Most Haunted - Wikipedia edits

[fingersmith]

In conversation with a friend, the UK TV programme Most Haunted was brought up and I mentioned an Ofcom complaint which was not upheld due to the programme being obviously for entertainment purposes and not serious.
I couldn't really remember the details so went to wikipedia and found no mention, thought I might have remembered wrongly.
What I did see was some information about the shows "Psychic Medium" Derek Acorah being caught out followed by the sentence

All this seems to point to one conclusion: that Acorah is a proven fake who conducted his fakery without the knowledge of the other members of the Most Haunted crew.

Which struck me as defensive and not normal wikipedia tone. Would I be right in saying that even if the facts did point to such a conclusion that wikipedia should just provide the facts and allow the reader to make any conclusions?
Some further investigation revealed that the same user (ip 80.6.126.110) who included this sentence also appears to have removed an entire section regarding the ofcom complaint i had been looking for as well as some other things relating to the debunking of the show. If I'm reading this page right en.wikipedia.[org]/w/index.php?title=Most_Haunted&diff=prev&oldid=127408275#Criticism (sorry can't post links yet)
Would I be right in saying that this information should be re-instated and that the quote mentioned above is something which should be removed?(I'm not particularly familiar with the wikipedia rules but I'm sure many here are.) And is there any way of finding out who the person making the edits is?

 

[Mojo]

All this seems to point to one conclusion: that Acorah is a proven fake who conducted his fakery without the knowledge of the other members of the Most Haunted crew.

Wasn't it other members of the Most Haunted team who fed Acorah the stuff about Rik Eedles and Kreed Kafer?

 

[cj.23]

That might well be the same IP which edited me out of the long list of folks who worked on the show actually, and a few others as well. These things happen! I managed to delete my wiki entry by request and invoking "rule 7" - that I am insufficiently interesting to warrant an encyclopedia entry (which is true - I have achieved very little. )

j x

 

[fingersmith]

Wasn't it other members of the Most Haunted team who fed Acorah the stuff about Rik Eedles and Kreed Kafer?

Yeah, apparently the show parapsychologist with a view to exposure.

That might well be the same IP which edited me out of the long list of folks who worked on the show actually

What was it you did, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[fingersmith]

Well someone seems to have now removed the offending sentence I quoted above, someone here possibly?
Also it seems the link I provided about the other removed section was duff, try en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=127408275 where the 'Criticism' section appears to have been removed in it's entirety. I'll try to work out how to edit my original post!

 

[cerberus]

In conversation with a friend, the UK TV programme Most Haunted was brought up and I mentioned an Ofcom complaint which was not upheld due to the programme being obviously for entertainment purposes and not serious.
I couldn't really remember the details so went to wikipedia and found no mention, thought I might have remembered wrongly.

You should find the Ofcom ruling in this document on page 16.

w ww.ofcom.org.uk/accessibility/rtfs/bulletins/archive05/bb49.rtf

If not goto ofcom.org.uk and in the search box put haunted and it should be the 3rd link down.

 

[Big Les]

Thank you cerberus - very interesting! Here's your link;

www.ofcom.org.uk/accessibility/rtfs/bulletins/archive05/bb49.rtf

And this the salient chunk;

On reviewing the programmes themselves, we recognised that the series, amongst other things, often featured:

· a celebrity presenter in the studio;
· a studio audience;
· ‘over-dramatic’ responses by the presenters and production team to the events which occur;
· paranormal events occurring with regularity (for example, whenever a ‘live’ show is broadcast); and
· phone-ins.

These, along with the graphics, music, and night-vision camera sequences, all suggested a high degree of showmanship that puts it beyond what we believe to be a generally accepted understanding of what comprises a legitimate investigation.

Ofcom also recognised that, having established the programme over a number of series, it would now be clear to viewers that the intended purpose of these programmes was for entertainment.

On balance - taking into account the context of the programme itself and the presentation within the series - we consider that overall Most Haunted/Most Haunted Live should be taken to be a programme produced for entertainment purposes. This is despite what appears to be occasional assertions by the programme that what viewers are witnessing is real. As such this programme should be seen in the light of shows where techniques are used which mean the audience is not necessarily in full possession of the facts.

We consider that even though there is an element of a ‘scientific’ approach (e.g. the carrying out of so-called ‘experiments’ such as monitoring changes in room temperature) which adds to the entertainment factor of the programme, these are, as the broadcaster acknowledges, not carried out under laboratory conditions. We therefore do not believe that these programmes could reasonably be described, in terms of the Code, as a ‘legitimate investigation’.

In the specific context of these programmes therefore, which have been established and broadcast for over three years, we believe that they contain an appropriate degree of signposting which appears to make it clear to viewers that they are for entertainment purposes.

 

[fingersmith]

You should find the Ofcom ruling in this document on page 16.

w ww.ofcom.org.uk/accessibility/rtfs/bulletins/archive05/bb49.rtf

If not goto ofcom.org.uk and in the search box put haunted and it should be the 3rd link down.

Thanks for that, I particularly liked the punctuation in the phrase

a ‘celebrity’ psychic Derek Acorah

not where I would have put the inverted commas, but fair enough!
I don't know if I really agree with the OfCom conclusion that

we believe that they contain an appropriate degree of signposting which appears to make it clear to viewers that they are for entertainment purposes.

considering my friend brought it up in response to my disbelief in ghosts.

 

[MaryCBW]

You should watch a show about professional ghost hunters. Jason and Grant on Ghost Hunters would never fake evidence.

 

[Ixion]

You should watch a show about professional ghost hunters. Jason and Grant on Ghost Hunters would never fake evidence.

I just wonder if some sort of law requiring them to say "For entertainment purposes only" on Ghost Hunters will ever be invoked. They have to put disclaimers on herbal remedies such as "These statements have not been evaluated by a doctor. This product is not intended to be used to treat, diagnosis, or cure any disease." Why can't the do the same for parapsychology programs?

 

[dudalb]

Here are the only Ghost Hunters I have absolute faith in:

 

[Ixion]

Harold Ramis rocks!

 

[Dragon]

Harold Ramis rocks!

Yeah - but according to Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd thought they were making a documentary ...

 

[Beerina]

Here are the only Ghost Hunters I have absolute faith in:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1884048176dfd1284d.jpg[/qimg]

Not me man. Bill Murray said they had unlicensed positron colliders on their backs.

Those don't exist because you can't collide positrons (i.e. anti-electrons.) When slammed together at higher and higher energies, they've never seen an impact deflection, only electromagnetic resistence deflections. IANAP but they may be the same level, so to speak, as quarks rather than composit particles like protons and neutrons.


And that's how I know Ghost Busters is not real!

 

[quixotecoyote]

Not me man. Bill Murray said they had unlicensed positron colliders on their backs.

Those don't exist because you can't collide positrons (i.e. anti-electrons.) When slammed together at higher and higher energies, they've never seen an impact deflection, only electromagnetic resistence deflections. IANAP but they may be the same level, so to speak, as quarks rather than composit particles like protons and neutrons.


And that's how I know Ghost Busters is not real!

Who said they were colliding positrons with each other eh? Unwarranted assumption!

 

[Jekyll]

Who said they were colliding positrons with each other eh? Unwarranted assumption!

Well what else would happen when you cross the beams?

 

[Big Les]

Streams, man, streams. Accuracy is all important with nonsense.