Talk:Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Media section

Someone fix the media part. I would if I knew how to, and if I knew the facts. I mean, it looks like a god damn advertisement. I've already taken out a website and an extra 'truthfully' that was at the end. Why do I think the owner of the website wrote that?-Babylon pride 02:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Perhaps someone who has seen the film can edit that section. -Etoile 01:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Working on general improvements right now, that's on my list. --CliffC 19:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The reorganized and expanded article was just posted. --CliffC 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo request

Anyone have a photo of the Castle in its glory days? That would be a nice addition to an article that's basically all bad news. --CliffC 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research; NPOV; verifiability

Recently some material was added to Haunted Castle that seems not in keeping with Wikipedia:No original research ("any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article"). Some seems to violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and much does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability.

When I started to clean up and expand the article a few weeks ago, I struggled a bit with what to do with its existing "Media" section, which, as pointed out above, looked like an advertisement. I decided on a section "Questioning the report" where Smith's documentary was summarized, and two links to the documentary were included in "External links".

What I am inclined to do is revert the article to the way it stood before the additions, then review the new material to see if there's anything that has been overlooked (and I would guess there is), try to find a reliable, verifiable source for that material, then re-add it to the article, hopefully in a consistent style and with a neutral point of view.

Those new additions contained a lot of interesting material that I think should be publicly available. I would suggest that the author host them on his web site; we can mention them in "Questioning the report" the same as we do the documentary and add the site to "External links". --CliffC 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a disgrace and irresponsible on the part of the user (CliffC) to delete the changes I made last week in attempt to correct this TOTALLY INCORRECT article THAT HAS NOW RETURNED TO WIKIPEDIA IN ITS ORIGINAL INCORRECT FORMAT. I'd like to see what qualifications CliffC has as a journalist (I would guess none by reading his work), but we'll never know, as he's too cowardly to post an email address so I can ask. I spent years researching the Haunted Castle, and HAVE PUBLISHED AN AWARD-WINNING DOCUMENTARY ON THE SUBJECT, so how could it be unverifiable? All of my information was cited as such. This user should stop making changes to this article, as it clear he has NO IDEA at all what he's talking about, as the current article looks like a child wrote it, and is TOTALLY INCORRECT IN MANY AREAS. (Posted by Pete Smith, Haunted Castle researcher and author)Popartpete 21:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[Added a ":" to the above paragraph to indent] As stated above, I plan to review the material added, some very interesting, and try to find reliable verifiable sources for anything overlooked that makes sense to add to an encyclopedia article without it sounding like it came out of the New York Post. I will work on this as my time and other interests allow, but it won't be my highest priority. Meanwhile, I don't "own" the article; anyone can edit here in Wikipedia as long as they keep to the Wikipedia rules. The article is not locked. I would love to see some additional material from a reliable source besides the few used so far.

As to my qualifications, I don't need to show you any, and in fact I don't need to have any, for this is Wikipedia. My contributions over the last few months are my résumé, just as your own are yours.

I don't publish my email address because I don't like spam, and unlike others I don't need to get my name out there to drum up orders for a product. Feel free to ask questions here or on my Talk page. --CliffC 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Gates of Hell or Doorway to Hell? Or Gateway to Hell?

("Please note" comments by 24.187.138.123 moved here from article section Safety improvements)

Immediately after the fire, several other New Jersey haunted-house attractions were closed pending fire inspections, including the multi-trailer "Gates of Hell" attraction on Casino Pier in Seaside Heights, New Jersey, built by the same company as the Haunted Castle. Please note that there is a disagreement here. The Seaside Heights attraction was called, "Doorway to Hell", not "Gates of Hell". This is incorrect, and the name is often widely-used incorrectly due to this article. New Jersey and other states passed new fire-safety laws for dark rides and "any structure that intentionally disorients".

Of the two references that mention the Seaside Heights attraction, the New York Times here calls it "The Gates of Hell" but Joe Costal here calls it "The Gateway to Hell". I've updated the article to include both names. If you have a reliable source for "Doorway to Hell", that name can be added as well. The NY Times has been known to make a mistake now and then. --CliffC (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Doorway to Hell, Gates of Hell, etc.

(Message moved here from User talk:CliffC)

Sorry for past differences and/or angered responses. I can see you are just doing your job, and we are all on one page.
Neither Costal or The NY Times is right about the name of the attraction in Seaside Heights.
I have a photo of the place, from a newspaper article from the time of the fire at Great Adventure, with the name Doorway To Hell clearly in the photo. The Doorway to Hell is a place I watched be built, operate, and be eventually torn down. Every time I see this mistake perpetuated, it irritates me.
I would like you to to check out this photo I linked onto a page of my website just for you: [1], and put this topic to bed.
I understand the rationale of having to back up the facts with articles, but the Joe Costal article is not what I would call the greatest. I personally spoke to him, and found him very ignorant on even the most basic facts about the Haunted Castle. His article is a Master's Degree thesis I believe, in public relations, and it is a softball story if I every read one. Everyone treads around the topic lightly, not wanting to upset Six Flags.
Janson was a NY Times reporter, who simply attended the trial and reported back stories. The name Gates of Hell, or whatever he published could have been mistakenly said at the trial, and it ended up in the paper. It wouldn't be the only mistake in the trial, I promise you!
I've made factual errors in my days of reporting. Although we made corrections when necessary, they are not attached to the original article, but appear in another edition. This (Doorway to Hell vs. Gates of Hell) is such an obscure fact that it probably was never questioned.
I can assure you that I know far more than either of these men would ever know about the topic of the Haunted Castle. I am a reporter of great respect and have published thousands of articles, and at least three of them were solely about the Haunted Castle, but I have never see them cited.
Aside from my articles, I have the entire folder from the Ocean County Observer, a paper of record in May 1984. My question is since that only articles on the web can be cited, how do I get these articles so that they can be online, and of record when I go to change things? My only concern is to set things straight.
Have I already done it with uploading the photo? I can upload lots of articles this way.
I wouldn't care, but this article simply reprints 25-year old propaganda in many areas, I can promise you.
I just finished, and will be publishing a book on this topic in early 2009. Thanks, Peter Smith --Popartpete 04:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Edit conflict - this is a reply only to your original "Gates" message, I see you've added a lot more since I started composing this, I'll look at the rest tomorrow as I have time, but I think this discussion eventually needs to move to the article's talk page. --CliffC (talk)

If you have no objection, after you edit your message I'll post it on the Haunted Castle talk page so that others who follow the article have a chance to respond, although as you put it, the "obscure fact" of the attraction's exact name might not draw a lot of interest. As always, what's published in Wikipedia can't be original research and has to come from reliable, third-party, published sources that any reader can verify for himself, quoting here, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. So in any case, we're not saying that what the New York Times (or whatever reliable source) says on any subject is true, we're just reporting that they said it. I'll put a 'Welcome' template on your talk page with some helpful links. I know from my own experience it's frustrating to personally know some fact but be unable to include it in an article because a reliable source confirming what I know can't be found.

Your question about getting the Ocean County Observer articles online is a good one, another reason to put your message on the talk page where it can be seen by our rules and how-to experts - I don't know what copyright issues you might run into, or if the Observer itself has an online archive from 1984, or if public libraries would have backcopies. Sources don't need to be online, offline sources are acceptable in Wikipedia, the requirement being that readers be able to verify the source, not whether they can verify it online. Whatever the Observer has to say could be added as coming from an additional source, not as a replacement for the sources we have already, and any conflicts pointed out. --CliffC (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look at your photo, if you have one where you own the copyright yourself, maybe a still from your DVD, please upload it, that would be a great addition to the article. --CliffC (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A few other things I disagree about the Haunted Castle post...

(Message moved here from User talk:CliffC)

"No one realized that lives had been lost until later that night, when firefighters searching one of the burnt-out trailers discovered the bodies, thought at first to be mannequins."

This is not true. This was reported in our local papers as well. The night of the fire, the media were told almost nothing, and had to go by rumor. I spoke to the fire chief, as well as numerous others on the scene that night. You see, except for the extreme rear portions of the back of the trailers, where the walls were not made of plywood, everything except metal had been disintegrated to ash. The bodies were discovered before dark, as soon as the fire was extinguished, not much later in the night. The firefighters knew that what they were dealing with were human remains: bones, blood, jewelry and even unburned clothes and wallets inside pockets on those insulated on the bottom of the pile. (I've seen the photos) Additionally, the stench of burned flesh was overpowering, being noticed by patrons exiting the park from the main exit, separated only by a chain link fence from the Haunted Castle trailers. Wax mannequins would have been long-since melted. The truth is that the management at first said (and might have believed) to firefighters that they had evacuated all patrons from the HC, and there was no reason to close the park. The castle was isolated, so the fire couldn't spread to other buildings. The fire was out by 7:45, and the park closed at 8:00 p.m.
I've never heard of SFGA kicking everybody of the park during a fairly busy and good weather night and to offer a free return pass. They don't even do this for a thunderstorm, and I know of no repeat of this in all of SFGA's 34 year history. An unprecedented decision was made and implemented in 15 minutes. Given this time frame, they clearly found the bodies instantly, and there wasn't time to think that they were "mannequins".

"Eight days after the fire, a statement by the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office said a 13-year-old boy had called the police after hearing radio reports that investigators were looking for witnesses. The boy told the police that he had been befriended by a 14-year-old boy at the castle's entrance. He said the older youth, who appeared to be familiar with the castle, offered to guide him through. He said the older youth used a cigarette lighter to find his way down a long corridor that was dark because of a malfunctioning strobe light, and eventually bumped into and ignited a foam-rubber wall pad. The prosecutor exonerated the older youth, who has never been identified, of any criminal wrongdoing."

Police knew the identities of both boys by very early the next morning, and interviewed both Saturday May 12th. The younger boy's parents had called authorities without being prompted by any radio broadcast. The older boy was turned in by his teacher, who had seen him unattended, exit a burning Haunted Castle, and alerted police as soon as he could. This boy set numerous fires. Bumping up against the strobe pad could not have accidentally ignited it. Try to reproduce such a thing. It takes about 30 seconds to set fire to polyurethane foam. It is unclear why the prosecutor didn't go after him. Additionally, the strobe light was not the light that provided all the illumination in that area. There were actually extra auxiliary lights in this area, considered one of the brightest areas of the maze. It was dark in places there, but you never needed to light a lighter to see. This is nonsense.

"According to news reports of the trial, no such boy was ever found, and no other witness testified to seeing such a boy. Under cross-examination by the defense, the witness denied starting the fire himself."

Although its true as it is quoted from the article, the identity of the boy was well known to investigators. His teacher was an eyewitness who placed him at the right place at the right time.

I think there should be added also be added mention of the name of the ninth person who lived from the ill-fated group, the legacy of exploitation and disrespect that has been associated with the property, as well as numerous other facts.

Thanks!
--Popartpete 04:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Pete, you seem to want to bring back some of the material that was reverted here almost exactly two years ago with reasons explained on this talk page at the time. You can't make claims about mistakes in construction, an alleged cover-up, employee opinions, the emotionally disturbed kid that might have started the fire, or anything else without quoting from reliable third-party published sources. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, so tone is important and such as "the stench of burned flesh" is out.

We can talk about the sole survivor of the group, subject to the same rules, but we can't name her due to privacy guidelines given at Biographies of living persons, which says:

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

I have no quibbles with your disagreements; they are welcome and can be incorporated into the article once properly supported by reliable sources. --CliffC (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Standardization of Haunted Attraction articles

WikiProject Halloween is facilitating a discussion about the format and quality of articles about haunted attractions. If you would like to weigh in with ideas to improve these articles overall, please join the discussion and share your thoughts.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 12:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Questioning the report

I removed this section as it had no sourcing and read like a promotional ad for Peter James Smith original research. If sourcing can be found for the statements made in the section and rewritten to be less like an ad, then so be it. Reliable source is not an option on WP it is a requirement, as I'm sure most editors to this article are very much aware.JavierMC 05:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what Drew R. Smith, one of your "professional" editors wrote to me: "Ok. This coming from the guy who wrote a fake book about an event that nobody gives a shit about." Nice. All I asked was why they change articles of which they have no knowledge.

Ok, popart. one, your blocked for a reason. Two, you did not ask why I change articles, you said, and I quote "get a life, guppy boy." And that was the entirety of the message. Three, I haven't changed the article, but took out advetising material.Drew Smith What I've done 10:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Anything is possible. Drew and I went from squabbling hard a few weeks back to him being my mentor! Thanks Drew, you've turned out to be a valuable friend! My only goal is to help fix this article up, it's kind of misleading in certain areas, and I have spent a lot of time examining this topic. This is Memorial Day weekend, and I shall be quite busy, but soon, I will be adding another section to this discussion page, focusing on the areas in which I think there should be changes, and of which I have articles. I hope many editors will become involved. Peace and love to all wikipedia editors!Popartpete 13:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Pete, welcome back. It wouldn't hurt to reread all the material on this page with a view toward understanding what is a reliable source and what is original research. Maybe spend a few hours taking the Wikipedia tutorial. And please sign your talk page edits with four tildes ( ~~~~ ), no more and no less, to create a signature link and a timestamp, thanks. CliffC (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be back Cliff! I promise to read the tutorials and obey reliable sources and stuff! You guys are great. OK, 4 tildes now, no more, no less! :) 24.187.138.123 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Help editor friends! I need some help on another page that I am working on. Drew, please email me, thanks!24.187.138.123 (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this article good enough????

I have scanned and pasted all of my Haunted Castle fire articles onto the page http://www.popartpete.com/hauntedcastle_main.html

Almost all are from the 80's, but the first two are components of a 2004 article written about me and research into the matter of the Haunted Castle. It is not written by me, but by a reporter from another newspaper. Could someone read the article, summarize it, and restore the "Questioning The Report" section that was removed? I don't want to take the chance of upsetting anyone by doing it myself.

This is my first attempt at trying to cite something, but here it what I came up with:

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My citation seems not to work. Can someone help fix it? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs) 01:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My citation doesn't work

My efforts at citationing the above article is obviously not working. Can someone please help. The article appeared in the May 24, 2004 of the Asbury Park Press, published by Gannett, written by Kirk Moore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations won't work (and can cause much of what you've written to disappear, which is what happened here} if you forget to close both the {{...}} and <ref>...</ref> tag pairs. I added a missing </ref> closing tag to repair it. To make citations appear on a talk page like this, add a {{reflist}} statement, like this:

Some of that material is very interesting, but right now there's a problem – nobody will want to spend time waiting for a 43MB one-clump web page to load, much less try to navigate through it without landmarks looking for a cited article. I'll add a suggestion in a minute... --CliffC (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(Later) I think for any of this material you want to cite in the article, and the Observer's floor plan of the Castle is definitely something that would be a big plus, the best approach would be to provide a direct link. Using the floor plan as an example, the URL for such a citation would be http://www.popartpete.com/hc14.jpg – maybe not an elegant solution, but it takes the user exactly where he wants to be and loads in 1/43rd the time. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Cliff. I have remade the webpage in question with only the 2004 article. The other articles are posted on another page, and I added a link to the Haunted Castle main page. 05:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

I would like to present this photo, from the May 15, 1984 edition of the Ocean County Observer, which clearly illustrates that the name of the the Seaside Heights Haunted Attraction was indeed Doorway to Hell, Not Gates of Hell or Gateway to Hell.

As I told you before, this irks me! 05:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you could have seperate pages on your site for each of the webpages? But once they are cited in the article, you can't move them without changing the citation to reflect the changes. And, might I suggest trying to get an account on Citizendium? It is almost exactly like wikipedia, without the cabals, and with a deeper respect for experts. You may even qualify to be considered an "expert" in your specific field of study.Drew Smith What I've done 19:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you should try to use {{reflist}} instead of </references>. It seems more reliableDrew Smith What I've done 19:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The first and third links are pay to view. Perhaps you could copy the contents onto your website somewhere? The last link looks pretty good, and I've got to say some of those articles are really intresting.Drew Smith What I've done 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Those first three links are just leftover gunk from an old post way above, so can be ignored. The 4th is his. I don't see that he's using </references> anywhere - ???

Pete, if you are editing just a single section, reference changes won't appear when you use the Preview button, you need to use Save. Consider testing in User:Popartpete/sandbox - click on that link to create it. It's cleaner and neater. --CliffC (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I changed it from <.references> to {{reflist}}Drew Smith What I've done 03:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Why to use your own sandbox

Pete, up above where you say "I would like to present this photo...", and a[1] appears but the reference itself does not appear, I'm guessing that is because this page now has multiple {{reflist}} statements. It's less confusing to experiment and test in a clean sandbox. And please sign your posts! --CliffC (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I will do that. I spent all of my free time today trying to figure out these citations to no avail! 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

I tried the citation in the sandbox, but it simply puts a 1 on the page, with no other information. 21:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

After I make a comment, I always put four tildes, but they always say unsigned. Why is that? I cannot make a citation at all, even though I copied the information the same way it is presented here, only changed the dates and url. 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

1) You need to read the material above more closely and not rely on memory when assembling all the (admittedly confusing) citation "parts", in editing your sandbox page you have entered one incorrectly.

2) Typing 5 tildes instead of the correct 4 gives results similar to what we're seeing here. Try it in the sandbox. --CliffC (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling I will be playing in the sandbox for a long, long time!23:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

This is a public test. It was done in pubic for good reason. ~ Produces ~

~~ Produces ~~

~~~ Produces Drew Smith What I've done

~~~~ Produces Drew Smith What I've done 03:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

~~~~~ Produces 03:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

~~~~~~ Produces 03:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)~

Well done guys

This article is already turning out much better than it was when you two people were still edit warring. I suspect that popartpete has a wealth of knowledge on this subject, and if we get a few more editors collaborating on it, we coud possibly bring it to GA status.Drew Smith What I've done 03:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the attaboy, but I've never been accused of edit warring before, and I don't appreciate it. Edit warring is an unproductive and childish practice that I don't indulge in. Your apology would be welcome. --CliffC (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was edit warring going on. Mostly popartpete re-adding his stuff. I didn't mean you in general, and I apologise if my praise sounded more like a rebuke.Drew Smith What I've done 04:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

When I looked over the article history, I didn't see any of the "disruptive and unproductive" behaviors described in WP:EDITWAR — thus my objection. Perhaps the recent skirmish over whether section "Questioning the Report" was to stay or go could be described as an edit war, but I wasn't involved in that. Anyway, no harm done. --CliffC (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look closely, you'll see that popartpete broke 3RR, thus engaging in an editwar. But, I'm going to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. I wanted to congratulate people for their efforts, not condem them for past actions.Drew Smith What I've done 03:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

God Bless you all, and the article appears the best I've ever seen it04:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.138.123 (talk)

I wasn't signed in, but thanks again...the article is all I hoped it to be.13:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Settlements

The main pages says that one of the families took their case to court. This is not so. All of the families settled out of court, with awards in the $600,000 to $750,000 range. The payments were structured over thirty years, so with interest, they would balloon to about 2.5 million each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Before I reply, you are Pop Art Pete from that 40 minute documentary, right? If so, glad to meet you. I also need a source from you and then we can fix the article.Mitch/HC32 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

White Cotton

I have heard that story about the white cotton from one of the former employees. I believe the story, but find it ridiculous. He may have went and got some cotton, but it was probably not used for what he thinks. I don't think this employee would have been allowed to actually watch the process, if it played out like he said. I've seen the photographs of the burned victims, and HOW DUMB could anybody be, especially seasoned detectives, to confuse these clearly burned human beings with a rubber and plastic mannequins? The smell alone would separate the two, no need to differentiate on some cotton. Additionally, I've never heard of mannequins that wore high school rings, had wallets in pockets, remnants of blue jeans and other modern clothes: all clearly evident on this set of victims. Additionally, NOTHING REMAINS of the displays inside, except ASH. I've seen every available shot of the interior and exterior. The only mannequins that I know of that survived this particular blaze were located on the outside of the Haunted Castle, in front of the facade. My guess would be that this cotton was probably used to help bring the bodies outside, as not to further damage them for autopsy purposes, as they appear very fragile indeed. Either way, this claim is unverifiable: not up to the wikipedia standards I've been taught, and don't belong in the article.Popartpete 02:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

I assume you're talking about

At one point a seasonal supervisor was instructed to take a van to the costume warehouse (on the other side of the park) and retrieve as many bolts of white fabric as he could find. These were needed by responders as darkness fell (worklights were brought in to the scene) in order to have a bright background on which to lay out both the remains of the victims as well as damaged mannequins to differentiate the two.

These statements have been awaiting citation by reliable sources since May 2009 and have now been deleted. I know you've always been bugged about the notion of mistaking mannequins for human bodies, but citation 9 should make the situation clear if you've never read it before:

The flames were confined to the Haunted Castle and only a few minor injuries were mentioned in first reports of the incident. It was several hours after the fire was brought under control and firefighters had a chance to search the ruins that the bodies were found.

"Initially, we thought they were mannequins, but then we discovered they were bodies," said Police Commissioner Richard Borys of Jackson Township.

Hope this helps. --CliffC (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting that nonsense. I am aware of the Police Officer's comments, but I know them not to be factual. I heard directly from the main fire chief that the bodies were discovered almost immediately, and they were identified as such on the spot. (The bodies were found about 7:45 p.m., and the park closed at 8 p.m.) I truly believe that this story about the mannequins was used an excuse, an attempt to bridge the tremendous gap of time (3 1/2 to 4 hours) between the extinguishing of the fire and the release of the news that there had been fatalities. My guess is that during this lag of time, some type of damage control effort was going on, and this is the best reason they could come up with at the the time. Popartpete 04:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

This is how I deal with this mannequin topic in the book, currently in its final draft stages for publication...

"Despite all that was happening, news of the deaths was many hours away from being made public. This time lag is suspected to have been used to create some sort of damage control, and it is believed that this is where the “mannequin” stories (that never seem to die) arose.

One story says, “At one point a seasonal supervisor was instructed to take a van to the costume warehouse and retrieve as many bolts of white fabric as he could find. These were needed by responders as darkness fell in order to have a bright background on which to lay out both the remains of the victims as well as damaged mannequins to differentiate the two.”

I have heard this story right from the source, and believe that the supervisor in question did go get the fabric, and that he still believes it was for the use described. However, there simply were no damaged mannequins for which to compare the bodies against. Again, everything was turned into cinders, aside from some metal pieces, and the burned teenagers themselves. The only remaining figures ever identified in the vast amount of rubble footage were the creatures that stood sentry at either side of the front entrance, outside the structure, but these certainly could not be confused with human remains."

Popartpete 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popartpete (talk • contribs)

Pete, please sign your talk page edits with four tildes ( ~~~~ ), no more and no less, to create a signature link and a timestamp, thanks. If you have a non-standard or defective keyboard you can click on the four tildes illustrated below the edit summary box next to the words Sign your posts on talk pages.

The uncited statements have been deleted, so you're beating a dead horse. Good luck with the book. --CliffC (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Misleading article? Needs to be rewritten and renamed

This article is about a fire that happened at haunted house ride at a theme park. The article should be renamed accordingly. This ride is not notable, there are hundreds of such around the world is Wikipedia expected to document every single one? Of course not, this article is written from completely the wrong perspective. It is even noted in the lede. One line to say this a a ride, then the another six describing the fire, deaths and subsequent law case! I suggest this article be rewritten to be about the fire/and renamed as such. Anything to do with the ride is just ancillary stuff that is only notable because of what happened.31.52.210.43 (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You make an interesting point. The article (which seems rather well sourced, fwiw) is primarily about the fire and its aftermath, not the ride itself. A simple move (i.e., new title) and some minor adjustments to the lede would take care of that, I think. Let's see what others think. Do you have a proposed new title? Rivertorch (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure). 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.popartpete.com/page12.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715104518/http://www.popartpete.com/hc14.jpg to http://www.popartpete.com/hc14.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110726081341/http://www.popartpete.com/doorwaygood2(2).jpg to http://www.popartpete.com/doorwaygood2(2).jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715103551/http://popartpete.com/2004article1.jpg to http://popartpete.com/2004article1.jpg

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715103551/http://popartpete.com/2004article1.jpg to http://popartpete.com/2004article1.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)