Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of reportedly haunted locations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 90 days

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 16 August 2009 (UTC), see discussion.
keep, January 27, 2007, see discussion.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Onel5969, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 26 May 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Lists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paranormal Mid‑importance

	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.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Good site for research?

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

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 locations → List 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]

Oppose this good faith nom. I don't think an encyclopedia can say that there are "haunted locations". The 'reportedly haunted' keeps it in the realm of "maybe yes-but probably no", while "List of haunted locations" says right up front that these are haunted. Probably not a good idea. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think we have to hedge to such a degree. Also per precedent at Haunted house, Haunted highway, Ghost ship, List of ghosts, etc. Trust the editors and readers-- Netoholic @ 06:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Haunted house" is a name, not a descriptor, while "haunted locations" is a descriptor. However, the current name is poor too, as "reportedly" still implies it is factual. I would support an alternative move to List of purportedly haunted locations or List of locations claimed to be haunted. I also think that List of ghosts is a ridiculous title and it should be called List of fictional and mythological ghosts, or something to that effect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Netoholic and WP:CONCISE. We have WP:POVTITLE for a reason, and titles are not place for editorializing. No such user (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as the proposed title implies that the locations are, in fact, haunted. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose :: "haunted" rather than "reportedly haunted" implies to some that there are genuinely one or more ghosts there, and there is no proof that ghosts genuinely exist. And, replace "locations" by "places"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 11 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

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... —Paleo Neonate – 18:02, 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]

Oppose The proposal changes the scope of these articles, and opens the topic over whether a haunting is real or not. This was never the intention behind these articles. Dimadick (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I ain't afraid to say no, per discussion, but the other topics should be left as is. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Roxy. And we really should be consistent with how we name these categories. And yes I acknowledge that the Haunted house Wikipedia page should remain named so, and not Reportedly haunted house. Saying Haunted locations in XYZ location seems so final and as if Wikipedia has deternmed them to be truly haunted. Sgerbic (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Removing the "reportedly". Even if we took the existence of ghosts as a given, or we accepted that "haunted" is a cultural myth does not literally imply real ghosts, the number of these places that are blatant manufactured tourist traps should be enough that we don't want to label them simply "haunted". ApLundell (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Roxy and others above.Alhill42 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Roxy. Interstellarity (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Echo Only half of those places have ghosts, and I don't know which half! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of reportedly per Roxy et al. No opposition to places vs. locations. Retswerb (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. WP cannot possibly claim in its own voice that these places are actually haunted. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish, so you would support moves such as Reportedly haunted house? Elizium23 (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid comparison (due to reductio ad absurdum, straw man, and fallacy of equivocation). "Haunted house" is a concept, and our article on it is conceptual. We make no claim that a house is haunted; rather we make the claim that the phrase has a particular meaning. A list of places that are purported to be haunted is not conceptual, but a direct factual claim. We remain factual when we claim they are purportedly haunted, but we veer into making bogus claims of the paranormal when we switch gears and claim they're lists of haunted locations.
PS: I would support a mass move of these to "purportedly" instead of "reportedly"; the words are not quite synonymous, and the difference actually matters, especially in an encyclopedic context where we use "reportedly" most often to mean "as stated in a reliable source". Few reliable sources are ever going to claims these places are haunted; rather, they'll reliably report that someone[s] have claimed (purported) that they are haunted. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: "Purportedly" offers no improvement and is listed as another MOS:WTW#Expressions of doubt. It shouldn't be used in the title because we can't go into detail or cite any sources in a title to explain the use of that word. The topic should be named plainly and neutrally as possible, without using editorializing terms per WP:NPOVNAME and WP:NDESC. Once that's done, we can ensure the lead of these pages makes it clear that these are lists of purported/reported haunted places, or more often, just places called "haunted" because of their mystery and local folklore. -- Netoholic @ 14:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Purportedly" should be blacklisted in all en.wiki use. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about bringing the hammer down that swiftly, but think "reportedly" is long enough. It kind of suggests a reporter-type reported his or her purport to a spooky old newsdesk, but not "really". Anybody can report, just like anybody can decide. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained why "purportedly" is better, for the specific reason that it does convey doubt, about an ultra-fringe topic, while "reportedly" is too easily inferred to mean "verified by professional journalists, scientists, or others in reputable publications". No one has verified any haunting, only that someone[s] have/has claimed a haunting. The difference is important. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: MOS:WTW#Expressions of doubt does not say to intentionally use "purportedly" when we want to cast doubt - it says avoid using it so we don't cast doubt. Another convenient moment to ignore a MOS from you, someone who idolizes MOS. -- Netoholic @ 11:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting the cart before the horse. For WP:FRINGE topics, we do want to cast doubt. MOS:WTW's intent is, obviously, to avoid using terms to cast doubt when we do not have an encyclopedic need to do so (and it's "words to watch", not "words to never use"). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Firstly, I reject the idea that calling place "haunted" is directly equivalent to stating that a ghost exists there - haunted is a term that can mean simply having a tragic history, or that there is some story in local folklore. Second, WP:FRINGE does not cover folklore or religious beliefs. It covers scientific claims. These lists are not scientific claims, and there is no realistic chance that outside readers would interpret them as scientific claims if named without the WEASEL words. -- Netoholic @ 12:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to get into a protracted argument about this. The move proposal is clearly not going to meet with consensus, and that is sufficient. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: So, no actual defense of your incorrect invocation of FRINGE? Here, consider this as well - did you know that a house can be declared "haunted" as a matter of law by a Supreme Court based solely on the prevalence of its coverage as such in local/national media and without any scientific claim of actual spirits? Would you not agree that that is strong evidence that such places are considered "haunted" largely via the story/folklore and not the literal existence of ghosts. As such, any WEASEL words suggested are extraneous. Likewise, 28-40% of people expressed the belief that houses could be "haunted". Still standing by FRINGE as an argument to violate MOS:WTW#Expressions of doubt? -- Netoholic @ 13:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t understand WP:FRINGE. It’s about majority and minority opinion in the relevant expert community. Not Gallup polls of citizens. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LuckyLouie: The relevant expert community would be folklorists, who I'm sure 100% agree that folklore describes these places as "haunted" without any scientific evidence of actual ghost. "Haunted" is about the story. -- Netoholic @ 13:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Netoholic, the claim that a place is haunted (has supernatural beings in it, interacting with or otherwise detectable by humans) is a [pseudo-]scientific claim which can be investigated, so of course FRINGE applies. Repeat: WTW is words to watch (to use selectively and carefully), not to avoid entirely, so "to violate MOS:WTW#Expressions of doubt" is a nonsensical phrase. Again, I do not want to go round and round about this interminably. You've made your case, I've made mine, and that is sufficient. Threads like this are too often subjected to WP:BLUDGEON by circular argumentation. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, so, List of reported ghosts, then? Elizium23 (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A location is not a ghost. We also have articles about ghosts, which are in Category:Ghosts by location. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That might be good for List of ghosts. However, looking over the content of that list, it's mostly types of purported undead spirits, not individual ones (though there are some exceptions); the list scope is unclear/muddled. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps worse, List of ghost reporters? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And "List of ghost reporters" seems to come full circle in absurdity, and claim not only journalist-verified "reported" undead spirits, but now the undead spirits of journalists! "I refuse to work at The Post any longer. There's a ghost reporter who haunts the break room." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure the Hulk was joking. (I moved my own contribution to the right place and adapted the indenting.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My jokes are based on true stories, though, and it's no secret our granddaddies' journalism was brutally murdered by medium socialists in 2008. And besides, if hauntings are as common as commonly reported, why wouldn't reporters get caught up in the whole ghastly scene when they die? Nothing but "unfinished business" in that dearly departed field. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my own response was mock-alarmist enough to go along with the humor; Hob seems to think I was taking it all very seriously. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is not really much more to say, they are not haunted they are alleged to be haunted.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would "claimed" be somehow better? To me, it doesn't feel as out of place, while still conveying the unproven nature of the subjects. So List of claimed haunted places, or even more succinctly, List of claimed hauntings. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLAIM. -- Netoholic @ 12:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the guideline you keep citing does not prohibit us using a term like "claimed" or "purported" when we have an encyclopedic reason to do so; it addresses mistaken or inappropriate implication of doubt. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Please cite for me the guideline that says we are encouraged (without citation, such as in an article title) to use these expressions of doubt and WEASEL words. Even WP:FRINGE#Sourcing says we need reliable sourcing and that cannot be done in a title. WP:FRINGE doesn't even mention titles at all (homeopathy and cryptozoology are pseudoscience, yet List of homeopathic preparations and List of cryptids don't use any expression of doubt in titles). I am fully willing to accept that the LEAD and every single entry on these lists should describe the "haunted" status as coming from folklore and not scientific proof (I'm not aware any of them make that claim), but the title has to follow the sources which do not use "reportedly", "purportedly", or even more vaguely "claimed". -- Netoholic @ 13:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See every credible source on investigations of the paranormal. In centuries of science, not one single claimed haunting has ever been verified. Again, you simply do not understand either WP:FRINGE or WP:WTW, and need to stop wikilawyering about guidelines that multiple editors are telling you you've misinterpreted. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Neither WP:FRINGE or WP:WTW gives any guidance on the intentional insertion of unsourced expressions of doubt, particularly in titles. Yet WP:NDESC says to "avoid judgmental and non-neutral words" and WP:POVNAME says that "non-neutral but common names... generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue". The guidelines are clear, YOUJUSTDONTLIKEIT. -- Netoholic @ 14:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Reported" is a term that would apply regardless of whether or not "haunting" was a real phenomenon, since these claims are based on eyewitness reports. For what it's worth a more thorough search does bring up other uses such as List of reported UFO sightings, List of alleged extraterrestrial beings and Reported UFO sightings in the United Kingdom. –dlthewave ☎ 16:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Of course we should not use Wikipedia's voice to say that a place is haunted. There are other formulations, though. My preference may be for "List of locations claimed to be haunted"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This reminds me a bit about an ancient debate over how to describe psychics and mediums. Do we call them "purported psychics" or "purported mediums" or do we call them just "psychics" and "mediums"? It's weird because while there are no reliable sources which indicate there are real psychics or mediums, there are also a lot of readers who are not aware of this. On the other hand saying the word "purported" before every instance of these words is certainly clunky. Right now, SOP is for Wikipedia not to qualify as "purported" on such biographies. Perhaps that should change. jps (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, wikt:medium#Noun gives the gloss "Someone who supposedly conveys information from the spirit world." Similarly wikt:psychic gives "A person who possesses, or appears to possess, extra-sensory abilities...", and "A person who supposedly contacts the dead". I think it's reasonable to treat these terms as having some appropriate amount of skepticism baked in, at least in some contexts. Colin M (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the requested move, but I support a unification to "List of" and a change "locations" -> "places". "Reportedly" is correct and we can't claim more than that. --mfb (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In today's world, digesting the title might be all we can expect of many readers, and it would be absurd to use Wikipedia's voice to lend credence to the idea that there are haunted places. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No way under the sun should Wikipedia use any wording in an article title or in article text that states or implies in Wikipedia's voice that anything like "haunting" exists, or that any place is actually haunted. Never. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move for WP:SNOW close everyone opposes this and it makes me regret supporting it. I suggest that we move to a speedy conclusion per WP:SNOW. Elizium23 (talk) 02:35, 4 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

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

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) b uidhe 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]

You're kidding, right? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 03:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What value does that kind of comment add? -- Netoholic @ 03:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of what value is this RM, given the last one? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 05:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a better solution than "reportedly" - such an inelegant word. -- Netoholic @ 10:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE I don't see any possible reason to do this. Is every single location listed in any of these list considered folklore? Dream Focus 04:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You have got to be kidding me. And no, it has fuck-all to do with any distinction or consistency between "place" and "location". --Calton | Talk 05:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Automatic oppose of any future suggestions by Netoholic. --Calton | Talk 15:22, 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

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]