criticism section in this article, since it is a confusing morass of point-counter-point. We can replace it with a note and link to the Ghost Hunters article's Criticism section. I hope everyone agrees that this temporary solution can stand until Mediation begins or consensus is reached. LuckyLouie 00:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should just leave it like it is. VX 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminology: Falsifiable VS. Verifiable

I was just reading how the standard for scientific research has not been 'verifiablity' for many years, but 'falsifibility.' Is this true, and if so, how is it relevant? I have certainly heard much talk of the 'falsifiable' word in physics, etc. --64.198.46.28 00:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

64, you could help us out by researching this, if it's applicable to the article. Although the current thinking seems to indicate the TAPS article should probably avoid devoting a lot of space to defining and debating 'science vs, pseudoscience', however I personally am open to hearing others opinions on why it might be relevant. LuckyLouie 02:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, these types of discussions are ... interesting if the parties can discuss it like adults. My opinion all along has been that to bring deep questions into these articles is opening cans of worms that takes lots and lots of effort and energy and then end up being useless to the article anyway. The best thing is to hash new ideas out thoroughly elsewhere then decide if it's something mainstream enough to bring into the article. I think we learned something about this in the GH article, no? VX 07:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on falsifiability and here is what it says, for example, about "Conspiracy Theories."

Conspiracy theories are often essentially unfalsifiable because of their logical structure. Specifically, they may take the form of uncircumscribed existential statements, alleging the existence of some action or object without specifying the place or time at which it can be observed. So, for instance, one might claim that there are little green men without saying when or where, and that furthermore that their existence is kept secret by a conspiracy. In this case, failure to find any little green men does not falsify the conspiracy theory, but rather is claimed as verification of the conspiracy to hide their existence. Such a conspiracy theory cannot be shown to be false.

I'm not sure how much science is using falsifiability as a framework for its methods. Sixty four, you said, "I was just reading how the standard for scientific research has not been 'verifiablity' for many years, but 'falsifibility.'" I don't know it's true that the standard is falsifiability at all. Where did you read about this if you don't mind? VX 07:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Threefold Purpose

I can't for the life of me find any reference on the TAPS website regarding the Threefold Purpose. Maybe I am missing it. Most nonprofit orgs have a formal "Charter" and "Mission Statement" on their website, but I don't see one for TAPS. Perhaps the Threefold Purpose is something spoken by Jason on the TV show and memorized by (some? all?) followers. Usually, "mission statements" are written down somewhere. Also, is there a separate TAPS website that is a "non-fan, non-commercial" site? One that concerns itself solely with the activities of the nonprofit organization? LuckyLouie 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The closest thing they have to that is here. The explanation of the purpose of TAPS can be found in the first episode of Ghost Hunters. You seem to be unable to imagine someone who is willing to defend the group against slanderous statements that they are willing to fake evidence and lie to the world who is not a 'zealot,' or who does not think about the group as a spiritual leader or something. Please try to understand that I am someone who merely believes the group to be sincere who does not wish to feel like an ignorant fool for doing so. If there are parts of the article that seek to make those who don't think the show is fake feel foolish, stupid, or selected to be 'damned to hell,' or whatever it isn't fair. Similarly, while some people who do deserve a voice do believe that it is fake want their views expressed, and should not be removed from the article, I am sure that the entire wikipedia community deserves to understand all aspects of this phenomenon, and not be led about.

There are a number of good criticisms. I am not interested in removing all criticism. I am not interested in 'mindless defense of my supposedly 'great guru figures.' The constant implication that because I believe TAPS to be sincere I am some kind of cult member or some strange acolyte is considerably offensive, as is the implication that for me to believe in the group or defend it that I must be somehow invested into their scheme.

I am merely a person who doesn't think that you should be able to put 'rolling desk chair' in. If you have criticisms to level, that's fine. I accept and ratify many of the criticisms. I certainly don't just blindly believe everything I see. I just think some of the criticisms are misplaced, such as trying to make it seem as though TAPS thinks they 'are practicing science when they're not', which is just a case of taking a few quotes out of context. It doesn't make me mad that you should do this, I know you didn't mean to be offensive. So please don't assume that I am in a rage, ready to do battle with you for offending my gods.

Neither side has all the answers, and when we talk we come closer to the truth. But I will not be treated as some disciple desperately trying to gain favor for a cult leader just because I have something to say. --Ira-welkin 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry if you took offense about the followers thing. We know that TAPS does have followers. Both you and 64 interpreted TAPS mission statement with an air of what I can only describe as "authoritative certainty", so you can understand why I thought you might be more than just casual viewers of the show. In any case, I have a request: will both you and 64 stop highlighting stuff from my comments in bold? It's a bit over the top. LuckyLouie 04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. Nobody is martyring you, nobody is persecuting you for your beliefs. If anything I feel you're trying to make me go away. Both you and 64 have also mentioned a minor comment I put in about a "rolling desk chair" from back when you and I were doing what I call guerilla edits to the highlights section of ghost hunters....In other words, you were making POV statements; I was making POV statements....and you didnt GET it, did you? What is UP with both of you commenting on that one specific edit I made?

Personally, I feel that anyone who trusts the group has a lack of critical thinking ability. But that doesn't mean I feel my opinion is the only one in the whole wide world.

I could put a lot more criticism into this article and the GH article, all. I've been extremely kind to the group, you should know this. If you cry and moan about the little comments made in here so far I can't imagine what you'd do if I put in half of what I could. Don't try to defend TAPS. They should be the big boys and be able to do that themselves. Go to them for your consolation; this is getting boring and exhausting. VX 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the applicability of the Threefold Purpose to this article, here's what I believe. The Threefold Purpose sounds official. However, it is a quote from a GH episode taken out of context, and we've agreed not to do quote mining on the episodes in order to either support or critique the group. The TV show is transient. Much better to find something on the TAPS website or in print that describes their mission. LuckyLouie 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Or, I could just make something up for you. ;) (...just kidding...) VX 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There. I edited that section, taking out the threefold purpose altogether. Still keeping the information IN. The article is done as far as I am concerned. VX 18:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cabal Mediation

I started a discussion on it in the Ghost Hunters article, since it's my favorite of the two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ghost_Hunters VX 04:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

64, in case you can't find this--I didn't see it at first--the mediation is taking place here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-15_The_Atlantic_Paranormal_Society/Ghost_Hunters

VX 18:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)