Talk:A Haunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Haunting article.
Article policies
Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment comments

[edit] Ad?

the "about the show" section seems more like and advertisement then a neutral description. someone should clear this up.

"About the Show" simply tells a page viewer what the show is about (Duh!). It doesn't say to watch the show, but what to expect should they choose to watch the show. Also, sign your comments. --Defender 911 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The show is so incredibly silly I can't believe I'm interested in cleaning up the article.

That is a very biased POV, IMHO. Also, don't make fun of the show. It freaks me out. Finally, sign your comments! --Defender 911 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's a "biased POV." He's stating his personal opinion. As long as he's not putting it in the article, what's your point?
Frankly, I agree with him. Barring any doubts about how truthful the eyewitnesses are, the show itself goes to such lengths to sensationalize and exaggerate everything with all these horror movie cliches that it's just ridiculous. Honestly, I think some of the stuff shown in the reenactments might even be completely fictious stuff added in by the show's creators to "spice it up." Like how in the episode I just watched, they show that weird demon thing all grabbing the mom and pinning her down against the bed in this sort of vicious attack. If you pay close attention, you'd notice that when the real mom is describing what happens, she only mentions seeing it and says nothing about being attacked, which is a pretty big thing to omit. Not to mention she'd have to be pretty crazy to just shrug off a violent assault from a demon and tell her family everything's ok.
With that said, yes the article reads like an advertisement, or at the very least, the perspective of someone who really likes the show. It uses all this flowery language about "frightening real-life horror tales" that sounds like its trying to sell the show to the reader. --Foot Dragoon 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It may sound like it's trying to sell the reader. However, I can't find anything similar to an ad. Also, it isn't your place to decide what happened. Were you ever there? In fact, have you even heard of anything like this outside of TV? Of corse not! You have nothing to base that on. Also, about the "omitting", perhaps they simply omitted the witmess accounts due to the fact that they only had a small amount of time on the air. And finally, biased Points of View have no place on a talk page about improving an article. With that sait, would it kill you to leave a message on my talk page rather than putting it here? --Defender 911 21:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You sound kind of angry right now. If my tone came off as hostile, I apologize. But really, although it's true talk pages are meant purely for improving the articles and not for users to chit-chat about the subject at hand, there isn't some crazy rule that "ALL POV MUST BE PURGED FROM THE DISCUSSION PAGE!!!" Seriously, just look at the discussion page for any controversial article.
And yes, I've heard and seen plenty of eyewitness accounts of ghosts. I'm not deciding what happened, I'm drawing my own personal conclusion. And seriously, if some crazy demon was thrashing you and pinning you down against the bed, are you going to just brush yourself off and tell your family everything's ok immediately afterwards? You can already tell the show makes every possible attempt to be really scary with all the horror movie cliches, as opposed to a purely down-to-earth portrayal of what happened. It's not a far leap to say they'll stretch certain parts of the story and go "WHOOOAHHH THE DEMON GRABBED HER AND THREW HER ON THE BED TOO!!!" Now I'm not saying they DID do that, but to me it's looking like a very real possibility.
And I'm not sure how you define an ad, but semantics aside, the point is, the article reads like it's promoting the show by describing the stuff as "frightening true horror tales" rather than just saying the show documents eyewitness accounts of hauntings.
And I'm not so sure what the reason is for leaving messages on the talk page. I'm still talking about the article in general (albeit with a huge amount of tangential stuff) so I'm not quite sure what you're asking for with the leaving messages on your talk page. I'm more or less a Wikignome so I don't think I've ever used user talk pages before, so...what exactly would be something to put in a user talk page as opposed to here? >_> --Foot Dragoon 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, talk pages are about improving the article. However, when users make mistakes on the talk page, the user is notified on the same page. If possible, notify them on their own page. --Defender 911 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether people like this show or not, the article does seem very one-sided. Take the statement "...only showcases supernatural events..." which implies that the stories are factual representations of reality, which is, to say the least, disputable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.248.206.14 (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add section "Critiques" to article

Unfortunately the Docudrama article itself is still in flux and apparently of no help in the moment to clear this matter up.

Maybe a section explaining shortcomings of the show would balance it? A draft:

Critics of the show point out that only personal perceptions are presented in a dramatized way. The scientific community does not get a chance giving a possible natural explanation for the events experienced. The investigators brought in appear to believe in the supernatural accounts from the start and might even have a conflict of interest.

Can please somebody help rewriting especially the last sentence, as it clearly is not NPOV.

(Personal note: I do not believe in ghosts, but I somehow enjoyed watching my first episode for its spine tickling ability. On the other hand I feel a bit disappointed that this was shown at the Discovery channel, a channel I associate with _documentaries_ and _information_. IMHO it would perfectly fit if it would be aired via AXN). --Stevemiller (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


The Wikipedia article on Carbon monoxide poisoning mentions it as a cause for haunted houses. See 8. Carbon monoxide poisoning and "haunted houses" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.51.147 (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I added an altered version of your paragraph. I don;t think it is possible to make such a statement entirely neutral, as my past experience on Wikipedia is that attempts to insert "Critique" sections are usually met with aggressive responses from fans of the show/phenomenon in question. Gird your loins...the true believers will now descend upon this article! Johnashby (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current state of the article isn't neutral

As of the time I checked this article at 2:10 PM, US Central Time (DST), on the 24th of April, the article is not neutral and assumes that the show is entirely fictional. While it is a fact that the visuals and interviews don't entirely match up, the article is STILL supposed to be neutral as per wikipedia rules. I suggest getting someone who's never read a word for or against the show to write the article.

Edit: Forgot to sign. Ovni (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)