Talk:Haunted house

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Of relevance to "Generally considered pseudoscience" The scientific consensus, as expressed by the National Science Foundation, has identified belief in ten subjects to be pseudoscientific beliefs. They are: extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channeling. (See Note 29)

Quotation marks

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)

Mergers

I've suggested that we merge Dark attraction, Haunted attraction, and Haunted hayride into this article. All three of these are basically the same event under a different name, and the most common name for the three (at least in North America) is Haunted house. If nobody objects within five days, I'll just do the merger myself. --Wafulz 16:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am against merging those 3 articles into this one. I do agree that those 3 are more or less the same, with very subtle differences - 3 variations on the same theme, if you will. Therefore, I would support merging those 3 articles into one.
However, even though dark attractions are normally referred to in NA as "Haunted Houses", I don't agree that they should be merged straight into this article. I base this off of the fact that much more than just dark attractions are given the name "Haunted House" (I'll just call them HH from here on). Most of the HHs in NA are not commercially created as such. They don't sell tickets and have actors try and scare you; they are just normal buildings. Someone has reported seeing a ghost there, or the building has a tragic history, or it just looks creepy (abandoned, gothic, whatever). I think there's a huge difference between the dark attractions, which make a business out of scaring people, and a building that people are trying to conduct more traditional business out of, or perhaps live in. Occasionally, the two overlap (a local dark attraction years ago once claimed to operate out of an abandoned insane asylum - actually an old hospital, that did have stories around it, but...)
So, here's what I wuld like to see - a small subsection in this HH article summarizing what a dark attraction is, and a "Main Article" link back to a Dark Attraction (or whichever they get merged to) article. --Reverend Loki 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I could agree to that- basically you're suggesting we have one article for "real" haunted houses (IE ghosts and the like) and one article for "fake" haunted houses (which are the sort we associate with Halloween). Correct me if I'm wrong.--Wafulz 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. The one on "real" haunted houses (at article name: Haunted House (or Houses)) would include a small blurb on the "fake" ones, with a link to the "Main Article" on fake ones, while the Dark Attractions article (aka, the "fake" haunted houses) would include a link to the article on "real" ones, possible as a text link in the article overview, the first paragaraph. Or something like that. --Reverend Loki 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely a difference between a haunted house and a haunted hayride, and they're not subtle at all. For one, a haunted house is a building that you walk through. A haunted hayride is a hay wagon that you sit in and it drives outdoors. They may both be Halloween events/attractions but they are not the same thing, hence the need for two terms to describe them "haunted house" and "haunted hayride". So I wouldn't support merging the articles, I just see no need or benefit. Now a dark attraction is considered more like a haunted house than anything. In actuality it shouldn't be called a dark attraction, rather a "Dark Ride" which is what people in the industry call it. They differ completely from both a haunted house and a haunted hayride because they are attractions where you sit in a car (motion sim) and the experience is mostly in the dark. A good example of this would be The Mummy ride at Universal Studios. It is neither a haunted house (you don't walk through it), nor is it a haunted hayride (there's no wagon or hay). So for all these reasons, I'd leave the articles alone and if anything just rename dark attraction to dark ride. --Znelson 03:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that the right way to do this would be to split this into "Haunted Houses" - that is, places that are considered really haunted and "Haunted Attractions" - which would encompass haunted house amusements, haunted hayrides, dark rides, corn mazes and just about anything else that would full under entertainment. -- dwilliams666

I like this idea. I think we could apply it to have the following:

1. Haunted house, which deals with buildings that have had ghost sightings, etc
2. Haunted attraction, which contains haunted hayride, a brief mention of dark rides with a main article link to dark ride, and any other similar attractions. Within that article the subtle nuances between types of attractions can be explained.
3. Dark attraction would redirect to Haunted attraction, considering in the article it says it's the same thing as a haunted attraction) --Wafulz 22:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Halloween yard and Spooky walk should probably be folded into this as well, somewhere. --McGeddon 02:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

External Links practices

Editor immediately prior has cleaned out the External Links section to get rid of commercial links, unreferenced news articles, and convention links. I put the one convention/tradeshow link in the list back in. Of course, Wikipedia Is Not A Directory, but it's nice to have one or two links to major annual events important to the industry built around the focus of the article should be fine. The fact that it is a convention/tradeshow should not come into play - else, Wikipedia would never contain a link to ComicCon, DragonCon, PAX, CES, TGS, etc. A cursory glance at the linked site looks OK. If you have a better example to replace it with, that's OK as well, but there's no reason to just remove it.
By the way, I think we are agreed that we don't need to link every commercial haunted house here. In fact, pretty much any such link is inappropriate. However, a link to a site that is an impartial directory of such attractions would fit. --Reverend Loki 20:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's my line of reasoing:

1. The link does not offer any information on the topic at hand (arguably this would be more appropriate in Haunted attraction)
2. It's not possible to determine which conventions deserve a link on the article and which ones don't, especially since they don't have articles to begin with.
3. How do we draw the line between "enough" and "too many" conventions being listed?

I'd like to point out other, more developed articles such as Cosplay and Anime don't have any links to conventions- they have an article on List of ______ conventions instead, which only works when conventions have articles. Anyway, my strongest reasoning lies in that the link does not improve the article in any way. It might be nice for someone looking for a haunting convention, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. --Wafulz 20:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I did make the mistake of forgetting which article I was looking at, house vs attractions. For that reason alone, I've removed the link (again) from this article. Of course, I've also added it to the Haunted Attractions page, and if we want to discuss whether or not it belongs there, well, that article has it's own talk page. As for which ones deserve a link and which don't, we can discuss those merits when we have more than one or two to deal with. If need be, we can even come up with objective qualifications with which to measure such (attendance, % of businesses represented, etc), but I'm not going to delve into it until the need arises. --Reverend Loki 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"_______ featuring haunted houses"

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)

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)

The Nightstalker Murder (1986)

haven't found that one on imdb.com . -- Hahih 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Carbon Monoxide Theory

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?

Awful Article

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)

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)

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)

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)

Profit motives

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)

these arebdfregh3kffgrtjkgrtghrg3h3rh43rt34hjtgk5tgk45ty5765ui86 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.79.65.236 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Article name

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)

NSF, pseudoscience, and ArbCom ruling

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)

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)

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)

List of Films

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)