Talk:List of alleged haunted locations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 27, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Japan

Japan is widely considered to be the most haunted place on earth, I wonder that there is no section for it. Chris 03:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Japanese films creep me out.

Probably because there are insufficient Japanese editors on the English language site, and insufficient English language books about Japanese hauntings in the US.

perfectblue 08:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Japan is widely considered to be the most haunted place on earth," By whom? If we could get some information we could broaden the world-view some. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Japan has a lot of strange paranormal activity. Unfortunately, most sites that contain such information are in japanese themselves. BRiCKDuDE102692 02:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mamie Eisenhower

How could someone during the JFK and LBJ administrations report seeing Mamie Eisenhower's ghost when she didn't die until 1979?-- which was during Carter's administration.--Mdriver1981 02:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter had that effect on alot of people. Hi There 08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Whaley House (US)

"The Whaley House is one of only a handful of homes recognized by the federal government as being undoubtedly haunted." What kind of nonsense is this? Which U.S. agency is in charge of certifying houses are "undoubtedly haunted?"

I have no idea what agency can deem a house "Undoubtedly haunted." However, courts have deemed some houses "haunted", which results in many strange cases. BRiCKDuDE102692 02:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pluckely

I added a listing for Pluckley in the UK, since it's claimed to be the most haunted village in the country. I'm also planning on adding a page for Glamis Castle as soon as I find more paranormal-related sources. The Kinslayer 12:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forest Park Cemetery

This cemetery seems to be listed only for the reasons that it is in grave disrepair (wink wink); there is nothing about its actual "haunting" referenced in the entry. Perhaps some ghostly activity needs to be cited, or its entry removed from the article. Hi There 08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12/18/06 edits

I added the worldview template based on the fact that nearly all the entries in the list are in western countries. Earlier on this talk page someone mentioned Japan; there still is no mention of Japan or any Asian country on the list. Also the article shows a heavy U.S. bias, with the US section being far, far longer than any other country despite the fact that many places in Europe (not to mention Asia or the Middle East) have far longer and bloodier histories than the U.S.

Additionally it has bothered me for a while that this article is almost completely unreferenced and no one adding listings bothers to cite sources. Some well-known locations like Chillingham Castle and The Amityville Horror can get away with it; but most places on this list can't and even those that can really should have sources. I added sources for a couple (one someone questioned; the other is one I added myself when I was too new to Wikipedia to know about citing sources), and for the few that already had some attempt at sourcing I converted the sources using <ref> tags and the various citation templates found at Wikipedia:Citation templates. If the other people who have this page on their watchlist could go through and cite what they can it would be helpful. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nyi Roro Kidul

Mostly I built off an anon user's edit & a quick perusal of google. I'll try to dig a little further when I'm not late to work, but anyone is welcome to; the first I heard of it was half an hour ago, so we're basically on the same footing. --mordicai. 14:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rigadoun suggested over at Nyai Loro Kidul that this from the The Jakarta Post might be a reputable source. --mordicai. 20:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, go ahead and add it then. The more the merrier when it comes to sources. :) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have butted in - I did the merge - have done work on her - and fieldwork on her location - I have many off google items I will add at a later date - thanks for the inspirations folks! (she will be happy) SatuSuro 00:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The article itself is missing out on a lot of non-US locations; if you've got any other Indonesian hauntings, I think the article could be susbstantially improved by them. --mordicai. 13:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a long delayed article Sacred places in Java - and a related list - very much in need of some hard work - sourced from indonesian and javanese language magazines - and there's probably 10 or so of the more notorious locations easy to find.... But last week or two - there;s a new book here in australia (the guy was on radio promoting) - which includes the alkimos (the one I added for western australia today or yesterday say -and I think he does the hotel in - Margaret River, Western Australia - I'll try to hunt some stuff down - migh tnot be till after christmas though.... SatuSuro 14:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact?

You got to be kidding - the placement of this in this list is dubious. The -article itself- carried the citations. The fact thingy should be reverted! SatuSuro 05:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never really liked the "fact" tags- they almost seem to imply that somehow conjecture & original research might concievably be acceptable, & all too often I see them used as a rider on POV to try to gird it from deletion. I don't, however, have a strong opinion on their removal, as I mostly ignore them anyhow. It does seem like paranormal articles are a tough place for them to be. --mordicai. 13:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - the articles should stand on their own merits if they trying to pull another one - so to speak. Unless anyone else arrives for comment theyre out by christmas (there's something that could attract paranormal conjecture...:) SatuSuro 13:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The subject matter on this page is often subjective, and serves as a good point of entry for anyone with an interest in the paranormal to look up the facts behind what is often folklore, coincidence or tradition. The Cite Tag would usualy be used to warn of the impending deletion of an unsourced statment, which in this wase would be almost the whole list. Perhaps a carefully worded intoduction would, in this case, suit the article better than Citation Tags. Ghostieguide 13:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

I've placed a tag notifying people that this article contains a lot of original research; what isn't actually original research at least needs some sources. My exception to disliking the WP:NOR rule is when it deals with more paranormal or subjective things; as much as I hate to say it, this article really shouldn't have original research. From now on, if you feel that you need to add something, please find a source for it. V-Man737 03:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I and several other people have been putting alot of work into sourcing this article. I added cite needed tags to all unsourced statements a few days ago. I think just about everying in here is sourceable if not yet sourced. Don't you think the OR tag is redundant with the cite needed tags? Besides, I don't see anything here that really reads like origninal research (nothing like "1234 Somewhere Street Somewhere is haunted. I know because I live there"). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. To be honest, I was experimenting with templates and figured that one was a best-fit. In labeling them as WP:OR, I was assuming that people had put each item in as a result of having heard it from somewhere, hence original research. But you are right, they certainly are or ought to be sourceable. V-Man737 14:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Many portions of this article appear as if someone just cut and pasted text from a "ghost story" site. There was a lot of dubious storytelling and unverified facts. I've attempted to clean some of it up, and neutralize the language. --- LuckyLouie 04:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verified sources only?

I think we need to delete all unverified claims that no one seems to be able to find a citation for it. Anyone disagree? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 01:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

None here, I already made a start. The Kinslayer 01:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split suggestion

The article is already pretty long and when you consider that each entry will need an additional line for the referenced source, what do people think of a list of countries and then each country has its own article? --~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is long, but we are currently in the process of removing unverifbale locations. I'd suggest waiting until that's finished and seeing how the article is then before we try something like that. The Kinslayer 14:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Much agreed - I'd like to see all of them get sources (thus spawning more individual articles), but until that happens, I think containment is the general idea here. ;-) V-Man737 14:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be a wise idea to give each country, mabye even each city, it's own article on haunted locations. However, this would be a massive project. I would like to help with it but how does one go about starting such a project? BRiCKDuDE102692 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning Up

I've got as far as India (which ended being removed altogether), I've either found sources for the claim, or removed the claim altogether. I plan to continue later on today, but any help would be appreciated (I'm having trouble loading the site that supports the Himalayas claim, so I plan on coming back to that. Please co-ordinate here so we don;t end up remving or editing stuff the other people did. The Kinslayer 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the intro to help with policing of WP:NOR. As I go though the list referencing or deleting, I intend to delete articles that do not have wikipedia entries or create new historical entries for those that deserve them. I also hope to trim condense listings to no more than a few lines each, detailed descriptions should be with the article itself. Ghostieguide 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete the entry for the Story Inn; it's sourced, and I've been planning to write an article for Story for a while - I just haven't gotten around to it. I've been busy with other things. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that you not delete anything that's sourced whether it has an article of its own or not. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I avoided all entries with sources and no article as well. Basically, since most of the places on the list are notable in their own right, an article appearing for them is only a matter of time, and since sources pass WP:V, there is no reason why they should be removed from the list. The Kinslayer 14:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many eastghost.com references

There's way too many eastghost.com references and the article is starting to look like an advertisement for them or a subtle spam. It's just a website and not a newspaper or book or anything, so for it to even be considered a reliable source is flimsy. Wikipedia has guidelines that say people should avoid these types of self-published sources. The way this is going, every cheesy website is going to come in and post a link to themselves as a source.--67.140.176.115 09:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather on-edge about that site as well, mostly because it keeps being posted in odd places by the same person in other articles, and when you go there to check it for source, it politely tells you that only members can access it. So not worth my time. I'm also concerned about whether it is WP:NPOV. V-Man737 00:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have a look into this tonight, and if it is properly member-only, then I'll remove the links as spam. The Kinslayer 12:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the members-only issue was an oversight on our part; like any site concerning diverse and arguable content we suffered through an unfortunate wave of attacks and had to implement quite a few changes, some of which are still in development. What good would be members only links? All eastghost.com content linked from wikipedia should now be publicly available. It's no attempt at spam. Several authors (who have written books) are standing members and contribute regularly to articles and threads on the site. The entire site is geared for presenting and commenting on paranormal experiences, pictures, recordings and other "evidence," to the extent that such is possible. Links to other sources are also welcomed and plentiful. Part of eastghost.com is meant to be an organic book, so if that isn't a useful source in the paranormal realm, I'm not sure what would be. Not being affrontive, but please do tell because we will promptly make whatever adjustments are deemed necessary to improve validity and broader acceptability. EastGhost (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where is this article going?

With the ghost hunting boom, there is potential for this article to contain literally thousands of entries. If all that is required to be listed here is a mention on the web or in print, then you'd better tell Jimbo to buy some extra servers. It will soon be pages and pages long. Since many of the allegedly haunted sites operate commercial tours and events, there will be potential battles to get themselves listed as "authentic alleged hauntings" in Wikipedia. At that point, we must not only question the quality of the information ("authentic alleged hauntings"?), but the usefulness of the article itself. --- LuckyLouie 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of these problems can be solved by limiting the types of references allowed here to newspapers and books instead of websites. I agree with 67.140.176.115 above (the potential for spam abuse is too great) and LuckyLouie above (way too many to list). If you pop over to theshadowlands.net, they have over 11,600 haunted locations. By limiting it to just books and newspapers, you remove the copy and paste factor which means that someone has to do the hard work of looking these things up. Plus, the WP:Reliable_source#Self-published_sources guidelines kind of disqualify quite a few web sources.--~Nealparr~ ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page) What I hope to find eventually in the article is a comprehensive list of places all around the globe that have been reliably reported as "haunted by ghosts or another anomalous phenomenon." obviously the list will eventually be very long. That's fine. Because of the length, each entry should be concise. Usually people visiting the list will be doing so with the intention of finding the nearest haunted location to where they live; that is a very good reason for length. Particularly notable locations should have their own articles as well. V-Man737 00:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Usually people visiting the list will be doing so with the intention of finding the nearest haunted location to where they live". Not sure what you mean by that, but an article written with the intention of serving as a resource for one group of people, i.e. paranormal enthusiasts - is probably not in the best interests of Wikipedia. There are many ghost hunting websites that publish such lists already. I would urge you to think about ways to make this article more encyclopedic. --- LuckyLouie 00:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not clarifying that. The article will have similar purposes to that of any article, that is, to provide copious information to anyone who wants to know more about it. Mostly what people want out of an article is to know how the subject applies to them individually. Obviously paranormal enthusiasts are going to be among the main people perusing this list, just as bird enthusiasts are going to be the main people perusing the Lists of birds by region. I didn't mean that this list would solely serve their interests, but that it would be useful for anyone who happened to come this way - enthusiasts, skeptics, and the merely curious alike. In addition, there are no ghost hunting websites that publish such a list compliant with the Wikipedia specifications of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If we can continue to make sure additions to this list meet Wikipedia standards, this list will prove to be truly useful and encyclopedic. V-Man737 01:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. However, the comparison to Lists of birds by region is lacking, as the bird species and their regional habitats are factual, not speculated or legendary. A better comparison would be List of alleged bird-type-creatures said to be seen by region. ---- LuckyLouie 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I once saw a robin near my house, I swear it!

I realized the comparison would only be that, a comparison. Perhaps your concern is not whether there are reliable sources about haunting, but whether haunting itself really occurs. I myself am not concerned with whether the spirit of a deceased person actually resides in a particular area (one specific definition of the term); however, if a newspaper talks about a location and uses the term "haunted," in the sense of some type of anomalous phenomenon, to describe it, I am not going to exclude it as a reliable source any more than I would exclude an "outlandish" claim from a reliable source of hundreds of thousands of people dying in one instant in a bombing (per my argument in the AfD). That would be absurdly POV and unencyclopedic. To answer your initial concern about spamming, I agree with you that battling to get listed in Wikipedia is also hardly encyclopedic, and I, for one, won't stand for it. V-Man737 02:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope it works out for the best. I tend to see it rather like List of Elvis sighting locations. I would feel sorry for the person who had the task of judging which reports were "reliable" based solely on newspaper accounts. --- LuckyLouie 08:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The afd discussion had some pertinent issues addressed - current discussions seem to have ignored the content - just because a single editor might comes in on strong after the afd discussion does not place that editor in some position of authority... an aspect of this issue is not whether something is provable - but the fact that people either believe or accept something - its called anthropology (or in some countries politics) - scientific rationalistic reductionistic thinking does not fit with this article - its more the relating the phenomenon and the aledged sighting or experience - there is nothing inherently wrong with that in an encyclopedia article - Satu Suro 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal

One objection to this article brought up in the recent AFD was the name. So, what does everyone think of moving it to List of allegedly haunted locations? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Move - the article is a magnet for tall tales masquerading as factual. --- LuckyLouie 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Move - Seems better. The Kinslayer 19:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do it - What's in a name? Besides bias, of course... V-Man737 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've gone ahead and moved it. I'll be fixing all the links throughout the day. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, then sit back and wait for the next 'problem' he finds with the article. The Kinslayer 14:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Who you talkin' bout? --- LuckyLouie 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cut n Paste entries

Entries such as this have all the earmarks of an "embroidered yarn". Such books (America's Most Haunted, Westinworld Publications 1987) are intended more to entertain readers than inform them. Such stories cannot not be taken at face value and simply cut and pasted into the article. --- LuckyLouie 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source of the problem

The list is looking better, but there are still entries with no sources provided, and more than a few entries still have sources of dubious reliability. The Kinslayer 12:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Continuing on from this, I'm gonna delete all the entries without sources in 7 days time, so I'd advise sourcing the entries, or at least moving them elsewhere until they can be sourced and put back into the list. The Kinslayer 12:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added some sources for some of the more note-worthy cases. I agree with you: some of the entries seem dubious or not really note-worthy. A clean-up will be good. --Careax 16:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there a couple more days for people who really want an entry to stay to find sources for it. I'm gonna make a sub-page for all the deleted content, so that if a source turns up at later date it won't too much of a hassle to re-include it. The Kinslayer 17:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All unsourced entries have now been removed from the article and are currently stored here: Talk:List of allegedly haunted locations/Removed content. I did so that should a source for any of these stories be found, it will be easy to re-integrate them into the article. Please refrain from re-introducing them into the article without sources as per WP:ATT, that way we can avoid any accusations of 'ghostcruft' and the like. The Kinslayer 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The subpage is a good idea. I'll start looking for sources for them after I get moved and all settled in my new place. (I haven't been editing much lately because I've been so busy.) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing, but stories

It's all fake. And I got 1 comment on that "real" picture of a ghost in a prison: A lot can be done with Photoshop. It's fake. Eat that Pendehos.

Please keep your opinions to yourself. There is no reason for you to voice your opinion against the matter, for we are here to improve upon the article itself, not argue amongst ourselves. BRiCKDuDE102692 02:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why remove the "allegedly"?

All of these places are "haunted" only by anecdotal evidence. None of it has been proven. I like ghost stories as much as the next person, but they are not factual. Or at least proven scientifically in any way whatsoever. Windsock 01:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haunted C-130

The Litle Rock USAF Base has a C-130 that is haunted by ghosts of Viet Nam War era ghosts. Sources incl. the Arkansas Democrat/Gazette, and the USAF base itself. 205.240.146.37 (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Removal

The window in Fremantle Prison; is this the ghostly face of a murderer or just rippled glass?

I'm sorry, but in general, lists do not feature images. This image, in my opinion, shouldn't be here. If you will not remove the image, I think at least the caption should be changed to something a little more encyclopedic. (Please?) Fusion7 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucedio Monastery- Italy

no mentions of the monastery in the Pricipato di Lucedio. This location is alleged to be haunted by the monks who, besides having all gone insane & turning to devil worshipping, were also allegedly excommunicated by the Vatican.

the location has been featured on TAPS's Ghost Hunters and also on Family Channel's "Most Haunted."

anyone?

--162.80.36.13 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sleepy Hollow

Would it be appropriate to put Sleepy Hollow as a site of reported ghost sightings? I mean, people have reported to see the Headless Horseman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Who Cares777 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norway entry deletion

I removed the entry to Norway since it is only referenced by a Youtube video. I tried to search the net but has not come up with better sources. If any reliable sources (newspapers, books etc.) are obtained, then any editor can restore the entry and cite the article with it.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article's title

Should this include the word "allegedly" or the like - or would that be slipping into WP:Peacock terms...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I support such change. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: The term "allegedly" was removed from the title as the result of an Arbcom case. I don't know the details and I was not the one who made the change. It is in the edit history of the page and an administrator has remarked on reading the case. --Historian 1000 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hauntings are hauntings are hauntings, whether someone believes they are attributed to ghosts or natural phenomena. I think it is neutral enough to have "haunting" without qualification. Charles 03:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Charles makes a good point and if the title's already been mulled over, discussed (I guess I'm not surprised it has) and settled, then keep as is. Thanks for filling me in. So to speak. The ghost Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland

Hey, there's a lot of castles in Scotland that are famous for their ghost stories, even the one that inspired MacBeth from Shakespeare. A source may be http://www.scottishgatherings.co.uk/page152.html, but we can't just copy, right? Well, it's a thought for future reseraches and insertions on the article. 200.102.207.128 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move Proposal (Again)

Ok, so the article was at List of haunted locations for a long time. As a result of the AFD it was moved to List of allegedly haunted locations in February of 2007. Then there was the whole mess with the paranormal and ArbCom and in August of 2007 it was moved back to List of haunted locations, citing the ArbCom case. I'm not quite sure exactly where in the ArbCom case it says to move this article, but whatever. Just last month, with no discussion on the talk page, it was moved to List of alleged haunted locations, which, without the "ly", seems to be grammatically incorrect. I'd like to see it moved again to fix the "ly" problem. I don't really care if it's moved to List of haunted locations or List of allegedly haunted locations, so long as the "ly" is fixed. An admin will have to do the move, since it'll be moving it over a redirect either way. I'd like to get some consensus for which title to move it to. Hence the straw poll. Please sign under the title which you prefer. If you have any additional input (i.e. can point to the portion of the massive ArbCom case where it was decided that this should go back to its original title) please put it under "additional input", but please don't let this degenerate into bickering. Thank you. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support List of haunted locations

[edit] Support List of allegedly haunted locations

Claiming that the locations ARE haunted is a major piece of POV-pushing of the pro-supernatural viewpoint. DreamGuy (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional input