Talk:White Lady

29 July 2014

About the White lady phenomenon, why is there no mentioning of the pontianak, a famous woman in white in malaysia and indonesia. of course, the clothes of this vampiric creature would be covered in blood, but she could be considered a Lm173.2.109.191 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Z

Copyedit

There is a Lady in White at south Chicago land's Bachlor's Grove. Supposedly named Dora Numan. It's one of the most hunted cemeteries in America. This should be mentioned in this article. There are many urban legends surrounding her. Many of the kids who go there leave presents for the lady of the grove.

Needs major expansion

Currently, this article is simply a list of White Lady legends found in various countries. A list would be a perfectly legitimate section of this article, but shouldn't constitute the entire thing. In addition, the list should either be much more comprehensive (for example, I know there are many more White Lady legends in the United States--it's a big country) or far more focused on examples which illustrate specific variations.

Sections to be added could include one on common characteristics, one on thematic similarities, and perhaps one on instances of the White Lady in popular culture (the Portugese video would go in that section, since it's not a real legend). Surely there is some kind folklorist out there who will flesh out this article. :) IrisWings 07:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: The portuguese video.

I have seen that video. It was a clear fake. So many telltale signs that the video was staged, yet so many people still refused to dismiss it as fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.166.151 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: The German section. The story about "Kunigunda of Slavonia" isn't referenced, and doesn't seem to exist anywhere else except in this article. Plus it's hardly written in an appropriate style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.105.167.150 (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

This article makes it sound like ghosts are real and the stories are verified. Needs POV-cleanup. Fred26 (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited the Introduction section to attempt to change the flavor of the article, to attempt to remove the POV tag. Do you think we can now? Groupsisxty (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing the tag, I rewrote the intro section to lend a more NPOV to the article. Groupsisxty (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Cross-reference with La Llorona

Shouldn't this article be cross-referenced with the La_Llorona article? They seem like very similar myths... 207.151.236.44 (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

hi

hi haw are you , do you steel di — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.205.36.0 (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on White Lady (ghost). 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/20110714185658/http://www.njhm.com/metedeconk.htm to http://www.njhm.com/metedeconk.htm

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} 14:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Mulher de Branco

A simple google search shows that the term is branco, not blanco. I'm not good with adding refs or RS though, can someone see if there's a decent source to add? Should that entire sentence be removed? Hy Brasil (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Hy Brasil (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed, with no prejudice against subsequent move of this article to White lady if there is consensus to downcase the term in the article body. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

---

• White Lady (ghost) → White Lady
• White Lady → White Lady (disambiguation)

– The ghost is primary topic by pageviews and longterm significance. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Overwhelming WP:primary topic based on pageviews. - Station1 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, but move to White lady. No need for capitalisation for a generic term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support no capitalization version. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • A white lady is something completely different. Most sources that use the term capitalize or use quotation marks or both. Station1 (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    • That's irrelevant, given our house style is not to capitalise generic terms. Of course it is capitalised when referring to specific white ladies, when it would be a proper name, but this article doesn't refer to specific white ladies but to the concept of white ladies in general. WP:CAPITALIZATION. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits to Germany section

@Bockpeterteuto. I understand you are very concerned that I changed the content you recently added to this section. Being a brand new user, you are completely unfamiliar with many of our policies, plus you have moderate to severe writing and comprehension problems with English grammar. This is not meant to make you feel bad, it is simply stating the conditions influencing your contributions to en.wikipedia and the subsequent edits I made to them. And you are correct in observing that there are other, probably worse grammatical and textual errors on the page. But we can't use old errors as a reason for adding new errors. (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).

Also be assured, it's nothing personal. I have a large watchlist and don't always have time to look at everything. But that day your changes showed up on my watch list I had some time to review them, so I edited accordingly.

Let's look at what you added and how I modified it, by using what's called a "diff" (i.e. the difference between one version and another) [1]. For example, you have a link to House of Hohenzollern, so there's no need to explain that this family would later become kings of Prussia because people can go to the link to find out more detail. The topic of the article is about White lady legends. But you added so many irrelevant details the important ones became lost. If she was unhappy because she murdered her two children, died in a monastery, and was said to it haunt it — a summary of that is really all we need to say. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so the style of writing is not crafted to be dramatic, entertaining, or (intentionally) fun to read. For example, we don't take the reader aside (figuratively) to give them a preview of the information. So we don't write things like "This is a story of jealousy, hatred and murder" The relevant guidelines are WP:TONE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I also rewrote your additions to better conform to WP:FRINGE, which requires us to deprecate superstitious and paranormal concepts, and WP:UNDUE, which restricts how much emphasis we can give such concepts. So, for example, unless there is WP:EXTRAORDINARY coverage of claims of "strange phenomena like inexplainable failing of technical instruments are experienced around the ruins" and claims like "people say, that the next day the worker, who tore down the wall, had a severe deadly accident", we wouldn't include them.

The above are just examples. I'm not going to review sentence-by-sentence, but if you have specific questions, or there is a specific change you want to make to correct a factual error or improve the text, let me know here, and I'll do my best to address them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello LuckyLouie, thank you for answering so very quickly, I will think about some aspects, but please have a look at the history of the german section. Then you will see, that the paragraph about Haus Aussel and the Kings of Prussia preexisted and that I just have just tried to modificate those texts and source them. I considered to delete the text about Aussel completely and rewrite it, because I thought this english to be terrible and full of gruesome germanisms. The same concerning the Kings of Prussia. This was contentually wrong and for me it was too short and the english was not quite good and sources were lacking. And that made me to start editing it. I tried to avoid an editwar and I also tried not to injure my predecessors in writing and so I tried to be very careful doing my corrections. Things I would not like to experience I try to avoid to do them to others. And maybe you can imagine, how difficult it is, to correct a text in bad english, even if you are not a native speaker!?. Erasing and rewriting is the best, but I tried to be not too impolite. I also thought about throwing out the sentence with the deadly injured worker, because I found no source to cite. Düsseldorf, Friedland, Lahneck and Uhlberg are of my origin. - So there are some details, that can be left out, but some other details are essential; but I have to think about how to deal with that. Yrs.Bockpeterteuto (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, sorry I am having trouble understanding precisely what text about Kings of Prussia and Aussel would need correction or deletion. To help me you could just make those corrections or deletions to the article text. If there is some issue, I will just fix it, or come back here to ask you for more info. No worries. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Just for short: The Hohenzollern had many residential castles and many family branches. The franconian Hohenzollern residing in the Plassenburg are told to be haunted by the spirit of Kunigunde, others say the Perchta. The Berlin-Hohenzollern are told to be haunted by the spirit of Sydow, who died in Spandau. The stories of the hauntings are often confused with each other and the author of the first text also did this mistake. I tried to correct this in the preexisting fragment of a text in order to remove this confusion. -- Haus Aussel may be shortened. There never resided a "Prince". Aussel is the manor of very low ranked noblemen and had never been a castle. The story has no historical correlation and this I would have liked to stress, when I stated, that no human remains had been found. The worker, who fell down, had been a confabulation of the first author. If you like me, to mention this, I will do so. Best regards, too, Bockpeterteuto (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, just cut out the text that’s erroneous. No need to leave it in and add explanation. Just remove whatever parts are not accurate or confabulations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I will start as soon as possible, best wishesBockpeterteuto (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello LuckyLouie, concerning the Plassenburg story I did some minor changes just to make it more precise and a new source was added. I deleted the hint at the Leuchtenberg-family, because the historical sources of Kunigunde are contradictive - and also described as contradictive in the scientific literature. But mentioning all that would be too much by my opinion. The Berlin-text was seperated from the Plassenburg-text to avoid confusion or misunderstandings. Bockpeterteuto (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Your edits look good, well done, thank you! - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello LuckyLouie,I have to thank you!Bockpeterteuto (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I also revised the other paragraphs of the Germany-article. I tried to be as short as possible and to avoid everything that is unnecessary. - The story about Haus Aussel had to be nearly completely rewritten. - Concerning Burg Lahneck I have to mention, that there are told many ghost stories about the castle-surroundings, but I spared them out, because citeable sources are hardly to be found. - Düsseldorf obviously caught fire several times, so the fires culminated, but not the sightings. I hope I could clear up all misunderstandings. - Friedland should also be made mor precise, but I think, one sentence more is enough. I preferred to attempt to improve the text before I start adding new paragraphs, so I hope I could see how this is to be done. Best wishes Bockpeterteuto (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Good for the most part. There are some sentences that are not coherent in English. I’ll do some repairs later. - LuckyLouie (talk)

I did make the English comprehension repair, although some of your intended meanings I had to guess at. For example, "her ghost is told to strangle anyone, who announces her", I assume you mean that, according to the legend, the ghost is rumored to strangle anyone who speaks of her while in the castle? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello LuckyLouie, thank you for the corrections of the language, but to answer your question: - Burg Friedland; the ghost is rumored to haunt the castle and the surrounding forests. People say she strangles anyone, who talks TO her and not OF her. - Concerning the Düsseldorf Castle; the castle got repeatedly on fire and not eventually. Each outbreak of fire was preceeded by a sighting of the white lady. I hope, I could help, best wishesBockpeterteuto (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello @LuckyLouie, thank you very much for your kind efforts. I think it is all correct as it is now! Best wishesBockpeterteuto (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Haus Aussel

I felt the need and I felt as free to insert a photo of Haus Aussel, because the reader should see, that this is not a prince's castle but only a manson of a low-ranked nobleman. But it is very beautyful and - as a site of special interest - the only half-timbered manson in Germany with a moat surrounding it.--Bockpeterteuto (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the photo. Which story does Haus Aussel relate to? Is there a White Lady legend for Haus Aussel? Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Just have a look at the text section about Rheda-Wiedenbrück in the chapter "Germany" of the article! Greetings and best wishes--Bockpeterteuto (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I am confused about the German "parish". The article text says Haus Aussel is in Rheda-Wiedenbrück but the image text says it is in Batenhorst. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In the original version of the text this was mentioned - a hint that I did not remove when rewriting it -, that Aussel is located in Batenhorst, a small civil parish, that is a part of Rheda-Wiedenbrück. If you give the permission, I will re-insert that.--Bockpeterteuto (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Marvellous, many thanks and greetings--Bockpeterteuto (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Tags

I exchanged an article tag for a section tag but then realized the entire article has a tag at the top so a redundant section tag is just over tagging. I will likely remove the section tag. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)