Talk:Poltergeist curse

This page was proposed for deletion by Fllmtlchcb (talk · contribs) on 6 June 2008 with the comment:
An article of this nature cannot be attributed to reliable sources.
It was contested by RMHED (talk · contribs) on 2008-06-10 with the comment:
Try an AfD instead

Untitled[edit]

Dominique Dunne's boyfriend John Sweeney testified under oath at his own trial that he carried out the attack that killed her. He served 6 years in prison. Alleged hardly seems necessary. And the idea that movies somehow have "curses" attached to them doesn't quite seem encyclopedic to me, but then what do I know. Someone else 06:55 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

It was important enough to pop culture to have a documentary film AND a documentary T.V. special made about the topic; surely it's important enough to be here. -EB-

"life span"[edit]

life spans are averages, if one person lives to 90 and another to 50, they both contribute to an average of 70. the only real notable deaths are of the young actors, as it is certainly not common to die of blood poisoning or murder.

And your point is...? Sign your posts. --Canonblack 13:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His point is that its ridiculous to put in the death of a 91 year old person (20 years above average?) as part of the curse. Makes no sense to be in here--Lamrock 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that we should delete details of the supposed curse as it suits us? That makes no sense. If the article belongs here (and I have doubts about that) then all the details of the supposed curse belong here as well. You can't pick and choose. If a thing is covered in this encyclopedia, it should be covered fully, not just with the details that you personally agree with. [EDIT] And who is "91"? These four are the only deaths legitimately associated with the supposed curse, and the oldest was 60. Where are either of you getting "91"?? 71.204.204.249 15:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather O'Rourke[edit]

Influenza? I thought she died of a bowel obstructiion? 24.211.249.43 02:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was initially misdiagnosed with acute flu because her Crohn's disease had been in remission. It was later found to be a bowel obstruction that required surgery, but toxins had already leaked into her bloodstream. 71.204.204.249 15:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um? What?[edit]

"five of the cast members from these movies died." That's a curse? Not just a curse, but an ENCYCLOPEDIC curse? As I understand it, all human beings eventually die. I believe there are old films with no actors in them still alive today. Not too exciting is it?69.95.39.34 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with you. Particularly looking at Brian Gibson, he shouldn't even be listed. I mean, yes he was below the life expectancy age, but 2004? That's 22 years after the original film was released. I guess once everyone dies it can be linked to a "curse". I see everyone from the Laurel & Hardy series has passed away, perhaps that is cursed too! Evlekis 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post this. The first 4 I somewhat understand, since they either died young and/or around the time the flim came out. However, Brian Gibson lived to 59 years old, and to 2004. Eventually they're all gonna die. Are we gonna be adding each person that had anything to do with this flim to the list when they die? I'm gonna be WP:BOLD and just remove it now. If someone wants to revert it, thats fine, but please be nice enough to reply here with a reason why Gibson's death has anything to do with the supposed curse. Rawboard 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These four (Dunne, O'Rourke, Beck and Sampson) are the only deaths "legitimately" (I use the word advisedly) associated with the curse. Any other cast members who happen to pass away and are added here by the entirely too credulous curse fans should be immediately removed. The death "portion" of the curse concerns those who died in chronological proximity to the films' production and initial release, not to anyone associated with the films who eventually dies. That kind of anti-logic is what keeps New Age charlatans in business. 71.204.204.249 15:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(i think it is just bad luck for ther i not such a thing as a curse) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.207.51 (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Death is a natural way of life. Whether you die old or die young. People of all ages die everyday and its true that just because all these people who had part of this trilogy died at some point doesn't really necessitate being called a curse. However, the way that our society is, it brings a sense of the unknown into play when one calls it a curse. I like the idea of it being called a curse even though that all of the deaths are a mere coincidence. And as folklore has it, just because a person dies many years after a supposed curse takes place doesn't mean that their death isn't affected by said curse. -Rylan Sato216.183.186.16 (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Simi Valley house was damaged in the 1994 Northridge Quake -- were there any houses in Simi Valley that weren't? Hardly evidence of a curse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.24.101 (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Poltegeist LD.jpg[edit]

Image:Poltegeist LD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Deletion[edit]

The only references for this article are articles saying when various people died. There's no outside research that proposes a curse, or anything that supports any other statements made in this article. I proposed that this article be deleted because it in unencyclopedic in nature. If anyone objects, clean up the article and remove the tag. Fllmtlchcb (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The supernatural and curses are entirely SUBjective. No one ever believes UNLESS it happens to them directly. Take the instance of the woman's death, entirely subjective to her. If the director had not seen her "jolt" would he have believed it? It's easy for someone who has not ever nor up to this point experienced the supernatural to disbelieve. Take for instance Penn Gillette. No one affected by the supernatural can ever convince someone not affected. In this case, we must accept the word of the affected. Wikipedia is an information source, not a court of law. All information relevant must be allowed to exist per Article 1, US Constitution under free speech. If anyone chooses NOT to believe, that is their right, also under Article 1. Censorship, no matter how well intended, should never be tolerated. Censorship leads to book burning, and we all know what happened to Germany under Hitler because we do have free speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech, nor a place to debate the paranormal. I fully believe the paranormal, but this article is just speculation and it doesn't cite sources. If you want a forum on which you can voice any opinion you wish, Wikipedia isn't the place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where notable articles with verified sources are contained. This article is netier. Find some sources that support the idea behind the article, cite them, rephrase the speculation to be stated as fact, and the article would be great. Until then, the article shouldn't be included on here. Fllmtlchcb (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]