Talk:Dudleytown, Connecticut

message: To the person who requested references, I've updated the page with the most accurate information available and cited my references for each item that I wrote. Any remaining information that is without proper references is likely written by the Reverand who guards the place like a mother hen. He'll be back to promote his book. His so called research is sadly lacking. 
- Lenore   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenore 1 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article has been re-written - which I think addresses the issues that were there previously. If I'm incorrect then feel free to revert. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: I came here to find out what the myth is but the article only has the things that aren't true about the myth.
It really reads strangely to see an article refuting claims that are never even mentioned in the article.
It should either be 'here's what the myths are and here is why they are not true' or drop everything after the first two paragraphs of the Mythology section. There is absolutely no reason to go into such great detail in refuting points if the points are never made.
Look at things like the Bell witch article: they point out the claims made by the myth BEFORE refuting them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.177.39.6 (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the mythology? 

message: The problem with the content added in August 2012 by User:Raechelguest (and then re-added a few days ago after I removed it) is that it constitutes original research, specifically synthesis, which is not permitted on Wikipedia (see WP:No original research and WP:Synthesis). It's not enough for reliable sources to verify the truth of individual bits of information (such as "Mary Cheney Greeley never lived anywhere in Cornwall" or "Abiel Dudley did not go insane"), there must also be sources which use this information to reach the conclusion implied in the article ("Abiel Dudley did not go insane, therefore Starr's account is fanciful and inaccurate"). I'm going to remove this content again, and I'd ask that User:Raechelguest address these concerns before restoring it. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate what you're trying to do. You just want this article to be accurate and factual, and so do I – but I also want to make sure it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. The sources you added this time were better, and the National Geographic article lent a lot of credibility, in my eyes, to Gary P. Dudley's website, which I have to admit I'd previously dismissed as unreliable. I've rewritten the "Mythology" section using the information in those two sources (the New York Times one looks good as well, but I can't access it), because I do think we (as Wikipedia editors) have a duty to put right popular misconceptions, as long as we can do so without engaging in original research. I know you won't be entirely happy with my latest rewrite, but hopefully we can use it as a springboard to reach a compromise with which all of us can be satisfied. DoctorKubla (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: The last edits I made were in direct response to the comments, which I finally found, by DoctorKubla. I clearly identified popular myths, then followed each one with facts, and all the facts were cited. If that still is considered to be inferior to information citing the fictional Weekly World News, then I suppose there is nothing left to be done, except to realize that the Dudleytown page will always be full of errors and falsehoods. Raechel Guest (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate what you're trying to do. You just want this article to be accurate and factual, and so do I – but I also want to make sure it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. The sources you added this time were better, and the National Geographic article lent a lot of credibility, in my eyes, to Gary P. Dudley's website, which I have to admit I'd previously dismissed as unreliable. I've rewritten the "Mythology" section using the information in those two sources (the New York Times one looks good as well, but I can't access it), because I do think we (as Wikipedia editors) have a duty to put right popular misconceptions, as long as we can do so without engaging in original research. I know you won't be entirely happy with my latest rewrite, but hopefully we can use it as a springboard to reach a compromise with which all of us can be satisfied. DoctorKubla (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible 

message: If you compare online maps of the given GPS location (41.8078°N 73.3523°W), with the given 1984 USGS map, you see that the given GPS location is incorrect.
I propose changing the GPS coordinates to 41.8030978°N, 73.3602522°W - Google Map.  Any objection? Windrider6 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The coordinates you provide appear to be the entrance to the Dark Entry Forest property, not necessarily the site of the historic village. According to the map I found online, you might be marking Dudleytown Hill, not the village. The coordinates in the article, though not cited, put the village at the convergence of Dudleytown Road and and a few other mountain roads deep in the valley, which seems consistent with what is described in the narrative.  –Zfish118⋉talk 17:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose changing GPS location to correct location 

message: Connecticut State Police enforce trespassing laws at DUDLEYTOWN/Cornwall not Connecticut DEEP. CT DEEP does not enforce trespassing on private property, only on State DEEP-owned property. 32.221.109.201 (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police who enforce trespassing laws