This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ghost Hunters (TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ghost Hunters (TV series). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ghost Hunters (TV series) at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cite note #12 which goes to http://ghostdivas.mypodcast.com/200911_archive.html does not have any information, citing an error. This calls the paragraph that references it into question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.73.28 ( talk) 00:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This show needs to be labeled as reality satire. For one, ghosts are not real. There is no reason to treat the program as some sort of scientific reality-based program. Secondly, the show is scripted and fictional. This has been proven and is INDESPUTABLE. Scifi makes no claims about the truthfulness of this show, so the article should follow suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.29.75 ( talk) 02:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please prove proof that TAPS's findings are INDESPUTABLY wrong. Thanks. Kf4mgz ( talk)
Anon says... "For one, ghosts are not real."... and you have INDISPUTABLE (by the way you spelled it wrong) evidence that they don't exist of course. Let's see it. Maybe what is shown on Ghost Hunters is fake, and there is no reliable scientific methodology to finding proof of the existence of ghosts, but you cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that ghosts do not exist. It's like saying "God doesn't exist because I say so." You have absolutely no evidence to prove it. Cyberia23 ( talk) 20:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Cyberia, let me give you a brief explanation of how science works since you seem to be slightly unversed in it. In every field of science (of those which use the scientific method) there is something called the "burden of proof". This can basically be seen as a filter which helps keep out the crap and pseudo-science. Basically what it states is that not only do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the burden of proof for such claims falls upon the person making claims against things which are already established or which are not established at all. Therefore, since there has never been any solid SCIENTIFIC proof that ghosts exist, the burden for extraordinary evidence falls upon those making the claim that ghosts do exist. Do you understand what I'm saying? It is not the responsibility of scientists to prove to you that ghosts don't exist, it is your responsilibity to find overwhelming evidence USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD which shows that they do. If this were not the case, then there would be more chaos than there is already in scientific fields. For example, I could say "There's a purple dragon in my garage. BUT you can't see him. Why? He's invisible. You can't detect his heat or measure his footsteps. Why? Because he's incorporeal too. So how do we know he exists? Well because I said so of course, and because you have no evidence to show otherwise!!!!" Sorry but that's not how science works. That is how religion works and why it is called 'faith'. It is not your job to prove that the purple dragon in my garage doesn't exist, the burden of proof falls on me to prove that the dragon really does exist. So unless you have INDISPUTABLE evidence that ghosts do exist, and have the research ready to be reviewed by peers in a scientific and academic circles, then no, there is no evidence that ghosts exist, and simply countering with 'there's no evidence that they don't' shows a complete failure to understand the scientific method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.156.244 ( talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general discussion let alone debate on the subject or semantics. That is not how this project works. Please find reliable sources and use them but keep anything less out of the article. Cptnono ( talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
How can the criticism heaped upon them after the Halloween episode not be talked about at greater length? There are a number of notable sources that go on at length about the highly disingenuous nature of a number of Ghost Hunters activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 16:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
When is the DVD suppose to come out??? I've got X-mas money for it because my friend couldn't find it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.198.92 ( talk) 14:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the details of the evidence faking should be explained – not just say "stuff was faked" and leave it at that. Unfortunately all the websites "talking" about the faked 2008 Halloween evidence are personal blogs and forums. There are no "reliable sources" like Hollywood Reporter or other entertainment news talking about it and it's probably because they have better things to report on. What happens on other reality shows is "bigger entertainment news" than what happens on a nerdy show like Ghost Hunters. There are plenty of video criticisms on youtube covering this incident, but we're not supposed to link to Youtube per Wikipedia policy, so to report the issue you get what get when you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel with a few fan-blogs and forums complaining the show is rigged. I tried to fix the links and wording of the section. Hopefully editors will stop criticizing the criticism – but that's like asking for world peace. Cyberia23 ( talk) 15:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Mentioning a third incident from the same episode the other two incidents in that section is is -not- original research. Citing material from a TAPS produced and marketed DVD is -NOT- original research. If SOME parts of the shows and DVD's are fair to write 'they look for ghosts by doing this' about and other parts of the SAME shows and DVD's aren't fair because they cast the group in a different light, I don't think I understand wikipedia correctly.
The thing I don't like about this article is the mere claims of TAPS in the heading are presented as fact. It makes it almost needed to include ways in which they violate their own statements. Of course, the solution is to not present their claims as fact. -- Contributions/216.17.75.89 ( talk) 19:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The only reason the TAPS goals aren't stated as fact is that I just earlier changed it to say 'purport.' So its been like that for years without anybody caring that it was stating PRO-TAPS things in a way that you suddenly have a huge problem with now that I do it. And unlike TAPS claiming 'we don't believe all evidence we see,' there is no need to 'interpret' seeing 20 people standing around with boom mics and equipment. They simply ARE there. -- Contributions/216.17.75.89 ( talk) 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how something we can clearly see is not allowed. If a 'Dick Van Dyke' show article says 'Dick trips over an ottoman in the intro,' would that be original research? Or would somebody have to write a book. I think it is clear that television programs can be sources. I don't understand where the interpretation aspect comes from.
Consider this passage:
"TAPS purports to not believe every piece of evidence gathered is proof of the paranormal."
Until I came along today it just said 'TAPS do not believe every piece of evidence...' Why didn't you jump in and change it? That is just malarky and is just something they SAY on the show, being reported as fact. Not something we can factually see. Why did this not bother you? -- Contributions/216.17.75.89 ( talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
By not saying 'purports' in certain sentences this article is simply spewing Ghost Hunters claims as fact. That is not acceptable. -- 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If it really does simply state their belief, then surely 'PURPORTS' is a better word than 'DOES.' If you are claiming as you do that it does just state their belief, why not alter the article to in ANY WAY reflect that? -- 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop making it into some crazy word that means 'act like they do but secretly they don't.' It's the ONLY safe way to show they are merely making these claims, otherwise the article starts spewing out TAPS propaganda as unqualified fact. Doesn't that make any sense? It simply means they claim that. It -IS- what they claim. You or I haven't seen them actually DO these things, and no books are written about it, so it is safest to put that they claim to do so. It doesn't mean they definitely don't, but wikipedia can't just put everything somebody claims as fact either, simply because they said it. -- 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 14:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are some phrases from the article.
"which may be why the Sci-Fi Channel categorizes the show as a docu-soap."
Oh, may it be? Why else might it be? Any theories, or other original research? This doesn't sound right does it. But of course it is left in.
"In earlier episodes, part of the hour showed Jason and Grant during their plumbing job or personal lives but that has diminished since then."
Indeed? How do you know it has diminished? Is it because they mentioned it specifically, or because someone was analyzing the episodes over time and reached the conclusion, on their own, that they weren't showing these segments 'as much.' It seems like someone was just watching the show and putting in what they felt was happening. I am pretty sure no book or publication states this view, but somebody had it on their own.
-- 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 15:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I love how these phrases don't bother you. -- 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with the ire of that IP address but I certainly have to say: after making the changes they request, those of you who argued so vociferously with them look like you have a little egg on your face to those of us on the outside. You did after all make the changes they requested. 'Assume good faith' is one of the tennants of wikipedia too, or didn't you know that? -- 97.116.86.49 ( talk) 00:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I see. Well, be that as it may, I too wish somebody notable would write about these things so they could be put in. But, alas, nobody but TAPS fans care. -- 97.116.86.49 ( talk) 04:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The lead and infobox (and cats) say this program is a reality show and a documentary. This isn't referenced or mentioned anywhere in the body, violating lead and WP:V. Sources should be added or these statements should be removed. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I was doing some research and I came across this article: [1]. I think someone should add this possible discussion somewhere on either this article or their individual personal pages. Also in my research (due to the epidode on TV) I discovered they co-owned the Spalding Inn [2] and I added that info to their personal pages. All pages say they work for RR, but I think it would be important to label that they may just be there for legacy reasons. Does anyone agree/disagree? 97.123.114.50 ( talk) 17:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely is the fact that I provided a reference to that they bought a bed and breakfast named the 'Spalding Inn' my 'personla' opinion as you put it.
I am too busy right now to put up sources for the seminars and from notable sources claiming this calls their credibility into question, but they exist and I will this afternoon. I do not have high hopes that you won't immediately erase it even when it is highly sourced, as you seem to be highly protective of the TAPS crew and wouldn't want anybody to know they bought a bed and breakfast and charge money for 'investigations' in it. -- 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Their ownership of the inn is irrelevant to this article, but perhaps it can be mentioned on the TAPS article iteself or under Grant and Jason's articles. I'm not doubting they are offering tours or historic, haunted, or otherwise, and it may seem like a conflict of interest but it's not relevant here in this article. Cyberia23 ( talk) 18:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Dunno if it'd be needed, but if it's useful for anything, thought I'd post it here - [3]. (I have to admit, I found it cuz Amy Bruni Tweeted it ;D) umrguy 42 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
the link in reference #7 ( http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-08-10.html) appears to down or broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donhoraldo ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
As Grant's final episode has not yet aired (in fact, he doesn't wrap production until next month), I feel that he should be kept on the current investigators list until May 16, the day his final episode airs. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§ eb 00:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
sorry not real familar with all of this. I was looking for a list that showed every season and every episode in that season. Like that has been done for Law & Order. You can click the # season u want to look through and a page comes up wityh every episode for that season , a little on what its about , WHEN IT wqs aired and so on, like any special guest Stars. Ghost HUnters need that to. If I am overlooking it and it is here somewhere please help me find it. If it isjt, please think about having someone to do that. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.153.89 ( talk) 13:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ghost Hunters. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.syfy.com/gha/index.phpWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I was just wondering how someone becomes part of TAPS as an investagator? 2601:987:280:6C20:617B:BBAB:33E1:A247 ( talk) 20:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
and certain episodes that I have seen I have dreamed of it before I seen it on the show like the one where the Cameraman got knocked down I dream of what happing
through everything was going on so I know what it was . I don't understand it .your friend MaryLou 2601:547:1580:68F0:45FF:DBBB:7CAF:9FDE ( talk) 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ghost Hunters (TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ghost Hunters (TV series). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ghost Hunters (TV series) at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cite note #12 which goes to http://ghostdivas.mypodcast.com/200911_archive.html does not have any information, citing an error. This calls the paragraph that references it into question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.73.28 ( talk) 00:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This show needs to be labeled as reality satire. For one, ghosts are not real. There is no reason to treat the program as some sort of scientific reality-based program. Secondly, the show is scripted and fictional. This has been proven and is INDESPUTABLE. Scifi makes no claims about the truthfulness of this show, so the article should follow suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.29.75 ( talk) 02:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please prove proof that TAPS's findings are INDESPUTABLY wrong. Thanks. Kf4mgz ( talk)
Anon says... "For one, ghosts are not real."... and you have INDISPUTABLE (by the way you spelled it wrong) evidence that they don't exist of course. Let's see it. Maybe what is shown on Ghost Hunters is fake, and there is no reliable scientific methodology to finding proof of the existence of ghosts, but you cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that ghosts do not exist. It's like saying "God doesn't exist because I say so." You have absolutely no evidence to prove it. Cyberia23 ( talk) 20:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Cyberia, let me give you a brief explanation of how science works since you seem to be slightly unversed in it. In every field of science (of those which use the scientific method) there is something called the "burden of proof". This can basically be seen as a filter which helps keep out the crap and pseudo-science. Basically what it states is that not only do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the burden of proof for such claims falls upon the person making claims against things which are already established or which are not established at all. Therefore, since there has never been any solid SCIENTIFIC proof that ghosts exist, the burden for extraordinary evidence falls upon those making the claim that ghosts do exist. Do you understand what I'm saying? It is not the responsibility of scientists to prove to you that ghosts don't exist, it is your responsilibity to find overwhelming evidence USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD which shows that they do. If this were not the case, then there would be more chaos than there is already in scientific fields. For example, I could say "There's a purple dragon in my garage. BUT you can't see him. Why? He's invisible. You can't detect his heat or measure his footsteps. Why? Because he's incorporeal too. So how do we know he exists? Well because I said so of course, and because you have no evidence to show otherwise!!!!" Sorry but that's not how science works. That is how religion works and why it is called 'faith'. It is not your job to prove that the purple dragon in my garage doesn't exist, the burden of proof falls on me to prove that the dragon really does exist. So unless you have INDISPUTABLE evidence that ghosts do exist, and have the research ready to be reviewed by peers in a scientific and academic circles, then no, there is no evidence that ghosts exist, and simply countering with 'there's no evidence that they don't' shows a complete failure to understand the scientific method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.156.244 ( talk) 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general discussion let alone debate on the subject or semantics. That is not how this project works. Please find reliable sources and use them but keep anything less out of the article. Cptnono ( talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
How can the criticism heaped upon them after the Halloween episode not be talked about at greater length? There are a number of notable sources that go on at length about the highly disingenuous nature of a number of Ghost Hunters activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 16:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
When is the DVD suppose to come out??? I've got X-mas money for it because my friend couldn't find it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.198.92 ( talk) 14:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the details of the evidence faking should be explained – not just say "stuff was faked" and leave it at that. Unfortunately all the websites "talking" about the faked 2008 Halloween evidence are personal blogs and forums. There are no "reliable sources" like Hollywood Reporter or other entertainment news talking about it and it's probably because they have better things to report on. What happens on other reality shows is "bigger entertainment news" than what happens on a nerdy show like Ghost Hunters. There are plenty of video criticisms on youtube covering this incident, but we're not supposed to link to Youtube per Wikipedia policy, so to report the issue you get what get when you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel with a few fan-blogs and forums complaining the show is rigged. I tried to fix the links and wording of the section. Hopefully editors will stop criticizing the criticism – but that's like asking for world peace. Cyberia23 ( talk) 15:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Mentioning a third incident from the same episode the other two incidents in that section is is -not- original research. Citing material from a TAPS produced and marketed DVD is -NOT- original research. If SOME parts of the shows and DVD's are fair to write 'they look for ghosts by doing this' about and other parts of the SAME shows and DVD's aren't fair because they cast the group in a different light, I don't think I understand wikipedia correctly.
The thing I don't like about this article is the mere claims of TAPS in the heading are presented as fact. It makes it almost needed to include ways in which they violate their own statements. Of course, the solution is to not present their claims as fact. -- Contributions/216.17.75.89 ( talk) 19:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The only reason the TAPS goals aren't stated as fact is that I just earlier changed it to say 'purport.' So its been like that for years without anybody caring that it was stating PRO-TAPS things in a way that you suddenly have a huge problem with now that I do it. And unlike TAPS claiming 'we don't believe all evidence we see,' there is no need to 'interpret' seeing 20 people standing around with boom mics and equipment. They simply ARE there. -- Contributions/216.17.75.89 ( talk) 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how something we can clearly see is not allowed. If a 'Dick Van Dyke' show article says 'Dick trips over an ottoman in the intro,' would that be original research? Or would somebody have to write a book. I think it is clear that television programs can be sources. I don't understand where the interpretation aspect comes from.
Consider this passage:
"TAPS purports to not believe every piece of evidence gathered is proof of the paranormal."
Until I came along today it just said 'TAPS do not believe every piece of evidence...' Why didn't you jump in and change it? That is just malarky and is just something they SAY on the show, being reported as fact. Not something we can factually see. Why did this not bother you? -- Contributions/216.17.75.89 ( talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
By not saying 'purports' in certain sentences this article is simply spewing Ghost Hunters claims as fact. That is not acceptable. -- 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If it really does simply state their belief, then surely 'PURPORTS' is a better word than 'DOES.' If you are claiming as you do that it does just state their belief, why not alter the article to in ANY WAY reflect that? -- 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Stop making it into some crazy word that means 'act like they do but secretly they don't.' It's the ONLY safe way to show they are merely making these claims, otherwise the article starts spewing out TAPS propaganda as unqualified fact. Doesn't that make any sense? It simply means they claim that. It -IS- what they claim. You or I haven't seen them actually DO these things, and no books are written about it, so it is safest to put that they claim to do so. It doesn't mean they definitely don't, but wikipedia can't just put everything somebody claims as fact either, simply because they said it. -- 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 14:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are some phrases from the article.
"which may be why the Sci-Fi Channel categorizes the show as a docu-soap."
Oh, may it be? Why else might it be? Any theories, or other original research? This doesn't sound right does it. But of course it is left in.
"In earlier episodes, part of the hour showed Jason and Grant during their plumbing job or personal lives but that has diminished since then."
Indeed? How do you know it has diminished? Is it because they mentioned it specifically, or because someone was analyzing the episodes over time and reached the conclusion, on their own, that they weren't showing these segments 'as much.' It seems like someone was just watching the show and putting in what they felt was happening. I am pretty sure no book or publication states this view, but somebody had it on their own.
-- 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 15:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I love how these phrases don't bother you. -- 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with the ire of that IP address but I certainly have to say: after making the changes they request, those of you who argued so vociferously with them look like you have a little egg on your face to those of us on the outside. You did after all make the changes they requested. 'Assume good faith' is one of the tennants of wikipedia too, or didn't you know that? -- 97.116.86.49 ( talk) 00:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I see. Well, be that as it may, I too wish somebody notable would write about these things so they could be put in. But, alas, nobody but TAPS fans care. -- 97.116.86.49 ( talk) 04:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The lead and infobox (and cats) say this program is a reality show and a documentary. This isn't referenced or mentioned anywhere in the body, violating lead and WP:V. Sources should be added or these statements should be removed. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I was doing some research and I came across this article: [1]. I think someone should add this possible discussion somewhere on either this article or their individual personal pages. Also in my research (due to the epidode on TV) I discovered they co-owned the Spalding Inn [2] and I added that info to their personal pages. All pages say they work for RR, but I think it would be important to label that they may just be there for legacy reasons. Does anyone agree/disagree? 97.123.114.50 ( talk) 17:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely is the fact that I provided a reference to that they bought a bed and breakfast named the 'Spalding Inn' my 'personla' opinion as you put it.
I am too busy right now to put up sources for the seminars and from notable sources claiming this calls their credibility into question, but they exist and I will this afternoon. I do not have high hopes that you won't immediately erase it even when it is highly sourced, as you seem to be highly protective of the TAPS crew and wouldn't want anybody to know they bought a bed and breakfast and charge money for 'investigations' in it. -- 216.17.75.89 ( talk) 13:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Their ownership of the inn is irrelevant to this article, but perhaps it can be mentioned on the TAPS article iteself or under Grant and Jason's articles. I'm not doubting they are offering tours or historic, haunted, or otherwise, and it may seem like a conflict of interest but it's not relevant here in this article. Cyberia23 ( talk) 18:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Dunno if it'd be needed, but if it's useful for anything, thought I'd post it here - [3]. (I have to admit, I found it cuz Amy Bruni Tweeted it ;D) umrguy 42 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
the link in reference #7 ( http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-08-10.html) appears to down or broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donhoraldo ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
As Grant's final episode has not yet aired (in fact, he doesn't wrap production until next month), I feel that he should be kept on the current investigators list until May 16, the day his final episode airs. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§ eb 00:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
sorry not real familar with all of this. I was looking for a list that showed every season and every episode in that season. Like that has been done for Law & Order. You can click the # season u want to look through and a page comes up wityh every episode for that season , a little on what its about , WHEN IT wqs aired and so on, like any special guest Stars. Ghost HUnters need that to. If I am overlooking it and it is here somewhere please help me find it. If it isjt, please think about having someone to do that. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.153.89 ( talk) 13:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ghost Hunters. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.syfy.com/gha/index.phpWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I was just wondering how someone becomes part of TAPS as an investagator? 2601:987:280:6C20:617B:BBAB:33E1:A247 ( talk) 20:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
and certain episodes that I have seen I have dreamed of it before I seen it on the show like the one where the Cameraman got knocked down I dream of what happing
through everything was going on so I know what it was . I don't understand it .your friend MaryLou 2601:547:1580:68F0:45FF:DBBB:7CAF:9FDE ( talk) 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)