Talk:Waverly Hills Sanatorium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sansontm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Images

An interesting article. Any chance of some more images? -- Longhair 10:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot of images from 2003 at my web-site, http://www.abandonedonline.com under Hospitals > Waverly Hills Seicer 04:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you have copyrighted images, you'll need to let us know what [[Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#.22Any-purpose.22_copyright rights] we can publish them under. There are some great photos there, though! --Mike Straw 10:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a good image on the Spooked dvd of the hospital with dozens of orbs around it. If I got that image would it infringe on any copyrights? If not I could upload it. Dr.-B 00:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It just doesn't add up...

"Estimates vary wildly of how many died at Waverly, though some say that it was around 63,000. However, there is no documentation to prove that. There is, however, documentation to prove that the worst year for death at Waverly was 152 people."

Does this make sense to anyone? The hospital had fewer then 70 combined years during which it was opened. If the most that died in a year was 152 (which seems quite low, as it was a TB hospital), then how can we have 63,000 deaths? Michael 04:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

((end year - start year)+ two incase in opend on jan 1 and close on dec 30) * max deaths = max deaths

((1961-1910)+2)*152= 8056

Of course if there was heavy under reporting then I would say the 152 number is just as much in question and should have documentation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.21.16.3 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 16 June, 2006 (UTC).

Then, this should be cited, because it simply doesn't make sense. Michael 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

To further confuse this, I recall from multiple sources that one patient an hour died at the height of the epidemic. 152 certainly doesn't seem feasible when you add that statistic to the equation!

Exactly...With that said, it makes no sense. Michael 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The documentary that was made, though, was horribly inaccurate, so... Michael 04:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• The number of around 63,000 is accurate. The owners have the documentation to prove it. Also, for a while it was taking people from all over. Eventually so many people were coming, that you had to be a member of Jefferson County, KY to be admitted. This number is not so farfetched if you throw out the "152", which I do not personally know the origin of. Indeed the main purpose of the "death tunnel" was to keep the line of hearses away. So many people were dying, several an hour, that they didn't want the patients to look out the window and see all the bodies. The body chute took them to the bottom of the hill to be carried away. Siri 00:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

          "152 deaths" source information

The "152 deaths" quote is from Sunrise/Sunset, an autobiography written by former Assistant Medical Director Dr. J. Frank W. Stewart who worked at Waverly Hills from 1945-1955

Page 98 paragraphs 6 and 7

" I was assigned to the third floor where I had 106 beds, most of them full at all times. We had alot of deaths then, mostly soldiers who were coming back from the war in about 1946 and 1947. They were so far advanced that some of them didn't live more than a week after arriving at Waverly."

" Each doctor was required to try to help keep up with the 17% requirement of autopsies on deaths in order to hold an A classification. The doctors rotated on the coverage for weekends. I remember one weekend when I was on call for the whole hospital; we had 4 deaths. Out of the four, I did three autopsies. We would collect the specimins of all of the organs, observe any abnormalities, dictate the gross findings, and take specimins to be sent to the pathology laboratory for further examination. One of these years, we had 152 deaths, which was the highest in the history of the institution."

(Notice 4 deaths in the weekend, nowhere near 1 per hour)

Keep in mind that the numbers 63,000 and 1 death per hour were "put out" by people or groups trying to capitalize on the "spookiness" of the building, so they may have been biased (the "Awakening" which was a huge party held by Alberhasky, as well as paranormal "researchers" wanting to build a name for themselves). In One similar claim is that it is "known for a fact that 20,000 people died in the first year of the hospital's operation. That year (1926), 5,735 people died in all of Jefferson County (search KY death index) so how could 20,000 of them have been at Waverly? I have entire years worth of death certificates of people who died at Waverly Hills (1911, 1912, 1913, 1928, 1932) which show the death rate to be consitantly in the neighborhood of 100 deaths per year. This is also consistant with some yearly reports that I have acquired. I am currently putting this information online in a "Database" to go with the memorial.

and think about it, if "So many people were dying, several an hour" 1 per hour is: 24 per day 168 per week about 720 per month meaning that with 500-600 beds, each month would be well over a 100% turnover rate? 8760 per year with an average of 5000 per year county wide of all causes? And this is just 1, not the rumored "several" or up to "10" per hour This is just a rediculous exaggeration.

And the owners mean well, I have total respect for the Mattinglys, but most of the information that they have is what was given to them. Unfortunately, some of the people who gave it to them may not have been accurate. I'll gladly discuss this in detail, and share my data with anyone interested. John 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The first time I read the sentence that says ". . . the worst year for death at Waverly was 152 . . .," I thought there was a numeral missing from the figure and that it was supposed to read "1952" instead of "152." The sentence is worded in a way that leads the reader (or at least some readers) to expect that he will be told which year was the worst year for deaths at Waverly Hills. The excerpt from Dr. Stewart's book seems to clear this up, at least to the extent that I now know the reference is to a number of bodies and not a specific year. But it's still a poorly worded sentence. Wrightelz 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What people (who are skeptical of the 63,000 deaths) fail to realise is that there was probably a lot of patients who weren't even known or had any identification. TB was like the black plaque of the 1900's. --Frink14 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done in depth searches of entire years worth of death certificates for Jefferson county and I confirmed the worst year for deaths as being 162 (I believe the 152 in the autobiography was a typo), in fact the overall death statistics for the entire county, all deaths from every cause, would not support the 63000 claims. As for those who say it was under reported or that deaths were hidden to protect the reputation of the facility should look up the struggles of the tuberculosis board to increase funding. If anything, they would have exaggerated true numbers in order to get support for more money. And other hospitals, especially the City hospital, had MUCH higher numbers of death so Waverly was no where near a stage where they would need to hide the truth. The death rate figures, horrific experements and other such stories are nothing more then typical urban legand made up by local kids trying to scare one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.11.146 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

References?

I agree with the earlier comments, and would also say that there is a lot of "people saw," "people say," etc. with no footnotes, no citations at all. (Yes, that 60000 number seemed ridiculous to me, too.) Where do all these reports come in from? This seems like a load of hearsay to me NCartmell 21:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

References are at the bottom under "References". I added to what was pretty much already here, and I just reworded it and clean it up a bit. Some of this info was on the Ghost Hunters investigation episode and the documentary Spooked - and it even says Spooked may not be credible, but that was where the info came from. In regards to the claim of POV violation, All I said the place has potential for paranormal activity since supposedly 60000+ people died there. How is that a POV violation? The 60000 dead is the claim of the current owners and workers at the site, and wouldn't it make sense that if THAT many people died in one place it would be of interest to paranormal investigators? Cyberia23 23:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am doing general cleanup to the article, adding in-text references using the Footnotes citation. I revised the Room 502 subsection by changing all "facts" to assumptions and adding an in-text citation. I will continue to go through as time permits and correct other glaring inaccuracies. Seicer 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected "Specific ghosts" and "The Death Tunnel" sections to conform with the neutrality standards and present a balanced and factual standpoint. Other corrections will be done soon. Seicer 16:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Corrected the remainder of the ghost section to a more neutral stance and removed neutral dispute boxes. Since none of these claims have been validated nor proven in a scientific field, and since the movie/documentary film makers have poor credibility, the article should state all paranormal activity as unresolved and unvalidated - not necessairly false/lie. Seicer 04:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot missing.

There's a lot missing in the wiki about the history of the building. For example, Charles Severs owned the property previous to Alberhasky owning it. Also that at the time of construction of the current main hospital building it was the most advanced hospital of it's kind, and many people flocked to it for that reason. Also there is no mention of the procedures, and therapies that patients were given (not intended to bring up the gruseome experiments, but to list such things as the solarium, the electro-shock therapy)

Also I think it needs to be mentioned about the Negro hospital, which was seperate from the main hospital building.

Further, there is no mention that the current owners, the Mattingly's, have sold off some of the main hospital grounds, including the negro hospital for a subdivision development. Which further resulted in the destruction of the remains of the negro hospital building, and one of the original main roads to the hospital.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.167.7 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 June, 2006 (UTC).

• The Mattingly's never owned that land, so I have heard from their workers, it was all split up in the 70s or earlier, before they owned it. Indeed the Negro hospital was where they are building subdivisions. A lot is missing in the article. Waverly also had one of the first if not the first "tanning beds" in the world. It was indeed the most advanced hospital, and a beautiful hospital. The procedures were top of the line, even though they were gruesome and not many survived some of the more severe ones. I have been to Waverly on several occasions and have conversed with the owners and the workers and have had the opportunity to work at the halloween "haunted house", so please message me with specific questions and I will try to contribute more. Siri 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Much of the land was sold off by Dr. Severs while he was trying to raise funding to restore the building. The Mattingly's own only a small portion of the original land. Other portions became Waverly Park, and Bobby Nichols Golf Course as well as at least 3 other parcels which are privately owned. One is the area where the former "negro hospital" was located (originally the hospital for advanced cases completed in 1912 with a capacity for 50 additional patients). A second area is behind the appartment complex on which stands the "pump house" and the site of the old "steam plant". Also where the youths died of electricution while riding ATVs. A third is behind the golf course.

John 03:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In-Text Links

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that links to WP articles in the text should only be linked once, at the first mention. What I'm specifically thinking about are the two references to electronic voice production, both of which are linked. Shouldn't only the first reference be linked? --Natalie 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally, that's true. However, in long articles, many editors tend to apply this to each section rather than the article as a whole. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk • Work} 21:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

excuse me i was reading this and this is lacking alot of facts that has been proven to many times which kind of puts more evidence on the fact that 63k people died on the fact that at the time TB was horrible and no cure had been created so of course in that one building it is pretty obvious just by using simple common sense that the death toll would be substantially higher then 157 simply because as it is known by anyone with any sort of education when sicknesses are able to go without a cure and there is alot of the virus in one contained area which it was it goes and changes to different stages that's where it comes from when a sickness has time and more the the same virus around it gets worse and it is also a fact that not only the patients died of TB but some of the staff and retained the virus and died because they did not properly prepare when handling it plus you also left out the fact that has been proved and admitted by people who worked there since there was not a cure at the time people had experimental "treatments" done to them which was nothing short of torture, unprofessional, and simply deadly for instance one of the treatments they tried was up and removing around 3 of their ribs randomly to see if it helped which once again common sense comes into play here and of course they died but you cant really blame the doctors who did the experimental treatments because medical advancement was no where near as advanced as it is today and alot of places at that time did stuff like that to see if it worked (which if you research old medical research/experimental treatments you will see that only about 2% of the people they experimented on actually lived and even less was cured from the experiment the ones who lived normally just got worse or had other things form and become wrong with them from it) now on to the time it spent as a sanitarium in the thought that 63k people died there is in its entire history which also includes when it was a sanitarium which as you noted (ignoring the fact that the way you stated it was as if it was a myth which is really ignorant seeing as it is documented when they closed it why they did) they closed it for mistreatment and patient abuse which if you look it up alot of the people when it got closed down also went to prison for some of the things they did to those poor people with mental illnesses which if you actually research it some of the people are still alive today who went to prison over the abuse and in its time as a sanitarium it to held account of alot of deaths from abuse and also yes from suicide mostly as the mentally afflicted patients killed themselves some by their illness alone others by it and the added fact that the abuse made life alot worse for them now as for the story as of the two nurses committing suicide there is in fact no proof for one but there is proof of the woman who hung herself seeing as there is police reports of when she was found (and yes she was pregnant but that is not proven as even a reason why she committed suicide which when they found here she was pregnant but it was early enough that she may of not even known) that she had hung herself from yes the pipe overhead in room 502 now on to the paranormal matter it is wrong to say that it is a myth because none of you know that it is why because your not god and believe me there is alot more people who believe in paranormal activities then not myself as one i have in fact been in there before and when i was younger i spent a night in there and believe me if you spend a night in there you will believe in the paranormal but as for the issue of 63k deaths that does seem like a big number but remember it was stated as around 63k not that many exactly and that is very possible seeing as what happened there the number 157 is a obvious lie tho it is false seeing as T.B. alone at the time killed more per year there then that and i will wrap it up on this note as a doctor myself who lives in Kentucky and spent alot of spare time researching there because i studied at UK and got my PHD then went back about 8 years later to also begin studying psychology i did not follow up and get a PHD on that matter because of my own personal choice to spend time with my wife and kids because you don't live forever thank you for reading this and i hope that you do decide to do some more research then update this correctly thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.19.218 (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC) ~~ I've added a lot of that kind of information in the past as well as detailed discussions about the death rate, experements/proceedures and other exagerated or made up "facts". But it keeps being removed by fans of the hype. I've pretty much given up on this wiki article er becoming and staying accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.11.146 (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous

This article is ridiculous! Full of talk of ghosts and paranormal garbage. A TV show "made contact with the nurse"?! No they didn't! It was staged, that sort of thing has been proved time and time again.

And how can a hospital for a few hundred people result in 1 death an hour?!

Garbage

imagine it like this.....thier is one hospital in the state that has the best care for people in severe car accidents, and all of a sudden thier is a rash of extremly bad car accidents, and people from all over are coming to this one place, and they just arent saveable...thats how it can happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

---

I wouldn't call it garbage simply because a tv show thought it could boost ratings by staging a paranormal meeting. The hospital was originally too small to accomodate the amount of patients that were being brought in. It was later remodeled and made bigger. At the time of avent of Waverly Hills Hospital, TB, or "The White Plague" was overtaking the countryside at an alarming rate. There was no cure, all they could do for treatment was perform a surgical procedure in which most of the ribs, muscles and skin were taken out to allow the lungs contact with fresh air and help them breathe. There were more deaths than survivors of the surgery. No one said that one person died an hour as a result of the TB. Though TB was the killer that claimed most of the victims, surgery among other things killed them as well.

Actually, many people claim it was 1 death per hour. And Thoracoplasty was actually the removal of some ribs and using the chect muscles to perminantly collapse a lung that was too far gone to save see; http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/thoracoplasty John 03:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking at the photos of the place when it was in use. This is not a ghastly place, it looks clean and well designed. PeterM88 (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Just have a look at the owners' homepage, especially at the nasty picutre they show at the top of the page. That's not ridiculous any longer, that's just disgusting, macabre and tasteless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.226.6 (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy

On the Waverly Hills Sanatorium article, it says that it was featured in the MTV show 'Fear', but on the MTV Fear article, it says that this episode took place in British Columbia, Canada. Anybody know which is right?

Waverly. They do this to protect the locations (as if they care). Some scenes are possibly recreated elsewhere, and BC often has cheaper production rates. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Waverly was not on Mtv. However they did talk of doing Waverly if they had another season. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.241.11.113 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Suggestion

Is there any way to separate the "paranormal" information onto a separate page and keep one page focused on historical fact? And what would be an appropriate way to state that many of the legends have been disproved, or at least have strong evidence against them? Would it be appropriate to start individual pages on which each legend could be discussed in detail? For example:

Room 502 ________________________________________ There are so many versions of the stories. It was a nurse who:

(A)She was hanged: - -from the pipe above the door (a1) - -from a light fixture (a2) - -from the rafters (a3) (B)By: -a mental patient (b1) -her own hand Because: --she was pregnant out of wedlock --she had contracted TB --she was depressed from seeing so much death (C)Where she remained for: - 16 - 12 - 8 hours hanging in full view of the patients who were stuck in their rooms and helpless until the nurse's relief showed up at shift change. (c1) (D)In: -the 20's -the 30's -1928 (d1) -1932 (d2) (E)The suicide was covered up. However, an "un-named person" has been shown the autopsy report by descendants of the nurse, and these relatives asked that the info be kept secret(e1) (F)Even specific names "given" have been shown to be false - -Mary Hillenburg (f1)
(---All "legend" info has been compiled from various sources. Pointing out specifics may be taken as "busting out" those spreading the legends, but if needed, I can do so---)

a1) The pipe above the door is part of the sprinkler system that wasn't installed until 1972
(per plans drawn by "Automatic Sprinkler Corporation International" the company out of Cincinnati OH contracted to install them. Found at County Archives on Barrett Ave, call ahead and David will pull the drawings for you. While you're there, look up the 1924 mechanical drawings for the 1st floor North Wing to find proof that the "bleeding room" is ficticious (it's a transformer room) as is the large room in which many people claim was the "autopsy room" which was in reality the refrigeration equipment room) So this couldn't have been used for the hanging. (see the D section)

a2) The light fixture consists of a weak decorative chain that likely wouldn't support the weight of a person.(See photos on waverlyhillstbsanatorium.com, pay close attention to the old ceiling light fixtures
a3) What rafters? (There are none)View photos on waverlyhillstbsanatorium.com to see that the building is of brick and concrete construction, therefore there are no rafters)
(first hand observation)

b1) There were never mental patients on the 5th floor. This is totally false.
(Interviews with former patients and staff - newspaper article from the Courier Journal, photos of children, then later younger adult patients who were closer to going home, exerpts from the Waverly Herald)(at least one photo is on waverlyhillstbsanatorium.com of children playing on a playground on the roof. This photo was provided by my wife and I as we found it in the archives of the American Lung Association in Louisville (on the same land as Hazelwood Sanatorium))

c1) The patients on the 5th floor weren't locked in the rooms. They had freedom to leave their area for exercise on the grounds, meals in the dining room, etc....
(Interviews with former patients and staff - newspaper article from the Courier Journal)(see http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~waverlymemorial/newspapers/waverly_herald/May_June_1955/mayjune_55_page_15.jpg (this page is a scan of page 15 of the May/June issue of the 1955 Waverly Herald which was a newsletter put out for the patients and staff, it was acquired in the University of Louisville Archives in the Ekstrom Library 2nd floor) - I have more, but it'll take time to get it publicly accesable

d) We have gone frame by frame through the microfilms for the years in question and have copies of not only all death certificates which list Waverly Hills as place of death, but also all death certs in which known staff members have signed off as the signing physician, or would for any other reason be suspected to have been at Waverly Hills.) d1) Of the 88 who died in 1928: 2 were nurses only 1 was a confirmed nurse at Waverly both died of pulmonary TB with no contributing factors
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~waverlymemorial/deathcerts/1928/Index.html
d2) Of the 91 who died in 1932: 0 were nurses (Death certificate information Free too look up and verify on microfilm at the main library I'll provide a list of certificate numbers to anyone wishing to do so - contact me)

This whole part of the legend seems to contradict itself. (f1) The KY death index reveals that only two people by the name of "Hillenburg" (including numerous other possible spellings of the name) have died in Kentucky. Both died significantly later than the rumored date, and in fact well after Waverly Hills closed

I can go into each topic in more depth if needed, and I will soon have all of the death certificates mentioned above, as well as hundreds of others online. (about 580 at this time)

Also, I have info on the land from before the hospital was created. Would this be on the same page or another? It was called Waverley Hill at the time. John 02:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting... add it to this article for now. If it gets long enough (which I doubt) we can move it to a new article. --W.marsh 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that none of this new material is referenced, and it also includes some POV. In fact, this article has become rife with unreferenced material. If a lot of this material is not referenced soon, I will be inclined to perform a radical reduction, even if the article becomes a stub in the process. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you need to see as far as referencing? Much of this info isn't available online yet, but I am working on it. It takes time to put hundreds of pages of documentation into a website. And it's way to much to put into this article. But I will gladly send you anything that you want to see. John 18:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do they come from a book, or a newspaper article, or where? Even a website that would compile these things would need to back it all up somehow. A website that simply lists the exact same content, without references, won't make a valid reference here. We have methods for citing things that cannot be found online. If you could make a list of those resources, and what parts of the content they apply to, then we can help you out. It's just that we have (hardening) rules that all content must have a reliable source, and frankly, much of the content in this article isn't going to last long unless references are added in the near future. This isn't a threat, but a reality, as I'm not the only person who cares about this -- anyone could swoop in and clean out this article, and be justified doing that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking more closely I have to agree with Stevie... though information about the property before it became the Sanatorium would be interesting, and sounds like something that could come straight from a book. At any rate, everything in this article needs to come from books, articles and (last choice, in my opinion, due to the difficulty of accessing) television/video documentaries. --W.marsh 18:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely about needing facts instead of just hearsay. This article is already full of legends that have been disproven long ago yet are still widely believed due to the exploitation of people/groups who wish to perpetuate the “hype” in order to maximize their personal gain by selling books, cds, dvds, or even movies. After all, hype sells. I’ll try to show my sources, maybe you can help me list it more appropriately. And if I miss something, please let me know. I have always freely shared my source data. John 19:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC) I’m sorry, maybe I should let everyone know more about me. I first got involved with Waverly in late 2001. I was a volunteer security guard who helped coordinate clean up days, and helped research the history. Before long, I was giving the first Historical tours (as opposed to the legend based “ghost tours”) had obtained vast amounts of documentation, created the first online memorial site to former patients and staff, and was named by the owners as their chief historian. In fall of 2003 I moved away from the Louisville area so I am no longer directly involved at the hospital. But I do still actively research, and still get death certificates and other info all the time. I have been interviewed for several newspaper articles, and was on the documentary on the sci-fi channel. And I have spoken at some length with many of the prominent local historians concerning Waverly, as well as giving the historical societies a tour (by the Mattingly’s request) of the building and showing them “our” knowledge of the historical significance of the site. I am currently working on an online database on which all known info about the people of Waverly will be put out for free access by genealogists and true Waverly Historians. I don’t claim to know everything, but I am very knowledgeable in the subject and very outspoken for getting out the truth versus the legends. So as far as sharing the source info, you have my full cooperation. John 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's all good. Do you have any source info to present right now? We can't leave all that unsourced info in the article for much longer. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I put alot of source info above by editting it in next to each statement. Do I need more? Where am I lacking? John 19:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any specific references beyond the Cincinnati city archives, although that's not even specific enough. Everything you added needs specific, publicly accessible references, so that if a reader sees a reference, they can go look it up themselves for verification. If you cannot back it up with specific references, we'll have to remove the content. But that may also go for other content you had objected to. I'm on the verge of slapping this article back down to a stub and saying "Start over!". I don't want to do that, but I think I'll have to. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

still need more? John I'm trying with all my might, but it can be hard to narrow down 6 years of research and thousands of pages of data into a few lines. BTW, I added the info about before the hospital.

I also removed the above debated material from the article until an agreement can be reached. But I can't help but feel that the historical value of this site is being buried beneath mountains of unfounded "paranormal" claims which seem to be accepted at face value without argument while factual information that refutes it gets challenged relentlessly. If something is going to be censored at all, it should be the fiction that makes up the bulk of this article. I’m not getting defensive or nasty. I have no qualms with going through my facts at great depth with anyone who is interested in the truth. I’m just asking that that this be remembered later on, and that info be questioned from the beginning rather than it seeming to be biased toward whatever was posted first. John 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed updates to your references yet, but I think I have an easy stop-gap solution--it's basically what I said before: We can remove *all* unreferenced material from the article. Then, slowly, content can be added back with appropriate specific references. Sound good? It will pretty much guarantee us that the article is sound at all times. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd hate for it to take such a drastic step, but maybe it's the only way. Waverly Hills is a very important piece of Louisville's history and it deserves better than to be slandered by such unfounded, and in most cases, ridiculous tales that unfortunately help to boost the reputations or even incomes of people at the expense of the truth. Waverly Hills was a huge impact on the people of the area. In fact, most people who have had family in the Louisville area for several generations can trace back their family tree to at least one relative who was touched by Waverly in some way, be it as a patient, staff member, or even someone who's choir sang carols for the patients. Not to mention the fact that in a community which prides itself on being on the cutting edge of medical science, with the first AbioCor artificial heart implant, and the first hand transplant as only a few examples of the groundbreaking achievements to be heralded, Waverly Hills is a monument to the fact that Louisville has held that title for almost a century. This hospital was the cutting edge in it's day. And finally, the staff members lived on the grounds to help prevent the spread of such a horrible disease since they were knowingly being exposed to it every day while they toiled to save others. They were/are heroes and deserve to be respected as such. I did add more detail to the source info for the pre-hospital info that I posted. I also finished adding the 1928 death certificate info that I have to the database. Check out http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~waverlymemorial/deathcerts/1928/Index.html for an idea of what I'm doing. John 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Also, what photos are needed? I have hundreds both new and old.

Missing paranormal Activities!

I would like to bring something up here. Though many of the 'main' Paranormal activities have been addressed previously, there are many that haven't been mentioned. Including the cafeteria hauntings. Could I research those hauntings and add them into the article, possibly? HagaRen016 18:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)HagaRen016

You can't do original research, (i.e. add research you've conducted yourself). See Wikipedia:No original research. It must be something that can be referenced from something that was published, either as a book or video documentary. You can reference websites but only those that are accepted as credible by most in the field. Fly-by-night ghosthunting sites might not be deemed credible. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for proper guidelines. So unless you're an established researcher with published works under your belt and are accepted by the paranormal mainstream, you can't add anything you field-researched yourself. Cyberia23 01:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way - I doubt half the stuff written for this article is legit even if it was published in some manner - however because it was published it can be added to this article as long as it carries a reference back to whatever gave the information. Regardless, it doesn't mean that the information is accurate or legitimate since a lot of ghosthunting videos done for Waverly Hills are 90% BS (whether by their own doing or the exaggeration of witnesses) - but thats just my opinion. However it can be used here since a referenced source made the claim. Cyberia23 01:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mary Hillenburg

I understand that there is no citation for the Mary Hillenburg murder, or the possibility of a botched abortion, but is it not strange that director of the LIFE Pregnancy Care Center of Cabarrus is named Mary Hillenburg? [[1]]--RedKnight 19:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I think we can all agree that since this field of research doesn't get as much serious attention as other things, it fosters the opportunity for things like inaccuracies, misreportings, and lies to be told. But that doesn't give anyone a good enough reason to condemn everything on this topic, or the whole field of paranormal investigation.

One thing I have found while researching these things is that there are nutcases on both sides of the argument that whether on purpose or not are destroying the field of valid and scientific research. The people who concoct lies and hoaxes are one thing. Plus the hardline skeptics who might I add are some of the most ignorant, close minded, and irrational people I have ever dealt with. It is this kind of people that wikipedia seems to have crawling out of the woodwork, slaping our pages with massive edits and the ever present clean-up boxes.

I bet this person thinks those who believe in such "drivel" as paranormal research are completly uneducated nitwits who have no motivation in life except to promote the spread of nonsencical fairy tales. I'd bet anything that this person thinks we are irrational...

"This article is ridiculous! Full of talk of ghosts and paranormal garbage. A TV show "made contact with the nurse"?! No they didn't! It was staged, that sort of thing has been proved time and time again. And how can a hospital for a few hundred people result in 1 death an hour?! Garbage"

Ignorance is bliss isn't it? --The-outlaw-torn 18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is well known that most "paranormal" events on shows like the one mentioned are staged. I have even heard of several active Waverly Hills guides and guards pointing out what was staged. To be honest, even if there IS paranormal activity, there's no way to get it to happen on cue. And if they were able to get such incredible “proof” in one night of shooting with inexperienced “researchers” conducting the experiments, than obviously the paranormal could be easily proven at Waverly with a trained team. But it hasn’t happened yet. As far as the 1 death per hour, this is nothing more than a ridiculous exaggeration that was first mentioned (to my knowledge) in the fliers for the “Awakening at Waverly” party that Alberhasky used to line his pockets. And perpetuation of it by any so called investigators is irresponsible at best. It has been reasonably shown that the worst year for deaths in the history of the sanatorium was 152 in a single year. At the rate of 1 death per hour, that means people would have died for 6.3 days in the year in question with no other deaths for the rest of the year. If, on the other hand, the 152 deaths is wrong, than we are to believe that in one year, as many as 8760 people died at the hospital. No wonder there’s no records. At that rate, every 2 weeks or so there would be an entirely new list of patients (and some staff) due to everyone being dead. As a proponent of legitimate scientific research into the paranormal, surely you would agree that legends MUST be researched for their accuracy before supporting them as fact. Failing to do so pretty much negates any other “findings” as unsound. Which may be acceptable for a tv show or even a horror movie which are intended to be entertainment, but cannot seriously be taken as fact.

Waverly vs. Waverley

Did anyone notice that the "Waverly novels" link no longer works now that the extra E was removed? It was spelled Waverley in the novels and was therefore spelled that way when the school and land were named after the books. I have several items that prove the spelling at one time included the extra e. The extra letter was used, dropped, and reused many times. At some times the spelling depended on who was writing it. Please pay attention to things like links when "fixing" something.

Here we go again. Please, in the future, accept someone's invitation to join in a discussion to help come up with a solution instead of just changing the text without any reguard to what may be valid. It's condescending and insulting. It's simple, Waverley hill was named after the Waverley novels. The fact that the link no longer works after you "fix it" should be your first clue. Try looking up the novels by Walter Scott. Now it makes since to say that the school teacher that chose the name would most likely have been able to spell the names of the book she was so fond of. There are death certificates, postcards, newspaper articles that all use the spelling WAVERLEY. It wasn't until years later that the name fluctuated between Waverley and Waverly and it finally settled as Waverly. Thus I wouldn't need to change every reference to the name. But spelling the name as it was spelled when the name was established is accurate and valid to include in the article. In fact, changing the spelling to where it doesn't even work as a link to the original books seems more like “vandalism” than my “fixing” other peoples "fixes". John 03:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So now we are accepting misspellings as factual evidence that Waverly Hills was spelled "Waverley"? Notable evidence from a large variety of sources, including map and dated materials, conclude that Waverly is the appropriate. Let's introduce reliable sources, not handwritten misspellings. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In referencing #3 -- "Miss Harris loved her tiny school nestling against the hillside, and remembered her fondness for Walter Scott's Waverley novels, so she named her little school house "Waverley School"

Where, in the article from the Waverly Herald at paragraph 9 line 4, does it state Waverley School? I see "Waverly"...

In referencing #4 -- "Major Hays liked the peaceful sounding name, so he named his property "Waverley Hill"

I also do not see this reference. Please correct with appropriate citations if you are going to make these claims. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll find some of the other things that I have with the spelling. But you can't say that I'm not doing everything within reason to work with you with you on this. The origin of the name was the books that are clearly spelled with the extra e. Any "misspellings" would have been made by the first people who excluded the letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamky (talk • contribs)

Cite? Any unreferenced materials or a misintepertation of the articles will be removed or tagged as such. Also of note, handwritten misspellings (per "source") is not considered reliable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your other citation for this misspelling seems to be a blurry postcard, where I can't even make out the letters. Neverthelelss, I will open up a request for comments case so you can make your point. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Waverly spelling

This is a dispute about the Waverly spelling. 18:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The spelling of Waverly Hills may have been Waverley Hills per another editor. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• The original citations for the Waverley Hills spelling originated from numerous documents with specific paragraph and line references. Upon checking the sources, no mention of the Waverley spelling was found. The editor also attempted to conclude that Waverley was a former spelling judged from a handwritten note, however, it fails policy. Now, appearantly running out of ideas, the editor is calling upon a source from a postcard that is blurry and unreadable. To be blunt, the editor is introducing unreferenced material and is mischaracterizing the sources for this invalid claim. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The handwritten note was actually an official Death Certificate written and signed by the medical director Dunning S Wilson. Not, as mr Seicer makes it out to be, a hand written note. If more than one helps, I have many of them. And yes, the photo of the postcard is blurry as it was taken through the display case glass. But it is still easy to see that there is an extra letter. This could easily be verified by any of the many people who claim to go to the sanatorium on a regular bases. Oh yeah, he failed to mention THE BOOKS THAT THE LAND WAS NAMED AFTER!!! And running out of ideas? I'll bury you in proof once I have time to sort through everything. With thousands of newspaper articles, well over 600 death certificates, and piles of other data it may take some time for these extra sources that prove that the name fluctuated back and forth and was commonly spelled both ways. This however doesn't negate the fact that the source of the name was books that are clearly spelled Waverley. The school, the land, and later the sanatorium were all named after the Walter Scott Waverley novels. so the mention of the origens of the name as well as the spelling that goes with it is in fact VALID. Why would one start an official debate and yet blatantly ignore that fact which has been mentioned time and again by the "editor"? John 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The misspelling was handwritten and could have been an error. There has been no concrete evidence that has been reliable to state otherwise. Also of note, the citations you 'provided' earlier were false claims -- no such misspellings were found in any of the citations, hence why I marked each instance with a reliable sources tag. Now, if you want to go ahead and cite, please go ahead and do so but a blurry postcard and a potential misspelling does not make for a reliable source. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of the 24 confirmed Death certificates from 1911 alone, 11 of them have Waverley (with the e) in them. Just short of half isn't just a fluke misspelling. And the spelling with the e was on one of the certificates that I posted. I posted copies of it spelled both ways. But to be honest, I don't understand why we are going this far anyway. It's not like I am saying that the additional e should be in every instance of the name. I am only stating that the school, land, and later hospital were named after the Waverley novels, and that changing the spelling in that sentence breaks the link that I made to the books in question. How is leaving the original spelling intact in the sentence concerning the origins of the name asking too much? I tried to make it clear that the spelling changed, but was spelled both ways by different people, and at different times. The spelling variances are valid information that may be useful to someone who may at some time do a search on Waverly and come up with Waverley and not know why. It seems to me that the main difference between your point of view and mine is that I look for additional knowledge and try to share it, while you seem to be more about censoring others and controlling what others should and shouldn't know.John 05:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Here is a list of all known certificates from 1911 in case anyone wants to check. http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~waverlymemorial/deathcerts/1911/Stats.html

There, I added the larger more clear photo of the postcard which was sold at Waverly and mailed out from Waverly. Does this help?

Also added is the cover (front and back) of an endowment booklet all about Waverley. This booklet was found at the Louisville American Lung Association and was the source of the well know photo of children playing on the roof that everyone is so fond of posting on their sites. Let me know when we have enough, until then I will slowly add more as I find it. John 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That suffices. I hope you can understand why a handwritten spelling (as was on one source) can be considered unreliable and why other sources were needed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the need for proof, In fact, this article is in desperate need of it, however I did try to explain to you that the death cert was only 1 piece of many and that given a little time I would provide plenty more. I also invited you several times to discuss the topic, which it seemed you were unwilling to do. It's just kind of bothersome that even though I have provided source data for my posts several times in the past, I still get challenged at the drop of a hat while un-sourced fiction like the 63,000 deaths and nurse hanging in 502 are accepted without question, and are allowed to remain on the article unmolested. Please don't think I'm singling you out on this, I have discussed it with others.

I truly do have thousands of pieces of data about Waverly, both hard copies and digital. I have about 12 CDs of stored digital info alone, hundreds of files stored on my hard drive, and literally piles of paperwork, mechanical drawings, etc. So sometimes it can take a few days to find proof for something that is challenged, but I will provide it as soon as I can. Please keep this in mind if we have any future disagreements. Feel free to question the info, be it in the discussion, e-mail, or however you wish, and I will dig out whatever you need to see. But please assume good faith with me as I am all about the truth reguarding Waverly as I have the utmost respect for the history of the location and what the Mattinglys are trying to do to save the building. Thanks John 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please indent your posts in the future, it makes it easier to attribute and reply to.

I have discussed the topic. Your original edit summary towards me, that there was a discussion on the naming convention, was incorrect as no discussion was initiated until after the said revert. To garner more comments (outside especially), I opened a request for comments, so your comments about me not discussing the situation has been refuted. In the future, please stick with the topic at hand, the renamings, instead of blasting comments directed towards me.

As for the "63,000 deaths" or the nurse hangings, I'm pretty sure I removed those since they cannot be proved, are speculative, or are based on folk-lore. I'll go through the article and do further cleanup if ncessary.

I am assuming good faith here, and you are a valuable contributor. Note, I'm the one who welcomed your edits at first, and I'm not disputing the renamings, but judging them initially on an invalid citation (the paragraph and line references) and the handwritten part was what irked me. Now that it has been settled with valid sources, I have no problem with including it in. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I looked at the USGS GNIS which is the definitive source of official names for the United States and it is only listed as "Waverly Hills Sanatorium" here. Note that the GNIS will list alternate names if known and does not in this case (though they are known to omit things on occasion). So it seems clear the official modern name is Waverly and the Waverley spelling is not listed as an official variant. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 04:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Does that only extend back to 1976? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just for clarification -- John and myself have come to an agreement on the citations. There is credible and enough evidence to support a renaming of Waverly to its alternate spelling -- and all issues with incorrect sources, unreliable sources, etc. have been solved. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Room 502

Of course, I have no sources to back this up, which is a shame and a lot of it's OR, sadly, but.. I've heard bits and pieces around town (Being a Louisville resident) that the 502 room is... get ready for a shock... a complete fabrication started when a local band (I think it was Incursion 502) scrawled messages about "Beware the 502" on the walls in and around room 502. Example of graffiti.. now, the local area code for Louisville and the surrounding area is.. 502. So the name Incursion 502 is a reference to invading the area code and the like. Even if I'm wrong about the particular band, beware the 502 makes a lot more sense as an area code, not a room number. That, and the whole story of the young unmarried pregnant nurse hanging herself in that particular room is something that evolved from.. I think.. a nurse on the fourth floor who hung herself at her own home, or something equally unrelated that evolved into "She did it right here on the 5th floor! OooOOOOO!!!!" ... I do love crap like in the article I linked, though.. "Patients who were mentally ill and suffered from TB were housed on the fifth floor.".... There's two large common rooms and a bathroom on the fifth floor, and roof access. So unless they were housing them on the roof.... Secondtalon 15:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that.. it's pretty clear looking at the picture of the place that there's no way patients were actually housed on the 5th floor. Visited it, sure.. but housed? No way. Secondtalon 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually patients were housed on the 5th floor in the 2 open wards.

When Waverly first opened, the 5th floor housed small children as seen in the photo on http://waverlyhillstbsanatorium.com/ Home page collage bottom right. And later housed patients closer to going home as seen on the same site in the "Time Travel" page.

According to this page, the 5th floor was for..

• The 5th floor was reserved for the heliotherapy department, where those suffering from TB of the bone were treated with sunlight. (1926)
• Access to elevator maintenance was in what is now known as the "Belltower".
• Children had a roof top swing set.
• One nurses station
• One kitchenette

Nothing at all about housing people up there, unless they were keeping them up there after the heliotherapy was over. Which is possible, I suppose. 69.64.10.249 16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a partial list of the rooms. And patients were housed in such a way as to get the most fresh air and sunlight.Look at the photos I mentioned before, the one on the "Time Travel" page shows a patient sitting in her bed on the 5th floor. I also have newspaper articles discussing the patients housed on the 5th floor but I'll have to dig them out and het them online.

I also have a page from the Waverly Herald that lists some of the patients on the 5th floor, the page is online at http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~waverlymemorial/newspapers/waverly_herald/May_June_1955/Images/15.html .John

502 Hoax? Yes there is no records of any room 502 nurse that hung herself or a baby myth. Until someone shows records as proof, then it's just a hoax to bring in people to see the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawgwar (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Draining room

Are you kidding me? This is the most transparently false of all of the Waverly Hills legends. It should be included so others can see that it is totally fictitious. This legend has been floating around for FAR too long. However it needs to be rewritten as such. I don't think there is the slightest need for impartiality on something this ridiculous. John 15:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Death Rate Revisited

I have some info I would like to submit to refute the legendary death toll. I have studied the real history of Waverly Hills extensively and have a lot of data. Now what I have does not give us exact number yet, but it does show that the 63,000 is a huge exaggeration and that the real number will likely be 10% of the legend if not less!

As far as the data.

1st - from excerpts from the following autobiography written by a former assistant medical director who worked at Waverly Hills from 1945 to 1955:

Sunrise Sunset Dr. J. Frank W. Stewart Chapter 22 Page 98 6th and 7th paragraphs

" I was assigned to the third floor where I had 106 beds, most of them full at all times. We had alot of deaths then, mostly soldiers who were coming back from the war in about 1946 and 1947. They were so far advanced that some of them didn't live more than a week after arriving at Waverly."

" Each doctor was required to try to help keep up with *the 17% requirement of autopsies on deaths in order to hold an A classification. The doctors rotated on the coverage for weekends. I remember one weekend when I was on call for the whole hospital; we had 4 deaths. Out of the four, I did three autopsies. We would collect the specimins of all of the organs, observe any abnormalities, dictate the gross findings, and take specimins to be sent to the pathology laboratory for further examination. One of these years, we had 152 deaths, which was the highest in the history of the institution."

Now with only this one fact you can see that the legend is imposable. If every year that Waverly was opened they had 151 deaths (one less than the worst year) than 7,701 would be the total over the 51 years of operation. This however is still obviously high.

2nd - We have gone through microfilms of death certificates collecting all Waverly Hills death certificates and compiling the data getting cross sections of actual figures. Here is some of this data:

"1911 - 30 deaths 1912 - 113 deaths 1913 - 111 deaths 1914 - 116 deaths 1928 - 88 deaths 1932 - 91 deaths"

This data shows the average death rate to be 91.5 deaths per year

3rd - From a report written by Dr Dunning S. Wilson (Medical director 1910-1917) The report was written in 1915

"From: 26 July 1910 to 1 Sept 1914 322 Died

From: 31 Aug 1914 to 1 Jan 1915 43 Died

1 Jan 1915 to 1 Jan 1916 146 Died"

For the first 5.4 years, there were 511 deaths-- which works out to be about 94 deaths per year

This confirms the above findings and in fact, when the certs are divided by these dates the numbers do match.

4th - From the 1954/55 fiscal report

Waverly Hills Sanatorium Fiscal Year 1954-1955

"Patients carried over from previous year 362 Admissions 365 Total patients given service 727 Patients discharged 360 Discharged alive 318 Died - - within 24 hours *2

• - - others *40
• Patients in Sanatorium June 30 367"

So the total number of deaths at this time was 42. This shows that again the numbers were substantially lower than the legends. It also shows that in 1955 when Dr Stewart left Waverly Hills, the death rate was on a steep decline which backs up his number as being the largest number of deaths in the history of the institution. All things considered, I believe that an estimate of 100 deaths per year (or 5,100) would be very reasonable, so my estimates of 6,000 would likely be somewhat high, but still much more realistic than the legends. BTW - The first known death at Waverly Hills was on - Aug 29 1911 - (1 year 1 month and 3 days after opening) which is backed up by statements from the 1915 report which shows that the original sanatorium was for cases in the early stages only. This also shows that with a whole year+ with no deaths, the overall total would reduce even more. Of course I can get much more specific with the death certificate data, but I was just keeping to the facts. Just let me know if you need anything more. John 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I know this may be early but I would suggest that we make a separate page (or at least a well marked section on this page for dis proven legends. I don't think that a few easily overlooked words like "allegedly" or "legends say" make it clear enough to the casual reader that these legends are not true and not being presented as such. And because of this, I don't think we are being fair to the people who were AT Waverly or their descendants. I can't help but feel that the page should be for historically accurate information about the hospital. Hauntings and legends which have no factual backing should be either listed elsewhere or very clearly labeled as such.John 17:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hotel

I seen a news clip about the Sanatrium being turned into a hotel. I don't have any article's and I don't want to add it because of that. However, I think it should be mentioned that it is now being turned into a 5 star hotel.--Navy blue84 (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

2011 It's still a plan for the current owners. There still years away from making it happen. Right now it's used and funded by historic tours/ghost tours and as a halloween haunted house.

Sources

Claims of patient abuse, widespread insanity, suffering, gore, fabulously inflated death figures, etc. need to be sourced per WP:RS to reliable independent and trustworthy sources. Books, TV shows, and "researchers" promoting the idea that the place is haunted are not considered independent or reliable. And the "death tunnel" legend only merits mention once rather than WP:UNDUE emphasis two or three times in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Chop this article down only to content that's reliably sourced

I think this article has gone on long enough with its unreferenced, primary-sourced, self-published-source material. I propose that all the problematic content be removed and we pretty much start over. Any objections? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Waverly Hills Sanatorium/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I adopted the B rating based on the preexisting B rating from another project. It's set to attention because of a Cleanup tag on the article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC) The article also needs several citations; thus another reason for the attention setting. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC) I downgraded the article to 'Start' because of its messiness and overwhelming lack of references. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

TNT

Due to unsourced and poorly sourced material, I went ahead and blew up parts of this article. This was long overdue as the article had become an embarrassment. It has been given too many chances for the content to improve, and it hasn't, so a partial start-over is necessary. If any material is added back, it needs to be backed up by reliable secondary sources. Also, any content I didn't TNT could still use some additional sources. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)