Jump to content

Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good site for research?

[edit]

Whats a good, objective site for researching haunted buildings/places? http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/ has a fair amount of material but some of it needs updating, and there's no contact information on the site so ther's no way to report updates. Thanks --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....Hello?????? Anyone there??? --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 January 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Not done, not enough consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 02:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]



List of reportedly haunted locationsList of haunted locations – Since Wikipedia recognises no other type of 'haunted location' except those which are 'reportedly haunted' the word 'reportedly' is superfluous. The lede can explain right up front that there are 2 WP:POVs: those who believe these locations are haunted and those who believe they aren't. Bermicourt (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Sorry I was not able to get a comment in the above Move Request discussion. Wikipedia is not neutral regarding mainstream science, e.g. there is no evidence that ghosts or hauntings exist. There may be some percentage of popular belief in such things, however we don't give pseudoscientific supernatural beliefs equal weight. Most entries in this article are appropriately framed as "claimed", "said to be", "alleged" etc. however there are still far too many that flat out state some location is definitely haunted by spirits of the dead. Accordingly, I would Oppose any move to modify the article title. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 June 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus is rather clear. Absent verifiable ghosts, we can't say in Wiki-voice that anywhere is haunted. A second RfC may be required to establish whether they should be harmonised at "List of" since most people never got past the obvious. Guy (help!) 22:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]



– To maintain WP:CONSISTENT titles, I am listing these all together. Issue #1: Any immediate look into this subject finds that the phrase "haunted places" is vastly more common than "haunted locations" (evidenced by Google Ngrams). Issue #2: Renaming several articles to "List of" with the exception of the WP:good article covering "District of Columbia" which is written in prose format. Issue #3: The term "reportedly" fails WP:NDESC because it is not used widely in any of the sources and seems to be overreaching editorialization. For most editors and readers, it is WP:SKYISBLUE knowledge that hauntings are not real - something that does not seem to be a problem when titling haunted house, haunted highway, ghost ship, List of ghosts, alien abduction, etc. and use of "reportedly" only crops up on this series of articles (Special:PrefixIndex/Reportedly, Special:PrefixIndex/List of reportedly) related to haunted places. Even if you consider "List of haunted places" a non-neutral title for lacking this "reportedly" term - one must acknowledge it is nonetheless a "non-neutral but common name". Simply put, we don't need to coddle our readers or hedge ourselves to such a degree as to introduce this term in the titles. -- Netoholic @ 02:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. Consistency is needed here, and 'place' is much better than the mildly deprecated 'location', and the 'List of' describes the content page layout appropriately. There will be iconoclasts on both sides of the ghosts 'do/don't" exist argument who will support or object to these listings being on Wikipedia. 'Reported' at least does cover the fact that these ghosts are reported, even in reputable sources, although sometimes for entertainment, and therefore Wikipedia can wipe its hands of POV accusation. However, if we feel that it is blatantly obvious that the world 'knows' that ghosts don't exist, or belief is held only by a small minority, then qualifying the listings with 'reported' would not be appropriate. But general non-belief is not iron-clad, and differing peoples and cultures have ghosts as part of their belief systems, myths and legends, which we don't discriminate against. To have 'reported' seems to keep the thing neutral, and would at least leave open a removal challenge for those 'sightings' which could be added without any or reliable verification. I would go for 'List of reported haunted places in XXXX' rather than 'List of haunted places in XXXX', although I'm not over-exercised about this. Here are indications of the extent of ghost belief:[1][2][3][4] Acabashi (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removal of the "reportedly" term is a consistency issue - since that term is not used in titles of any other paranormal subjects - in addition to the lack of sources that use it with respect to this topic (I couldn't even find uses via Google Ngrams to do any sort of comparison). -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all these changes. We should not be saying in wiki voice that anywhere is haunted. It simply isn't true. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roxy the dog: I don't think its true either, but nonetheless, the "reportedly" falls under MOS:WTW#Expressions of doubt as being an attempt to seem "neutral" but missing the mark and crossing the line into WP:WEASEL territory. Its not our job to convince billions of people that do believe in hauntings that they are wrong. So we must resort to a "non-neutral but common name". I also have to reject the idea that a place can only be considered "haunted" if in fact ghosts exist. Haunted places are defined by their mystery, history, and legend... not by the literal existence of ghosts. -- Netoholic @ 10:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There can be valid reasons to cast doubt on the accuracy, like in this particular case where it's not misuse ("Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate"): precisely... —PaleoNeonate18:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I buy your argument about the semantics of haunted. The only relevant gloss given at wikt:haunted is "Of a location, frequented by a ghost or ghosts." Colin M (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose dropping the "reportedly", for the reason Roxy gave. Don't care about "place or "location", but I agree that the names should be consistent. Please note that Category:Reportedly haunted locations by country contains several dozen categories that are called "Category:Reportedly haunted locations in <somewhere>", for example, Category:Reportedly haunted locations in Edinburgh. So, those categories should be part of the deal. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing: WP:SKYISBLUE is about sources. It says we do not need sources for things that are obviously true. It does not say we should not write things that are obviously true, and it does not say we should write things that are obviously false. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Roxy the dog we can't say in Wiki's voice that these are haunted. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Support move from reportedly to purportedly per SMcCandlish. 13:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's either this, or rename the ones we've left behind, and I hate weasel words. Elizium23 (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Elizium23 Your reasoning is cryptic. What do you mean by "the ones we've left behind", and what do weasel words have to do with them? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Roxy. The concept that spirits of the dead can definitely be found in certain locations is WP:FRINGE. WP is WP:NOTNEUTRAL in such cases. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @LuckyLouie: Every major mainstream news and travel outlet has articles devoted to "haunted places" ([5][6][7][8][9][10][11]), so cry of FRINGE is incorrectly applied. Renaming these is NOT the same as claiming ghosts exist - places can be described "haunted" by virtue of folklore alone, not the literal presence of ghosts. Its about the ghost story not the ghost. -- Netoholic @ 14:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am imagining now a Wikipedia which ponders to spooky sensationalism by listing every haunted place in the world and saying they are actually "haunted" by which we do not really mean they have real ghosts - it's folklore! Don't look at us like that! Wink, wink! We are almost there anyway, with all those categories. The question is: is this the direction we want to go as an encyclopedia? Yellow journalism? The next step may be articles like Ten most haunted places in Scotland and Haunted hotels across the US. Those are "reliable sources", therefore not fringe, so why not? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all agree that WP:SENSATIONAL coverage isn't a reliable source for factual (i.e. encyclopedic) information. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is the inclusion criteria

[edit]

Lists should have a clear inclusion criteria. Could someone articulate what it is for this list?

Just doing a quick spot check, and the very first entry I look at is a problem:

"The Buratimos is the wreck of a former U.S. Navy ship from World War II, that occurred off the coast of Western Australia in 1964.[2]" - I can't even find a trace of the book being cited, and google searches return only material connected to this very page. Why are we including non-notable places supported only by dubious sources? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since these articles are under extra scrutiny right now, I suggest that you and anyone else that sees crap content be bold about excising it from any of these articles. Crossroads -talk- 02:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These lists can include any locations reported to be "haunted" in reliable sources (but obviously not including locations which are haunted attraction (simulated) - damn we like crappy articles titles in this space). Based on local folklore, mainstream news often cover such "haunted" locations ([12][13][14][15][16][17][18]), and such places are the subjects of a plethora of books often found by simply googling "<location> haunted places", for example. I would say this top-level list should be limited to places we have articles about and that within that article covers their reported "haunting" in more detail. The regional/local lists can be more extensive. -- Netoholic @ 12:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 June 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy close as "not moved" per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) buidhe 09:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]



– To maintain WP:CONSISTENT titles, I am listing these all together. Issue #1: Any immediate look into this subject finds that the phrase "haunted places" is vastly more common than "haunted locations" (evidenced by Google Ngrams). Issue #2: Renaming several articles to "List of" with the exception of the WP:good article covering "District of Columbia" which is written in prose format. Issue #3: The term "reportedly" fails WP:NDESC and WP:WEASEL/WP:ALLEGED because it is not used widely in any of the sources and seems to be editorializing. A suitable replacement in the form of "folklore" is available. -- Netoholic @ 02:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose this one and the next seventeen with the same basic idea, for the same reason as the last one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose such an awful misuse of the english language. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you articulate how exactly? It is in fact "reportedly" that seems to be the misuse (per the guidelines I mentioned), and, as evidence, across all Wikipedia it only crops up on this series of articles (Special:PrefixIndex/Reportedly, Special:PrefixIndex/List of reportedly). -- Netoholic @ 12:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean your own personal interpretation of the guidelines, despite what you were told about that in your last RM? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain your "awful misuse of the english language" comment. How do the proposed titles present a "misuse"? -- Netoholic @ 12:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The things do not have any recognizable grammar. Does "List of haunted places in Scotland folklore" mean "folklore about a list of haunted places in Scotland" or "List of folklore of haunted places in Scotland" or "List of haunted places from Scottish folklore"? The current wording is clear: it's a list of places in Scotland that are reportedly haunted - that have been reported to be haunted. But the main thing is NPOV, of course, as before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you all have to start giving some better alternatives. I refuse to believe that "reportedly" is the best title we can come up with but no one seems to want to engage in any brainstorming or counter-proposals. Almost universally, sources which might be used call this "haunted places in Scotland", so whatever extra wording we feel like we need add to prevent it from seeming like we endorse the idea of real ghosts, we should at least use something that is clear and non-editorializing. Or maybe just submit these to AFD as FRINGE and we can eliminate the problem. I am just hearing very little in the way of creative problem-solving here. -- Netoholic @ 14:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no "creative problem-solving" necessary because there'S no problem to be solved. In fact, the only "creative problem-solving" I see is your increasingly strained attempts to dodge NPOV by abusing the English language. --Calton | Talk 15:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the term "reportedly" used only in these titles is not WP:CONSISTENT with any other topics on Wikipedia. That's a red flag that we need a different solution. -- Netoholic @ 15:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who are happy with the current wording will not do so. So, if there are no suggestions, it seems like everybody except you is happy with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and snow close for the same reason as the last two. –dlthewave 12:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, mainly because many of the instances have nothing to do with folklore.---Ehrenkater (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Again, WP:NDESC does not require us to neutrally describe pseudoscientific concepts, and WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED are not rigid one-size-fits-all rules that trump informed WP:CONSENSUS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @LuckyLouie: How is it pseudoscientific that folklore includes stories about haunted places? Fictional works/topics cannot be "pseudoscientific" because they have nothing at all to do with making scientific claims. They are stories. Would we rename Loch Ness Monster to Monster reportedly residing in Loch Ness? -- Netoholic @ 15:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Loch Ness Monster" is essentially defined as a monster reportedly residing in Loch Ness. It does not exist as a real beast, but since "Loch Ness Monster" is the common wording of "monster reportedly residing in Loch Ness" and has the same meaning, the current wording is the best. With "haunted house", it's the same. But "List of haunted places in Scotland" has another meaning than "List of reportedly haunted places in Scotland". The first phrase implies that that there are ghosts in those places, while the second one does not. We have a list of lake monsters though... --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect contradiction - According to your logic, it should be list of purported lake monsters but in reality it needs no extraneous wording because any reasonable reader would not infer that Wikipedia is stating the existence of lake monsters as fact. Same applies to the UFO sightings series of articles. This haunted place is so inCONSISTENT with anything else we do. And let me also ask this - would you agree that one could read "reportedly haunted locations" as itself WP:PROFRINGE because it implies there are in some way confirmed reports of hauntings? -- Netoholic @ 16:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)'[reply]
    It actually was at List of reported lake monsters until it was moved (apparently without discussion) in 2018. Since consistency is important, perhaps it should be moved back. - MrOllie (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For the same reasons as before. Beyond that, I feel like this is edging towards some kind of of abuse of process. When it because clear that consensus was strongly against removing the word "reportedly", if Netoholic still wanted to pursue this, they should have started a discussion about it. Repeated straw-polls for small variations on the same proposal are not the right thing to do. ApLundell (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rubbish

[edit]

I live about 30 km from the city of Oświęcim. I've been several times in Auschwitz camp and museum, and Ihave newer heard this story about ghosts of holocaust victims, neither me nor anyone I know. 2A01:111F:4406:A300:A726:B6A3:3445:DCA6 (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]