Talk:The Atlantic Paranormal Society/Archive 3

Conflict of interest tag
So I read through the article. Its bland, fact filled, basic. Encyclopedia type quality. Whats the problem why the tag? Its accuarate, to the point. What am I missing. Should the tag be removed? How about this who put the tag and key word here --- why? and what specifically is COI? I am little lost on the notabiltiy thing? TAPS is a group who happens to have a tv show now. Much like say Broken Lizard. They are a seperate group that makes movies. If they didn't make movies they still do comedy together. Broken Lizard has an article. TAPS has a TV show if they didn't they would still be an investigative group with newsletter, website etc. You do a google search of the word TAPS and paranormal you get all kinds of hits on articles and not all on the show. To sum up my post here - why the tag specifically. If no reason can it be removed.--Xiahou 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is, without the TV show, would TAPS still be notable? Are there individual articles about the group, or is the group only notable because of the show?  If the latter, then this information should be merged into the show article.  I'm also concerned about the list of group members here.  Is this information from personal knowledge, or is TAPS membership genuinely something that gets third-party attention?  If the former, the information should be removed from the Wikipedia article, because it's what is called "original research."  Though it sometimes seems counter-intuitive, Wikipedia articles are not for presenting all available info about a subject, but only that information which has already been published in outside sources.  If the information cannot be verified, then it can't be included on Wikipedia.  For more info, see: Verifiability, WP:COI, and No original research.  If you have any questions, let us know.  :) --Elonka 20:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points, Elonka. The membership lists, I assume, use the TAPS website (specifically, a membership page) as a primary source. Since the article was first written, it seems the membership has evolved over time, and past lists could probably be confirmed using Internet Archive. However, if any of this is WP:OR, then it should definitely not be included. As for notability of the group itself, I believe the group's fame results from the TV show. However a Google search of "Atlantic Paranormal Society" turns up hundreds of references to the group describing their activities outside of the TV show. Another possible reason to have a separate article about the group itself is that the already lengthy TV show article, Ghost_Hunters, would be further lengthened and might become awkwardly long. To sum up, I don't have a definitive opinion on the validity of this article, these are just some considerations to ponder. --- LuckyLouie 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the issue of conflict of interest from the creator of the page has never been established in the talk pages. I looked back and the creator IP has done all kinds of edits since in fact hasn't been back here in while so where is the COI? I am going to remove the Tag. If COI is found, fine replace the tag and cite where in the article since its not obvious in its curent state where the coi is.--Xiahou 22:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

About Bonus DVD with Paramag/Radio Show Content
It is completely acceptable to use the group's released publications, official DVD's, and official webcasts as sources, as well as to cite specific threads on their official forum that have been participated in by their founding member's OFFICIAL username to illustrate FACTUAL material about them. If it is not, then you must say farewell to a good deal of this page's content. --Ira-welkin 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:ATT? It specifically says not to use forum posts as sources.  Also, could you please put citations in the article to the sources backing up the material you have added?  Thanks.  --Minderbinder 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While of course it makes sense that the self-published nature of the TAPS message board makes one not apt to include statements such as 'non-profit organization,' something that has turned out to be false, but in this case it suffices that the claim by Hawes that he did not make the homosexual slur alluded to in this thread (http://www.taps18forum.com/index.php?topic=42378.0) definitively originated from him on his official board, so there is no question to the identity of the speaker or the existence of this particular event. --Ira-welkin 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There, friend. Now as all the information has an official source, which is cited, perhaps it is much more of an issue of cleanup than of all-out removal. In the past when I was a fan rallied to have positive things with official sources kept in and now that my views of the group have changed, all sadly owing to my interest in them and my obtaining their publications and watching their output, I do not relish fighting the same kind of fight. You can't just take out sourced information because you don't like what it says. I couldn't just take out all the very expert criticism of the group when I was a fan, and you can't take out things straight from their own publications that I have put in just because it doesn't paint the picture you would like. I am very sorry, but this is the truth, the sourced, cited, and officially documented truth. Would you like me to rip their DVD and upload it? Of course I can't, but if you don't happen to own a copy that doesn't mean that you can slap a 'needs source' sticker on it. Sorry. It's all true and you should know it, if you think you should be editing the article. If you don't know it, this isn't your area of knowledge. --Ira-welkin 16:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but looking at the article as it stands now I am honestly amazed at the number of viable citations in it. I'm sorry, but I only know this stuff because I sat through many of these radio shows and lots of interviews and read through many articles and paid for the magazine. I am afraid that I know about what I added. There are seven citations to the material I added. I think that is sufficient. Thank you so much. --Ira-welkin 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Ira! Much as I applaud your change of heart regarding TAPS, you just can't read posts on their forums and synthesize content from what you think might be going on in the TAPS organization. While I agree that most of what you've reported is probably accurate, it would be best if you could find some reliable 3rd party sources that you can cite which report on, for example, the controversy regarding Jason Hawes alleged slur against gays. Also, sentences like "Showcasing the incredibly large number of extra persons going on each investigation for the sake of filming the show, the DVD casts doubt on the strictness of their procedures and the meaningfulness of evidence they catch simply due to the large number of crew members present on each site" is your opinion and not substantiated by any reliable source. That your opinion is probably right doesn't matter. What matters is that you must have attributable sources for such stuff. Best regards... --- LuckyLouie 07:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * TAPS noteriety has plunged lately: nobody is writing about them, three of their most notable members left. Nobody is writing about them but them. I guess we would have to take out that part, but the reason I source it is it shows Jason Hawes responding third or fourth post down and we know that proves it as a statement from him. Seems admissible to me. It's his page and his username, so that is proof of ID. Since the homosexual insult debacle is in the sourced radioshow (july 23rd, 2006)(he may not say f*g but he definitely goes on in an insulting voice and sounds about as mature as a bigoted 40 year teenager.) As this ordeal comes straight out of a radioshow, and the only part used of the source is the 'proofing' of Hawes' identity and the fact that he was aware that people were offended. Anyway, it's your call. --Ira-welkin 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I cite the source of the DVD itself. If anybody but the hardest core TAPS fan watched this DVD, they would be puking out of their nostrils. I wish everybody could see it: if it were on TV, and the skeptics saw it: they would be posting article after article debunking the bejeezus out of this group. I don't think it takes a third party: the source material itself reveals these flaws. If we change the text to read: 'The DVD shows upwards of twenty to thirty unseen members of the shows crew working at each location, filling most of the home and yard of the investigation site.' Something more neutral? Does that work? We can do this! --Ira-welkin 13:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't been watching these articles lately so I may not be here much. Do what you feel is most constructive, always try and use sources, and stay cool . ;-) LuckyLouie 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ira

 * You need to try to use inline citations. Put your citiation in the text like this: add after the link. OK? Also please don't embed comments in the text, make all your comments here on the Talk page. And please, please, try not to write your opinion into the text. That is the sure way to get people upset. What you have to do if you want to include stuff like complaints about TAPS is to find a 3rd party source whom you can reference ("According to Allsion Smith of SAPS, TAPS allegedly falsified their tax exempt status"). For example, here is one site you could look into for that particular opinion, however it's reliability as a source might be iffy: http://www.mondoskepto.com/node/89 and http://www.mondoskepto.com/taxonomy_menu/5/12


 * Always attribute material/opinion to sources. Otherwise it's just your opinion/interpretation of what you read on TAPS site or saw on the show versus a fan's opinion of what they read on the TAPS site or saw on the show. You can't editorialize, you can only report what some other source has already published and you must refrain from adding any spin. OK? Thanks. LuckyLouie 05:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, inline references was something I used to know how to do but had forgotten. Apparently, I have offended one of the remaining members of TAPS judging by the description of their edit where all my additions were removed. I don't mind them being reworded and reworked into a proper format. I wish to god that TAPS were still notable enough to be written about by a journalist enough so that these total facts could be included. I think it's pretty strange that the person who claimed all these points were 'subjective' could only say so because nobody has written about them in a public field. It's sad, because if one little place wrote about all these true things we could put it in. Would it be best for me to mass-mail all the pertinent information to every journalist I can find and then whoever wants to pursue the story I could mail the bonus DVD to? Then there would at least be an actual article about all this stuff and we could put it in the Wikipedia page. Truthfully: The IP address claiming that these obvious facts are somehow not true just because there's no source other than the group's personal statements to cite... Lame. They are just lucky.

We could put up cited sources from Jason's myspace of him saying how the group is diversifying with a myspace like page and also attempting to make a 3d TAPS videogame. More examples of straying from the stated point of the group. --Ira-welkin 15:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute: let me get this straight. Even if we just say: In the July 23rd, 2006 podcast Hawes and Wilson assumed homosexually-stereotyped voices, complete with lisp. And the provide a link to the podcast, that somehow is not a valid source? How can people writing about TV shows say who has written them etc? I don't understand nor think that is right. I think that there has got to be a way to put that in. I mean, some kind of description of the radioshow is in order. "The show often centers on the humor of the two hosts, as they illicit laughs by asking junior member Dave Tango the 'Word of the Day,' an intentionally difficult word that almost invariably gets mispronounced." I mean, surely the IP number that clearly is one of TAPS or their hardest core fans (again, now a days I'm sure it would have to be one of TAPS themselves, the IP addresses Service Provider, RoadRunner HoldCo LLC, provides internet for their region.) wouldn't take that out claiming it was unsourced, because it is clearly true, cited from their radio broadcast, a public thing on a reputable, notable website that is officially from them. But if it says "They spoke in lisps in this specific broadcast" then the IP claims 'Untrue GARBAGE which I will FIGHT to remove, you BLOGGER!"


 * If they are so ashamed of the truth about them, maybe they shouldn't have lisped into a microphone that was being recorded for an international radioshow. If its not notable, delete the article. I don't see how you can say that one fact about them is worth having while another isn't. --Ira-welkin 15:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, Ira. You may want to look around at other articles about podcasts and see how they source their material (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Podcasting) -- LuckyLouie 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am the 'IP addressor' at topic and the one disputing you Ira. I just find it inappropriate to see this wiki article about TAPS become your personal venting blog about them. Your citing things is not the problem. Its your constant subjective remarks and opinion that should be left out. For example, you use the word 'rude' in your description of the dvd content. The word 'rude' is YOUR opinion, is not factually sourced and should be left out. Cite your points as you wish in the article, just leave out the hate. As it stands, the edit that you placed on the article is completely acceptable in my opinion, which is why I haven't touched it. However, if you go and put all that other stuff up again, I will be back to do my part in cleaning up after you. Lastly, does it REALLY matter who I am? The issue is about the article and NOT who edits it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/24.31.177.150 (User_talk:24.31.177.150) 05:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC).


 * No, it really really does not matter lol. But I too agree with this present state of the article. I took out many subjective things such as 'appropriately titled' etc in the Ghost Hunters article. I can see your point. It was subjective. It is just too bad that no one will ever see that DVD to critique it as only hardcore fans have it. Then it would not be subjective. --Ira-welkin 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed Ira. I certainly respect you now and I appreciate your choices. I guess there is always means for us all to get along.


 * As I respect you, and I often find in these situations that my initial rambunctiousness and lack of civiillity is the primary cause for this discussion becoming an argument. I'm very sorry. --Ira-welkin 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've only just stumbled onto this conversation, but I want to comment that from an ethics and full dislosure standpoint, yes, it does matter who you are, 24.31.177.150. -Nicole Rodovsky, Evening Scribe 01:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How about a little bit of "No!" with your coffee Nicole. Why would it matter who someone is editing things on a wiki? The wiki allows anyone to edit freely while remaining anonymous. Ah! The beauty or privacy. Besides, whether or not a member of TAPS is editing CORRECT information is irrelevant, when that information is factual, non-subjective and true. Am I not right? If someone from TAPS were editing in incorrect information, then it would be a matter of ethics. So please take your curious little mind and think about that some more be fore you post. --unsigned comment by an obvious member of TAPS

Hey. You are wrong. Editing and removing correct information is also a matter of ethics. You have insisted on removing things that cast your, erm, sorry, THE group in a negative light despite the fact that they are just as factual as the far more insubstantial aspects of your, again sorry, THE group. Take your curious little threats, the ones that sound like they could be done by a hobbyist RPG character illustrator, and think about being civil before you try to play down her comments. Microsoft didn't get out of concerns for its ethics so easily when they came under fire for editing wikipedia articles. In fact, you aren't to mess with your own articles, period. If you are important enough where other people want to do it, great! If not, don't be on wikipedia. Did you know that? No. You just want to be portrayed in the best possible light. You probably feel it is your right to do so even though its against the rules. So whatever. Spout a bunch of rude-rodney and corny-as-hell joke about having a glass of incongruous insult. --12.219.32.99 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Merged Members?
Why was Steve Gonsalves wiki article merged with this one? Mrmcdonnell (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

cause you stink!--70.233.102.223 (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dustin Pari
Dustin Pari is not a past member. . . I'm watching him on the new episode of Ghost Hunters right now! Plus he is part of the GHI team. Someone Fix That! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.102.223 (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)