Jump to content

Talk:The Atlantic Paranormal Society

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Members list

[edit]

I have rewritten the members list section to only include notable members. That list in its previous form had major problems with both the Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies and was almost entirely unencyclopedic. I kept the honorary section because those people are notable. If we are going to add anyone's name to this list, they must be entirely notable and 100% verifiable with a fully cited reliable secondary source. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Book

[edit]

They released it in 2009. I saw the [When?] next to "They recently," so I changed that to "In 2009, they." --Yankees317 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Radford's criticisms... Biased?

[edit]

Paranormal investigator Benjamin Radford is quoted in this article as saying, "After watching episodes of Ghost Hunters and other similar programs, it quickly becomes clear to anyone with a background in science that the methods used are both illogical and unscientific." However, this groups the reality show Ghost Hunters as being no different to other ghost-hunting television shows, especially those that came before it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but until Ghost Hunters, all other paranormal investigation teams on TV included a self-identified "psychic" on the investigations team, which Ghost Hunters is almost always without. These psychics were the ones who never participated in the debunking phase of the investigation, only in the "ooooh, this is spoooooky~! (WHAT WAS THAT?!)" phase. Many if not most criticisms of paranormal investigation is aimed at those investigators who rely more on FEELINGS than established scientific methods. TAPS, and more specifically Ghost Hunters, changed the game significantly from feeling-based investigations to incorporating the use of modern technology (correctly or not), showing a positive movement towards methods accepted by the scientific community at large. And yet the criticisms section of the TAPS page doesn't give any leeway or recognition to TAPS for this. [[[Signed anonymously, due to multiple past conflicts with Wikipedia's ever-shifting editorial standards.]]]68.100.138.56 (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]