Talk:Paranormal Lockdown

The Monroe House
Dear Nick Groff and Katrina, I am a medium/psychic from Wisconsin. I saw this episode and got an immediate reading on the hair/ring binding. The individual who practiced the occult (sorcery/black Magik) was not only binding the woman who was going to expose their activities due to the fact the house wasbeing used as a portal and she was afraid. The person who did the binding used their OWN hair and ring as a request or trade for demonic protection and the power to gain dominance over the property. They want "intruders" to know they will not stop and will use any means to keep the property vacant. Rhondalondre (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ben Radford criticism content
Two parts, the first in the lead, the second in a Reception section. Should these be removed or left? Jim1138 (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The edits I added are from a book, from the index of that book, under "Paranormal Lockdown". These are specific quotes about this specific TV Show. Pages 38-41, 57, 92-95, 175. "The quote is generalized. It isn't really about the show, but is pushing his opinion." The quote is not generalized, it is specific to this TV show. It is his opinion, as stated in the edit I made, but that is what Wikipedia is all about, opinions from experts who are notable, which Radford is. Sgerbic (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Critics like paranormal investigator Ben Radford claim that Paranormal Lockdown "is typical sensationalized nonsense trying to gloss over half-baked pseudoscientific investigation".

Reception
Radford states that the claims of living 72 hours in a haunted house as some sort of a challenge is "absurd". People all over the world claim to live in haunted locations, apparently longer than 72 hours. Before you can claim you are living in a haunted house, "ghosts must be proven to exist", a claim that the paranormal community has yet to prove. There are many methodological problems with their investigative techniques, according to Radford. "They fail to properly investigate and verify their assumptions at virtually every step, making leaps of logic and guessing far beyond the evidence". Lockdowns like what you see on this reality show are using ineffective techniques with equipment not meant to be used for this purpose, to look for something that has not been proven to exist or even defined. "A stakeout (such as these) is essentially a scientific experiment without the science". Completely lacking in controls. "Groff and Weidman... are walking around a house with a camera crew, literally and figuratively in the dark. The only things they're testing are their video editors's endurance and the patience of their viewers". These "'reality' television shows are entertainment, not investigation".

Neutrality
Seems that until a counter-balancing quote can be added, the NPOV tag should remain. Otherwise it makes the article a vehicle for unanswered polemicism. 38.21.221.73 (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Only seems. LuckyLouie is right: we do not balance sense with nonsense. Read the pages he linked. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Argument for removal
"Critics like paranormal investigator Ben Radford claim that Paranormal Lockdown "is typical sensationalized nonsense trying to gloss over half-baked pseudoscientific investigation"."

The quote is generalized. It isn't really about the show, but is pushing his opinion.

"Radford states that the claims of living 72 hours in a haunted house as some sort of a challenge is "absurd". People all over the world claim to live in haunted locations, apparently longer than 72 hours. Before you can claim you are living in a haunted house, "ghosts must be proven to exist", a claim that the paranormal community has yet to prove. There are many methodological problems with their investigative techniques, according to Radford. "They fail to properly investigate and verify their assumptions at virtually every step, making leaps of logic and guessing far beyond the evidence". Lockdowns like what you see on this reality show are using ineffective techniques with equipment not meant to be used for this purpose, to look for something that has not been proven to exist or even defined. "A stakeout (such as these) is essentially a scientific experiment without the science". Completely lacking in controls. "Groff and Weidman... are walking around a house with a camera crew, literally and figuratively in the dark. The only things they're testing are their video editors's endurance and the patience of their viewers". These "'reality' television shows are entertainment, not investigation"

Again, this quote is not really even about the show. It is being used entirely to push his opinion of ghost hunting in general. "ineffective techniques with equipment not meant to be used for this purpose, to look for something that has not been proven to exist or even defined" How can anyone prove or define anything without experimentation? How can one use equipment meant for the purpose of finding something that hasn't been proven yet? How can effective techniques be found without working out what does or doesn't work? How can he claim that their techniques are ineffectual, when he then claims the thing they are looking for doesn't exist. By that so called logic, there are no effective techniques and no equipment for their purpose exists. But all it really means is that he wont accept anything, anyone does as legit. Making him far too biased to be considered a reliable source. Further, that quote proves conclusively that the man is no scientist, and has no concept of what real science is.

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

The person who added those quotes is Sgerbic who runs THIS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Gerbic#GSoW There is nothing neutral about either the quotes, or the person who added them. It is biased in the extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.246.75 (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been mentioned. Opinions? Jim1138 (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you read wp:neutral point of view. I think you misread it. The fact that Sgerbic is a skeptic doesn't disqualify her anymore then a believer is disqualified from editing the article.
 * This Wiki article is about ghost hunting. So is Radford's book. There doesn't seem to be anything new about the show that isn't covered in the book. Repackaging the show as "Paranormal Lockdown" doesn't mean a new book needs to be written. I don't see any justification in your removal. Jim1138 (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * here is a nice CSI summary on the matter of ghost hunting. Jim1138 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Counter

 * It makes her motives questionable. Is she doing it to ADD something to the article, or to push her agenda? Since she makes her agenda plain and clear, I fail to see how you think you have any argument that she added that to benefit the page about the show.
 * The page is about a tv show, not ghost hunting in general. Put the quote HERE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_hunting#Skepticism Oh wait, there already is one! Which means I can toss your comment right back at you. There is already a blurb from Radford on ghost hunting, on the ghost hunting wiki page. So there doesn't need to be one on a page for this tv show.
 * That link is irrelevant to this discussion, and only serves to show your own personal bias. Are you pushing for these entries to remain because they actually make the page better... or because you agree with them? Because your PoV is irrelevant. You are playing petty dictator here, and that is very much against what wiki is about.


 * Lets compare edit history - mine versus this Anon ISP 72.205.246.75 from Wichita and see who has the specific agenda. Sgerbic (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Will you marry me, Susan? -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 16:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That made my day! Not sure my cats would be keen on that, they don't really know what a dog is. Sgerbic (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is about a TV show promoting pseudoscience. And THIS Wikipedia article says it all regarding articles about psuedoscience. The pertinent line: "Neutral point of view as applied to science: a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." RobP (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Episode descriptions
Riddled with extreme promotional hype, WP:COPYVIO, WP:V and WP:PROFRINGE problems. Copyedited accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Episode description cleanup for promotional language, WP:V and WP:FRINGE is fairly simple, but it does take time. Volunteers are appreciated at such articles like List of Ghost Adventures: Aftershocks episodes, Ghost Brothers and The Othersiders. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you please make a request at WikiProject Skepticism? I but you will find help there. Sgerbic (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Quest Red
Quest Red in the UK is already a season and a half ahead of the US; if someone wants to add those episodes: https://episodecalendar.com/pl/show/paranormal-lockdown/season/3 --2601:CC:4200:34B3:D159:A3D6:3674:B0C6 (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do you stop using the geoport when you are having activity using it?
Ref: Season 2 Episode12 Old Chatham Jain. West wing 3rd floor. 24.48.231.143 (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)