Talk:Haunted house

message: Do you think the 'Hauntings' subsection could 'use' any more 'quote marks'. Seriously it reminds me of one of those idiotic people who finger quote everything they say when they're talking. --||bass 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I partially edited according to your suggestion. Please be aware when making such criticisms on the talk pages, that you can edit Wikipedia yourself. While you can make suggestions on talk pages in the case that the page is protected, semi-protected or you have been topic banned, in the case of a standard page where you have editing rights it is better to follow the Wikipedia standard of Bold Revert Discuss, which you can read about at wp:brdEdaham (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation marks

message: These lists are rather unmaintable and vague, and they don't add much to the value of this article. I'm up for removing them. --Wafulz 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no! i'm currently working on a level for a computer game and this is a really helpful ressource for inspiration. -- Hahih 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "_______ featuring haunted houses"

message: haven't found that one on imdb.com . -- Hahih 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Nightstalker Murder (1986)

message: I don't think the carbon monoxide theory stuff should be at the top of the piece.  I lived in a haunted house for many years, during the summer there were no sources of carbon monoxide in the house, yet the hauntings continued.  Okay, it's a P.O., but I'm sure enough instances of hauntings could be found where carbon monoxide could not have been present to cast doubt about the theory.
I have no objection to it as a theory, it's as good as any other given that there's no proof either way, but I'd rather it wasn't given so much prominence in the article.  I'd like to move it nearer the end. May I?
:It has been removed for WP:OR and other serious issues.  It was previously removed for these same issues. It should not be added back without proper sources and with additional information on other explanations to provide proper weight to the article. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  21:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Carbon Monoxide Theory

message: There are so many things wrong with this article, but most insane is the "Carbon monoxide" jazz being at the top of the article like its fact. It's just a unfounded theory offering some lame explanation. Why doesn't someone put some instances of a haunting in the article at the top and then put this stuff at the bottom where it belongs, under a possible explanations header. Or just let the readers decide. This is an article about Haunted Houses, not the health effects of Carbon Monoxide poisoning.
This thing reads like a two year old wrote it. 
--Vehgah (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is pretty awful, but "instances of haunting" is a bad idea considering you can't empirically prove that a house is haunted.-Wafulz (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of explanations about why haunting occur.  There is undue weight being given to carbon monoxide explanation.  May I suggest reducing that section to a paragragh within a section that provides several considerations? — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  17:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Please do. I wrote the original CO explanatory paragraph. If you find another explanation for haunted houses with credible scientific support, go ahead and add it.Wachholder (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful Article 

message: I think something substantial needs to be added about local business owners inventing haunted house legends to prop up the tourist trade.  It's gotten way out of hand in some parts of the U.S. and I really don't believe anything I read anymore, as usually it's some B&B owner or restauranteur telling the tale.  I don't know what sources to consult for an angle on this, so I can't write anything encyclopedic, but I think it's an angle that is important. -Rolypolyman (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profit motives 

message: Does anyone else think that this article should be moved to a more encompassing title, such as Haunting or Haunted places? Houses are not the only places reputed to be haunted, and it seems unnecessarily limiting to have this topic tied to a particular type of structure. And keeping the topic in a single article seems to make more sense than creating separate articles for haunted castles, haunted hotels, haunted theatres, haunted ships, etc. etc. etc.--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: I have partially reverted, but also used, some of the newer version now contained in the following sentence:
* "The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified ten subjects, including haunted houses, and considers that belief in those subjects is pseudoscientific.[4]"
The reason being that the NSF doesn't state that its view is the scientific consensus. That goes without saying by virtue of its name. That wording is also based on the ArbCom ruling, which recognizes that the published statements of national scientific bodies represent the existing scientific consensus, and the NSF certainly qualifies. The pseudoscience category is also applied on the basis of the Pseudoscience ArbCom ruling: Belief in haunted houses is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community", so the article "may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, for a number of reasons, explained at talk:ghost and elsewhere, the NSF considered those subjects from a modern viewpoint in the context of pseudoscience, and made some misleading shortcuts in this paper, contradicted by the very definition they gave and plenty of RS. We on the other hand, as an encyclopedia, should maintain a neutral point of view, in historical and global perspective. We should not present objects of folklore and tradition as pseudoscientific. Cenarium (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That user had labeled and categorized several paranormal-related articles with "pseudoscience"; thank goodness an admin removed that content. --108.13.19.195 (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSF, pseudoscience, and ArbCom ruling 

message: The list of films (and that for books) in this article is getting way too long, and in my opinion should not be a list of every film everywhere that ever included a haunted house.  If someone wants to create and maintain a separate page for lists of haunted house movies, go for it.  I propose cutting the number of films down to only those that are "significant", and rewriting the "list" in narrative format.  I realize significance is a subjective thing to measure, so are there any criteria we should consider to indicate "significance"?  Eastcote (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Films 

message: Infrasound has been found to stimulate sensations and mental states associated with haunted places; why is there no mention of it in the article? --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infrasound 

message: Gives a good overview of the theories of hauntingsLink, this one is funny:
(Gauld & Cornell, 1979, pp. 249-250) investigated a case in which the occupants of a house were disturbed
by eerie thudding noises. It transpired that rats had come upon apples stored in the loft. ‘They would roll a small apple to the edge of the loft and push it down the hollow of a cavity wall. At the bottom they made off with it or disposed of it. The falling of the apples had produced the spooky sounds.’ Cornell, A. D. and Gauld, A. (1961) The geophysical theory of poltergeists. JSPR 41, 129-155.
I noticed the JSPR is "is an international and interdisciplinary peer reviewed journal that publishes the highest quality original research on social and personal relationships." So would this source be acceptable? 
Update, wrong source sorry. The source for that appears to be Gauld, A. (1979) In A. Gauld & A. D. Cornell, Poltergeists. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. This is obviously a book published by two parapsychologists, reliable source? GreenUniverse (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I wouldn't consider it a RS. Parapsychology journals typically mix science with pseudoscience content. For example, in one section of the pdf provided, the author considers "psi-based" theories and takes into consideration "discarnate agents" (i.e. dead people) as a possible cause of hauntings. And in another section, he suggests researchers try to "haunt selected locations after their bodily death if they found themselves surviving". Not science. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with your opinion as to the pseudo-science involved.  However, your opinion and my opinion do not count.  Whether we personally agree with parapsychologists, or consider parapsychology journals to be reliable is really irrelevant.  They are published journals, and their "findings" are thus put before the public so that other researchers can attempt replication.  To be balanced, the article should contain arguments from both sides.  One side should not be eliminated because we personally believe it to be flawed or false.  The article should be written in such a way that other published findings that refute the parapsychologists are included where pertinent.  So...I would consider the JSPR a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards.  Fringe, perhaps, to be refuted.  But not to be excluded.  Eastcote (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not reputable scientific journals and should not be confused with them. Balance does not mean including fringe theories into an article which is not dedicated to the fringe theory see WP:FRINGE. This isn't a topic on the beliefs of Parapsychologists and their "theories" have no due weight here. Being balanced does not mean showing both sides, we don't have to pretend their opinions are just as WP:VALID and give them due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats very true, but there are no reputable scientific journals that have ever published on haunted houses or things like this, the article is strictly related to the field of parapsychology, you understand that the only people who actually investigate "haunted houses" are parapsychologists? So we can not include any of their theories at all? Mainstream science will not go near this stuff. I have never seen any peer reviewed journals etc on haunted houses or hauntings only those within parapsychology. I have looked there are none at all from mainstream journals, however I found once a psychology journal on haunted houses but can not find it at the moment. GreenUniverse (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I thought this article WAS dedicated to "fringe" belief/theory.  What, are haunted houses mainstream belief accepted by science?  It is perfectly appropriated to cite what the pseudos have to say, and then insert what science has to say.  Eastcote (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondary sources from objective third parties is best. "Magnetic Fields and Haunting Phenomena: A Basic Primer for Paranormal Enthusiasts" sourced to http://www.publicparapsychology.org is a WP:SELFPUB pdf document, apparently originally from a blog. No idea who "Bryan Williams" is, but positioning him as a "researcher" on Wikipedia is not appropriate. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  This gives a complete overview of the work of Persinger etc and many other parapsychologists, perhaps we can try and locate some secondary sources to back up some of these claims? Haunting & poltergeist-like episodes  GreenUniverse (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just noticed the reference has been added from French, CC; Haque, U, Bunton-Stasyshyn. I think that has solved the problem. No complaints here. GreenUniverse (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm not really interested in backing up or refuting Persinger's claims.  His claims are there, and shouldn't be removed simply because a Wikipedia editor doesn't think Persinger is a reliable source.  There are various papers that also published on studies that failed to replicate Persinger's findings.  I'll add these when I dig them up.  Eastcote (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

text: The possible explanations heading seems a bit overweighted with charactorized opinions.  Sources or not, should we really be including opinions that need to be qualified by words like "believes" and "speculates".  If we have to qualify with this terms, the opinion prolly shouldn't be included in the article, even if there is a reliable source as to the person's speculation.  — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  03:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Explained in WP:YESPOV which notes that "articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects." - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't go far enough justify outright speculation. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) —  14:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Theories

message: This may be a suitable source:
French, C.C., Haque, U., Bunton-Stasyshyn, R., Davis, R.E. (2009). The “Haunt” Project: An attempt to build a “haunted” room by manipulating complex electromagnetic fields and infrasound. Cortex, 45, 619-629.
"Recent research has suggested that a number of environmental factors may be associated with a tendency for susceptible individuals to report mildly anomalous sensations typically associated with "haunted" locations, including a sense of presence, feeling dizzy, inexplicable smells, and so on. Factors that may be associated with such sensations include fluctuations in the electromagnetic field (EMF) and the presence of infrasound." Link 
Also see Ghostly magnetism explained
"The study - in which hundreds of volunteers were taken around two allegedly haunted locations - found that people reported having more unusual experiences in the specific places at each location which are considered most haunted. The researchers think this can be explained by the way people react to environmental cues, such as subtle drafts, and in particular visual factors, like low lighting. The research also threw up evidence suggesting a link between magnetic fields and ghostly sightings." GreenUniverse (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The french source both sums up the parapsychologist perspective and has a study. I can have a look about this other study mentioned on the BBC later. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And Wired could be used as secondary coverage of French's opinions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Persinger and others on electromagnetic fields

message: The Haunted House (1859) Short Story by Charles Dickens  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.130.134 (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short Stories 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Haunted house. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.steamfairground.co.uk/l3_haunted_house.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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. Per long-term significance (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Relisting comment: Evidence for or against the assertions made in this discussion may be helpful in determining consensus BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 February 2023