Talk:Ghost Whisperer

Any reason fictional TV is relevant here? Stereotypes, maybe, but it's fiction (and TV at that) where stereotypes have a legitimate use. ADK ...I'll agree your glue! 12:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From the article, the show seems to promote paranormal woo using stereotypes, which makes it reasonably okay to have in my book. 20:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just find it a little wrong to criticise fiction. Because once they're presenting ghosts as real in the show, they're real. So "oh, it pushes woo" is a stupid thing to say - may as well do the same with all fiction from William Shakespeare to George Lucas. ADK ...I'll vocalise your belt! 20:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently they're demonizing skeptics, which can be taken as purely in-universe, or as having real-life implications. I've never seen the show, so I'm not entirely sure. 20:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on how they go about it. Obviously, insisting that the supernatural can't exist in a universe where such elements are openly prevalent is kind of silly (skeptics in such universes can still be skeptical about things such as gods and demons, or insist that there may a scientific explanation for whatever happens, but they can't logically dismiss all supernatural phenomena). However, from what little bits I've seen of the show, it seems that only the main character knows they're real, so portraying people who show a bit of skepticism is wrong. I don't think the article should present the show as "using woo" (all paranormal shows have to do this to some extent, and criticizing a show just for using supernatural stuff is stupid. Fiction is fiction.), but as "negatively portraying skeptics" (which, to be fair, is mostly what the article's doing). I also think that the fact that a self-proclaimed medium is one of the shows producers is relevant. But I'll leave it to people more familiar with the show. Woodgod (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * the fact that one of the producers believes in this stuff isn't really relevant, is it? If the show tried to say "ghosts are real" then we should be covering it, but if it doesn't, then we may as well have articles on the X-Files or Randall and Hopkirk. Sophie  because liberals  15:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What I get from the article is that the show heavily implies that non-believers are idiots, not just "wrong" in the context of the fictional universe, which would be fine. I haven't really watched the show and so can't confirm it. I agree that otherwise fiction shouldn't be criticized, unless it is heavily implied that the creators are claiming that it's based, at least partly, on fact (Dan Brown). At the moment that and the medium connection are the only reasons to have the article here at all, but I definitely wouldn't be against its deletion if that's not enough. We should be focusing more on documentary style supernatural shows instead anyway. Woodgod (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Fictional" series?
The current wording implies that the series did not actually exist. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)