Talk:Haunted Castle at Six Flags Great Adventure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Media section

Someone fix the media part. I would if I knew how to, and if I knew the facts. I mean, it looks like a god damn advertisement. I've already taken out a website and an extra 'truthfully' that was at the end. Why do I think the owner of the website wrote that?-Babylon pride 02:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Perhaps someone who has seen the film can edit that section. -Etoile 01:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Working on general improvements right now, that's on my list. --CliffC 19:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The reorganized and expanded article was just posted. --CliffC 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo request

Anyone have a photo of the Castle in its glory days? That would be a nice addition to an article that's basically all bad news. --CliffC 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research; NPOV; verifiability

Recently some material was added to Haunted Castle that seems not in keeping with Wikipedia:No original research ("any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article"). Some seems to violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and much does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability.

When I started to clean up and expand the article a few weeks ago, I struggled a bit with what to do with its existing "Media" section, which, as pointed out above, looked like an advertisement. I decided on a section "Questioning the report" where Smith's documentary was summarized, and two links to the documentary were included in "External links".

What I am inclined to do is revert the article to the way it stood before the additions, then review the new material to see if there's anything that has been overlooked (and I would guess there is), try to find a reliable, verifiable source for that material, then re-add it to the article, hopefully in a consistent style and with a neutral point of view.

Those new additions contained a lot of interesting material that I think should be publicly available. I would suggest that the author host them on his web site; we can mention them in "Questioning the report" the same as we do the documentary and add the site to "External links". --CliffC 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a disgrace and irresponsible on the part of the user (CliffC) to delete the changes I made last week in attempt to correct this TOTALLY INCORRECT article THAT HAS NOW RETURNED TO WIKIPEDIA IN ITS ORIGINAL INCORRECT FORMAT. I'd like to see what qualifications CliffC has as a journalist (I would guess none by reading his work), but we'll never know, as he's too cowardly to post an email address so I can ask. I spent years researching the Haunted Castle, and HAVE PUBLISHED AN AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY ON THE SUBJECT, so how could it be unverifiable? All of my information was cited as such. This user should stop making changes to this article, as it clear he has NO IDEA at all what he's talking about, as the current article looks like a child wrote it, and is TOTALLY INCORRECT IN MANY AREAS. (Posted by Pete Smith, Haunted Castle researcher and author)Popartpete 21:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[Added a ":" to the above paragraph to indent] As stated above, I plan to review the material added, some very interesting, and try to find reliable verifiable sources for anything overlooked that makes sense to add to an encyclopedia article without it sounding like it came out of the New York Post. I will work on this as my time and other interests allow, but it won't be my highest priority. Meanwhile, I don't "own" the article; anyone can edit here in Wikipedia as long as they keep to the Wikipedia rules. The article is not locked. I would love to see some additional material from a reliable source besides the few used so far.

As to my qualifications, I don't need to show you any, and in fact I don't need to have any, for this is Wikipedia. My contributions over the last few months are my résumé, just as your own are yours.

I don't publish my email address because I don't like spam, and unlike others I don't need to get my name out there to drum up orders for a product. Feel free to ask questions here or on my Talk page. --CliffC 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)