Talk:The Black Monk of Pontefract

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Black Monk of Pontefract redirect.
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

Articles for creation

	This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This redirect was accepted on 4 August 2012 by reviewer Ktr101 (talk · contribs).

Paranormal Low‑importance

	This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal The Black Monk of Pontefract is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not True

Comment added by 62.49.35.157 moved from main page to here:

"Director Pat Holden has a unique connection with the story – it was his aunt’s home that was the target of the haunting." This isn't actually true, no one in the family know the director. Ref=Mitchell, Wendy. "Haunting Memories". Screen Daily. Screen Daily. Retrieved 31 July 2012.

The Yeti (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entire Article Deleted

The article I added yesterday has been deleted because it places "WP:UNDUE weight on WP:FRINGE sources." While I agree that the article needs more sources, the source in question (The book by Colin Wilson) was being used to illustrate the facts as reported by the witnesses at the time. Not to prove or disprove the existence of ghosts. The book is the contemporary report of the haunting, written by an author with his own extensive wikipedia pages.

I find it strange that an entire article can be deleted before any kind of debate has been had. The article also had sources from the BBC and the Guardian which are usually acceptable. Since this case is still on going and still appears in the papers, I believe it deserves it's own article rather than just being a footnote to a film. Whowasphone404 (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whowasphone404 I don't see any edits made by you that have actually been deleted. Could you provide some more detail please? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whowasphone404 Never mind. I figured it out. Your page (this one) was not deleted. It was turned into a WP:REDIRECT. All of your edits are saved in the page history. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, my edits haven't actually been deleted, but the entire article has been removed without any discussion. Whowasphone404 (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whowasphone404. Apologies if the revert it seemed abrupt, but there were so many NPOV problems with your expansion of the article, adding a few "allegedly"'s to the text could not fix them. More than three quarters of the article was cited to one author's book who is an ardent supernatural believer and not a WP:FRIND source. Your article presented Wilson's WP:FRINGE POV of "facts" in Wikipedia's voice: an overwhelmingly credulous narrative written in persuasive style that assumes the existence of the supernatural. Even the BBC and the Guardian can sometimes indulge in WP:SENSATIONAL narratives that emphasize the lurid and sensational, omit any critique, or give equal weight to critical and credulous views. There is a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia articles, so I hope you will take your time to absorb how the encyclopedia works and familiarize yourself with some of the not so obvious nuances of editorial policy. Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LuckyLouie, Thank you for the reply, I can better understand why you removed the article. However, I was under the impression that articles were not simply removed without any discussion.

Personally I do not find the story credible myself, but I believe it is worth having a whole article on this topic from a cultural perspective. I was actually hoping to find some sources that were more critical of the narrative, which tried to debunk some of the phenomena.

If my writing seemed to presume the existence of the supernatural, that was unintentional. In the main body of the article I was simply trying to relay the main narrative of the events, just as most articles about hauntings do.

Most sources that explore paranormal topics (even from a debunking perspective) probably would not be considered credible enough for Wikipedia so you are giving me an impossible task.

Why should I spend more time learning about editing policies if you are simply going to remove the article again? I love this website and I want to contribute, but I simply can't devote my time to writing something if it's just going to be deleted. Whowasphone404 (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]