Talk:Greenbrier Ghost

Untitled

So bizarre -great article! J. Van Meter 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - glad you enjoyed it. --AlbertHerring 08:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree. Fascinating article. Kudos to the creator. Rambone (Talk) 19:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The wording of the article is uncomfortably close to the wording of the prarieghosts.com article. In fact certain passages are almost identical (ex. the "Background" section). Is a rewrite needed? In addition, all of the photos seem to have been lifted directly from that website; in fact, Mr. Herring's descriptive text on the image pages confirms it. His statement that "given the subject's age it should be public domain" does NOT mean that they ARE in the public domain. It's entirely possible that the photos are part of a private collection or belong to an historical society. This should be verified, not guessed at. At any rate they are from a website with a posted copyright statement on each page, and the website's author should at the very least be informed of their use. Canonblack 12:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Some source citations might be nice as well 63.203.168.5 16:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you murder a ghost? 82.10.212.68 21:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In the year-plus since my previous post, someone has slightly rewritten much of the article, but still the organization and order of facts, most of the phrasing, and indeed the actual photos all come from one source, the prarieghosts.com article linked at the end. That website is the copyrighted creation of Troy Taylor, not "AlbertHerring". Can anyone please use other sources to flesh this out, or shall I place a copyvio banner? Canonblack 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cremated then exhumed?

The article states at one point that her body was cremated then later that she was exhumed and autopsied. The diverging stories here detracts from the veracity of the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.74.254 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Doesn't make much sense.Boneyard90 (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible Explanation of the Red Sheet

I just want to put my justification here for what I am adding to the article. I believe I can explain the "red sheet" portion of the story - and I agree with the late mother of the deceased that it proves who murdered her daughter. Consider, for a moment, that the deceased's husband was working as a blacksmith at the time. Due to this fact, he would have had contact with two substances common in blacksmithing of the period - Iron (II) Chloride, which is a result of the Bessemer process of steelmaking, and Iron (III) Chloride, which was used to stain knives and is also readily producible in a blacksmith's shop of the time period (Sulfur Oxide and HCl, or muriatic acid, will form it in the presence of heat). Also consider for a moment that the major soap of the time period was Soda Lye, or NaOH (Sodium Hydroxide). Sodium Hydroxide will react with both FeCl2 and FeCl3 (both together) to produce magnetite - or Iron (III) Oxide, a red precipitate. That also explains the "funny odor" (probably the odor of hydrochloric acid, which is common to both), the fact that the sheet turned pink while the water turned clear (the sheet acted as a filter), and also why the stain would not come out (ever tried getting a rust stain out of your clothes?). So, that would mean that Shue had handled the sheet to a great extent prior to washing - and you cn bet that his wife, had she been alive, would have taken issue. --Deriamis 23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no mentioning of the red sheet anywhere else in the article; what is the significance of the red sheet pertaining to the trial? Pkuok 02:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the significance is that it was the sheet that first really aroused Mrs. Heaster's suspicions, and consequently caused her to start looking for proof that her daughter was murdered - she saw the redness of the sheet as an omen.

I know there's a book out there that retells this story to some length - it's a collection of West Virginia ghost stories that I once thumbed through in a bookstore out that way. We never bought it, and I don't remember the title, but that's how I first heard about the case.

Dagnabbit - I wish I could remember something about it; enough to cite, even. Sorry about that. --AlbertHerring 06:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is very clearly original research. I think you have to cite a source for this, or remove it. —johndburger 03:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have some new references (not citations) for the article. I'll put them up. --Deriamis 19:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I bring no previously-unknown nor unique research to this article. This is just basic chemistry, and pretty much anyone with a single semester of Freshman chemistry in college would probably point to an explanation like this, if asked (and of a mind to do so). These are very well-known and routine reactions performed in labs all over the world. Now, if I had tried saying that the ectoplasm of the ghost had haunted the sheet, had tried to rewrite history, or had tried to advance any theory uniquely my own, then I could see this as original research. Besides which, virtually all of the information I stated in this section came from the articles referenced here in Wikipedia. I only brought the information together here as a possible explanation. --Deriamis 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, "no original research" doesn't mean "no supernatural explanations". Look at the first line of: No Original research: What is excluded?:

An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:

*It introduces a theory ...

All we can do here is report other people's theories, not invent our own. For what it's worth, your theory sounds perfectly plausible. Your "Freshman chemistry" comment above suggests you should be able to find a citation for it quite easily. —johndburger 02:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've seen this before, and it makes me wonder if people actually understand the pupose of the "original research" policy.

These reactions are freshman chemistry, yes. The "research" for this page, however, came from other Wikipedia pages directly - they actually show these same reactions verbatim. The only point I can see where there might be controversy is when I said iron(II) chloride is a product of the bessemer process, but that's only because that information is directly suggested by an article referenced; it doesn't take too much of a mental leap to see it. If you are talking about removing all original theorizing from Wikipedia, you will probably delete about half the content you see, as sometimes you have to expand information a bit in order to make it relevant to a particular topic. Freshman chemistry is about the basics; it alone would never be enough to explain this event; you would need knowledge of history and psychology, among other subjects, to do so.

The purpose of not including "original research" is to prevent just any crackpot theory from making it into Wikipedia's pages (which hasn't been discussed by experts already), which helps to maintain a neutral, academic view of the material at hand. What I have done in this article is to present old facts in light of a new subject. There are probably other interpretations of the event, and I made that clear by leaving open future discussion, but it is fairly clear that my interpretation of this event fits with the facts, and that nearly anyone with enough knowledge of the facts (in the absence of new information) would probably agree with it, even if he or she were of a mind to offer a different interpretation.

In other words, not every original theory requires original research, contrary to how the policy is written. If you would like to contest that statement, I invite you to look at any politics (or even some other science) pages here on Wikipedia. Or you can just look at a scientific journal and see all the "review", "summary", "confirmation", and "reexplanation" articles. --Deriamis 14:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand WP:NOR just fine. I am not talking about the chemistry, I am talking about your explanation for the red sheet. You have clearly "introduced a theory"—that is the original research. I disagree with your interpretation that WP:NOR is intended to allow your theorizing, but exclude that which you feel is crackpot. And you're right, a great deal of the material in Wikipedia should be removed, under that policy, or others.

I am also very familiar with scientific journals, as a reader and as an author, although I don't understand why you bring them into the discussion. They are primary sources, Wikipedia is not. They are vehicles for original research, such as theories or explanations. Wikipedia is not. —johndburger 15:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then. Just what sources would you cite for this supposed "original research" I have presented? Journals articles are not always primary sources, but it's the fact that they can be that makes them admissible under policy. There is no inherent difference between a journal article which presents a summary of information and an encyclopedia article which presents a summary of information. In the case of the red sheet here, I only present the theory of the red sheet as a possible explanation, not as fact. There is no way such an explanation could be presented as fact, anyway, since we do not live in the time period, and we do not have the items at hand to investigate. All that could be done is to perform an experiment, which *is not necessary* due to the fact that the processes are already understood well enough. But that's not at issue anyway, since one of the articles referenced essentially replicated that experiment exactly (formation of magnetite).

All I am saying here is that the redness of the sheet could be magnetite, given the materials and processes of the time and some pertinent facts of the incident. It could be something else, as well, but another explanation would likely entail a leap of understanding sufficient to warrant an original research project. And no, I do not believe that only primary sources are the vehicles for explanations; that's tantamount to saying about half the information on this project is presented contrary to policy. We cite our references for the facts only, and any logical consequence of those facts, if not warranting further research to find more facts, should be presented as well. We needn't cite and reference to the point that everything we say on this project comes from someone else's mouth.

Furthermore, you seem not to understand that not all "theories" (since we persist in using the loose definition) equate to original research. Sometimes, we need only look at the facts and explain them using what we already know. This "theory" you seem to see in my explanation is merely a statement of well-understood processes in chemistry. What is different is that the explanation is done within a specific context. Had I the notion, I could perform an experiment to show how my explanation is true, but that would still not be proof, and it would not be original. It would merely be an extra step to accomplish what is already well-understood in the first place. --User:Deriamis 16:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's "original research" or not, it really doesn't seem completely supported by the facts as reported in the rest of the article. It is not clear whether the "red sheet" was entirely red or simply spotted with red. The combination of "use a stained sheet to line her coffin" and "refuse to accept the sheet back after the burial" seems odd: either sheets were hard to come by and so he used a stained sheet as the best available -- but then why not accept the valuable sheet back? -- or he was careless enough to put the evidence (suspiciously stained sheet) right in front of his mother in law. "The major soap of the day" was lye soap, but that's soap *produced* using NaOH -- not pure NaOH by itself. An "odd odor" could be traces of HCl; not necessarily. Presumably Mrs. Heaster had seen rust stains before; rust stains on cloth tend to be orange rather than blood red.

So, the "possible explanation" really turns into "Shue, a blacksmith who may or may not have been involved in steel production using the Bessemer process, came home soaked in iron chlorides, which wound up on the sheet with which he lined his wife's coffin. When Mrs. Heaster washed the sheet in lye, iron oxides formed; no iron oxides were noticed previously, even though iron oxides precipitate spontaneously from oxygenated neutral solution and would certainly have done so before the washing. The (orange) rust stains looked like (red/dried) blood to the suspicious Mrs. Heaster." All of which seems a bit unlikely, so perhaps we should find more sources to support it -- on the grounds of being possibly inaccurate rather than "original research". -- Jaeger5432 20:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. You cannot take A + B and state C, or even "C might be true" unless you have a citation that says "C might be true". An appropriate source to cite would discuss this specific case and suggest that the red sheet was caused by the chemicals on the murderer's hands. Does anyone actually think that the current situation is different from what is described as non-policy in that section of NOR? If so, please explain how. —johndburger 11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Testimony of a ghost..."

Isn't it misdescribing the events to say that the "testimony of a ghost" was accepted at the trial? The "ghost" didn't actually "testify". The alleged apparition gave rise to the exhumation and re-examination of the body, providing evidence of murder, but that's about all you can say. – ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And the article only alludes to the dream of the mother, not really even a ghost.Boneyard90 (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

fact.

Many others have seen her walking around late at night, on Simms Mtn. She has never harmed a soul, her real goal is to get people to realize what can happen and how things can be solved.Eventually Elva Zona Shue will rest forever, no one can tell when. For now, respect that she feels she has a place in this world and has not made it to the other side yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.204.174 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No part of that comment can be considered a "fact".Boneyard90 (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Death Assessment Commentary

The article was assessed as Start-class, for lack of sufficient in-line citations and several contextual discrepancies or omissions that are not explained. Among these:

• Elva Z. Heaster's child was born in 1895, but there is no mention after that.
• Cremation & urn: Either the main contributor does not know what a cremation and urn are, or sources are really mixed up. The Burial section clearly talks about cremation and urn, but also about a "corpse". Then later, the body is exhumed, and despite having been supposedly cremated (something that surprises me for rural WV in 1897), there's an autopsy.
• Sheet: Never mind the pink stain; who takes a sheet from a coffin? I suppose this was the sheet in the coffin prior to the cremation of the body, but then the body wasn't cremated, it appears to have been buried, so then, who takes a sheet from a coffin prior to burial?
• NO GHOST: The article doesn't even mention a ghost in any sense of the word I have ever known. It says "Zona appeared to her mother in a dream". That's not a ghost, that's a dream.
• The post-mortem Zona (ghost or dream or whatever) "is said to have visited Mrs. Heaster over the course of four nights". Said by whom? Mrs. Heaster was the only who saw Zona, so she must be the only one to have said it.
• AUTOPSY: Shue was "required by law to be present at the autopsy" of his wife who had been dead a month? What kind of sick law is that??
• State Historical Marker: Shouldn't be hard to get a reference or a web-site of this, or how about a photo?

The story seems to be an amalgamation of various rumors and conjectures, which when assembled, do not match up for a coherent story. Most of the legal aspect seems to hinge on the autopsy, and so, barring further explanation, I recommend deleting all references to any cremation. Good luck.Boneyard90 (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)