Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Onel5969, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 26 May 2014. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Mamie Eisenhower[edit]

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)

Aural signature? She lived in the White House for eight years, right? *shrug* I've heard of that kind of thing before. "Ghosts of the living" is a phrase I've seen used to described. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Whaley House (US)[edit]

"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)

I watched Hellboy. Its a special branch of the FBI. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


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)

Forest Park Cemetery[edit]

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)

12/18/06 edits[edit]

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)

The 112 Ocean Avenue house from the Amityville Horror ought to have a note with its mention stating that the majority of writers/investigators/experts doubt the building is actually haunted. --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nyi Roro Kidul[edit]

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)


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)

Original research[edit]

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)


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)

Verified sources only?[edit]

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)

Split suggestion[edit]

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)
There are many reliable sources about local folklore written throughout the western world at various points in history, most contain accounts of so-called hauntings. In relation to the Netherlands for example, I own a recent book whose title loosely translates to "Lore of city and countryside", written by a folklorist from the university of Groningen (Jurjen van der Kooi) and three researchers at The Meertens Institute. (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning Up[edit]

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)

Too many references[edit]

There's way too many 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.-- 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 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 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)

Where is this article going?[edit]

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 above (the potential for spam abuse is too great) and LuckyLouie above (way too many to list). If you pop over to, 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 - SatuSuro 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal[edit]

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)

Cut n Paste entries[edit]

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)

Source of the problem[edit]

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)

Nothing, but stories[edit]

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)

Why remove the "allegedly"?[edit]

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)

Haunted C-130[edit]

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. (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image Removal[edit]

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)

Lucedio Monastery- Italy[edit]

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."


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

Sleepy Hollow[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Tarrytown. Can't say I've seen any ghosts, but there are houses in those two towns (Tarrytown and Sleepy Hollow) that have more history in them than all of Hollywood, yet, thats on there. Now, I don't believe in Ghosts, but there is a horse ranch between Pocantico Hills and Tarrytown (Owned by the Rockafeller Family). When I was a kid, every Halloween someone would get dressed up as the Headless Horseman and ride around the school during the day (You Guessed it! Sleepy Hollow High School! Home of the Headless Horsemen Football Team!). At night, there's the haunted Hay Rides which go down the Aquaduct and into the Cemetary behind the old Dutch Church. When you get to the cemetary, the "Horseman" chases you.

Now, since its rather hard to ride a horse through town (Broadway is State Route 9), one would have to take the back roads. Which takes you to some of the various trails. Now, tourists, who like to hike these trails, don't know of our towns little tradition. So I can beleive some of them saw the "Headless Horseman".

Also, note, that there are two colleges in town (Marymount and Fordam). College kids like to go to the Cemetary for a little halloween hanky-panky. Well, me and my buddies used to ambush them with a hillarious skit. My buddy Jay (Short feller) would get dressed as a revolutionary soldier carrying his head. My buddy Olger would get the pyrotechnics going to make it sound like a battle. I, would get in my Ghulli suit and crawl close to the couple. Once the pyrotechnics got their attention, Jay would walk out slowly and stare at them. When they started to freak, I'd jump up (I'd usually be within an arms length) and scream. This one couple one year was so scared, she ran across the Highway Naked into Phillipsburg Manor, with her Boyfriend right behind her wearing nothing but his boxers. We'd then take their clothes to the grounds keeper, who hung them on the fence. He allowed us to scare people out so he didn't have to call the police.

We keep our history alive. People have reported Ghost sightings in the Old Dutch Church (Which was there before this country was a country). The various trails are canopied by the trees, so it looks like a dark tunnel, adding to the spookyness. Plus, the Aqueduct runs right behind the Cemetary.

And of course comes the Ban on Ouija boards in Mary Mount College. Back in the 70's, some kids were having a seiance with one. One of the girls became "possessed" by a "ghost", started freaking out, "speaking in tounges" and started a fire that killed 13 students in the dormitory. Hense, the ban on Ouija boards. Supposedly, the college is still haunted by her ghost.

And we have had our share of violent crimes. A vietnam vet in Tappan Manor killed his entire family and wounded his son-in-law one year. Some people say the Historical Society is haunted, as well as numerous houses and buildings that are far older than any of states outside the original 13. So before you knock Tarrytown / Sleepy Hollow, make sure you get your facts strait.

SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Norway entry deletion[edit]

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)

Article's title[edit]

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)


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, but we can't just copy, right? Well, it's a thought for future reseraches and insertions on the article. (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Move Proposal (Again)[edit]

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)

Support List of haunted locations[edit]

  • Support - using the word 'haunted' without qualification does not imply anything about the being of ghosts. Some places are 'haunted' and some are not, whatever the reason, be it supernatural or natural or psychic or whatever. 'Allegedly' just confuses the matter: one could allege that a well known 'haunted' house was not haunted and vice-versa. Colin4C (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Support List of allegedly haunted locations[edit]

  1. 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)
Using the word 'allegedly' is POV-pushing of the 'bah nonsense' viewpoint. 'Haunted' does not necessarily imply anything about the reality of ghosts or the supernatural Colin4C (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. Using "alleged" is bad grammar. Empidonax (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional input[edit]

Almost a month and only two responses? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 02:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should drop the 'alleged' as it is ambiguous what it means. It could either be a POV statement of scepticism about ghosts in general or a statement that a place reputed to be haunted is not in fact so haunted, as happened in a law case in America Stambovsky v. Ackley or in every episode of Scooby Doo. Nobody knows if ghosts in the sense of disembodied deceased persons exist or not but an apparition could have a reality even so. Dreams are not real but it is a fact that people actually do have them. I.e. if you are told about a dream is it an 'alleged dream' because you cannot tell whether the person is lying or not or are we saying that dreams don't exist despite our own experience of having them? Even if ghosts are totally fictional 'alleged' is still the wrong word to use. In the fictional story of Little Red Riding Hood is she eaten by the wolf or 'alleged' to be so eaten? Colin4C (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So, overall two points.

  1. Allege is an ugly word and should be avoided
  2. Calling these "haunted locations without a qualifier is ridiculously PoV

Obvious solution is to find a qualifier to replace "allege" which is more appropriate. Thought? Jefffire (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that I don't know of any encyclopedia in the world which has entries beginning with qualifiers like 'alleged'. The 'alleged' bit can be put in the body of the article as in the case of unicorns and fairies. Or are we to think that by ommiting the 'alleged' in these latter cases the wikipedia is asserting that unicorns and fairies have a greater reality than ghosts? See also the Cottingley Fairies where by some oversight no wikipedia editor has put 'allegedly' in the title of the article thus effectively stating that they are real...Colin4C (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, have you checked to see if paper encyclopedias never make use of qualifiers? Secondly, do we have articles on "List of Unicorns" or "List of fairies"?
I thinked something like "reported" makes a reasonable qualifier. Jefffire (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy with "reported". At least it is logical...and NPOV. Colin4C (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Re the edit war over the title, I hope people here know about this:



——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 23:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I couldn't find those two specific sections back when I attempted to gather support to move it away from alleged. What do you think about the current title, "List of reportedly haunted locations"? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 01:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fort Drum[edit]

I love going to "Haunted" places just to prove I'm right (Its all in your head). Fort Drum supposedly has a ghost of a soldier that appears during snow storms. He runs out and flags down lone cars on the highway and tells the people there's been an accident. He then runs off into the blizzard towards the woods. When people try to follow him, he leaves no tracks. Not sure what this is based on, I've been here for 7 years and I have yet to see him.

Of course, Fort Drum was a POW Camp during WWII, and there are tons of German cemetaries around post. And if you know anything about the weather up here, Winter last from October to March and Sometimes as late as May. Theres also a ton of historical "haunted" places in the area (This place also Pre-dates the formation of the USA). In fact, the battle of Sackets Harbor was fought during the Revolution nearby. So if your interested, come check it out and try to prove me wrong.

SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Railroad Crossing[edit]

I heard that there was a haunted railroad crossing in or somewhere near Dallas, Texas. Apparantly, 15-20 years ago, a school bus filled with children got rammed by a freight train on the side and was completely wrecked; none of the children or the driver survived.

Nowadays, whenever some other vehicles (modern or not) attempt to go through that particular rail crossing, the spirits of the children will push the vehicle over the crossing before another train gets a chance to ram over the vehicle. There were numerous accounts of this stuff happening at the crossing. Most of the time the children's spirits can't be seen but pictures of the area have been taken and mysterious hand/fingerprints have been found on the backs of vehicles after the supposed incidents occur. You could probably say that the young children were that concerned to other drivers meeting the same fate as they did to go as far as helping others cross before it's too late. Socalledinfomation (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually there are many of these stories that come from all parts of the world. Its very common to hear of these legends. San Antonio may be the city you are thinking of actually. They recently claimed to have the original "haunted tracks." But in truth many other places have the exact same story. A school bus of children stalled on the tracks (usually in between 1920 and 1950), a train hits the bus killing all or most of the children on it. Then when you sit on the tracks your car is pushed across them in neutral. And I'm sure you've heard of the baby powder on the bumper and trunk area. Its very common to here these stories. All that differs is the location. BCCards13 (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
San Antonio, Texas is correct but it may be partially explained as a gravity hill.[3]Eekerz (t) 00:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sleepy Hollow and Amityville[edit]

The reference for Sleepy Hollow was a Wikipedia article (!) which, besides not being a reliable source, refers to a work of imaginative fiction by Washington Irving.

The reference for Amityville was a Snopes article that makes it plain that the supposed "true story" basis of the Amityville Horror was a deliberate hoax by the family in question.

I have removed these from the list. There are enough actual reports of hauntings without confusing everybody by adding completely fictional hauntings. --TS 01:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They aren't completely fictional. Numerous people have reported seeing the Headless Horseman, the Lady in White, and the ghost of John Andre there over the years. The reports could be false, but so could all the other reports of the other hauntings. You can't say Sleepy Hollow is filled with only fictional hauntings. Also, the legend of the Lady in White and other ghost stories weren't made up by Washington Irving. Like I said, just because something is referenced to or part of a fictional story doesn't mean it itself is fictional. The Legend of Sleepy Hollow was a fictional book, but who knows; maybe Washington Irving didn't make up the legend, only he applied it to his book. No one knows, but it's unsensible to declare something fictional just because it's unsourced and/or was/is contained in a work of fiction, such as a movie or a book. --SuperSmashBros.Brawl777 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and sourcing[edit]

This article had (and still has) a lot of unsourced and poorly sourced entries. A report from a website that carries user-submitted reports is not reliable. A report from an organization that visits an old building with thermometers and electromagnetic field meters, and reports readings as evidence of "haunting" is not a reliable source. A bloke who says on a website that his girlfriend got the willies isn't a reliable source. Sadly that leaves us, for the most part, with newspaper and TV reports, books and companies that offer "ghost tours". --TS 15:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"...a website that carries user-submitted reports is not reliable."

What is Wikipedia, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nda0093 (talkcontribs) 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good site for research?[edit]

Whats a good, objective site for researching haunted buildings/places? 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)

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

Tower of London[edit]

Shouldn't the Tower of London be included here somewhere? Or did I just miss it? Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 12:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

kamboures hauntings[edit]

the outskirts of flora,illinois on old hwy 50, some eerie and mysterious things happen at night in and out of the house. bill henson lived in 6881 old hwy 50 and happly married with tonia swanson. bill died first in 1897,he got hung on the tree. tonia died in 1920 from heart attack. in 2007, when i moved into this house, the 2 spirits came back to earth and haunt this home. on november 12th 2007, me and the 2 spirits became friends and i'm also a ghost hunter and i've been doing some investigation around 3 years and going to haunted places and make new friends. its fun being a ghost hunter. me and my team are fulltime ghost hunters. if you need information about my house like what they done in my house, it's gonna be in tthe next page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghosthunter 55 (talkcontribs) 21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Split section consensus[edit]

Because it is growing overwhelmingly longer and more difficult to navigate, and thus copyedit and cleanup for issues, I think the section List of reportedly haunted locations#United States should be split into a new page: Reportedly haunted locations in the United States, just like Reportedly haunted locations in Washington, D.C. What do you think? serioushat 02:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Haunted places in Canada[edit]

This entry is factually inaccurate. Quebec was not under French rule at this time, Pierre du Calvet died long before the building was built (It is correct that is was built in 1865), and it is impossible that Benjamin Franklin visited the building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icefly2 (talkcontribs) 21:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt I will have any objections but I will be creating "Reportedly haunted locations in Canada" as this list is getting quite large and only expected to get larger probably in January 2013.Hogie75 21:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Most" haunted, terrifying, famous, active, etc.[edit]

Since there are at least 4 or 5 entries in this list that make such superlative statements, and since such claims are in themselves unconfirmable, it might make sense to treat them like other marketing claims. Unless they are part of an attributable quote, remove them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


Remove cleanup tag because its all organized now. Also took out placeholder sections and fixed redirect header.Cosprings (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

British versus American English[edit]

Hi. I noticed that Fraggle81 had tagged it on May 22nd, but in going through the article, it was inconsistent in its usage, e.g. sometimes using center, other times centre. Same with words like rumor but then there was neighbour. Since the British English tag wasn't done by consensus, as I'm doing the c/e edit, I'm standardizing it to American English (only because it's simpler on my edit software). I really don't care which is chosen, but it should be standardized.Onel5969 (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The article had started out using British English and I had gone through it several times to try and standardise it per MOS:RETAIN. Its easy enough to standardise it with the EngvarB script by Ohconfucius should that be required. I wasn't aware consensus needed to be reached for the tag to be in place since I was following the guidance at MOS:RETAIN and a variety of English had been established. Fraggle81 (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fraggle81. It doesn't have to be by consensus. But since it's not, it can be either. As I said, I don't have a dog in this hunt, makes no matter to me; I simply want to see it done consistently. Because it wasn't consistent, and as it says in MOS:RETAIN, it can be either.Onel5969 (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of reportedly haunted locations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

saudia arabia[edit]

you guys should add irqa hospital wich is in ryadh, saudia arabia which has been abandoned for 25 years.

it has a reputation for beign the most haunted hospital in the country.

here are some pictures of it's_Irqa_Hospital-2012.JPG/300px-Riyadh's_Irqa_Hospital-2012.JPG

and there are many youtube videos about it like this one

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of reportedly haunted locations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)