Talk:Waverly Hills Sanatorium

More Research Found/ Basic Editing
Original History: The old Waverly building was always under construction because of its old nature, construction to build a five- story wooden building began on March 24, 1924 .

Woodhaven Medical Services: "The building was reopened in 1962 as Woodhaven Geriatric Center, a nursing home primarily treating aging patients with various stages of dementia and mobility limits, as well as the severely mentally handicapped. Woodhaven was closed by the state in 1982 allegedly due to patient neglect." News spread that unwilling experiments concerning electric shock treatment for non- existing conditions. It should be added that this center was "understaffed and overcrowded." Citation: World, Ghostly. “Waverly Hills Sanatorium.” Ghostly World™, 8 July 2018, ghostlyworld.org/2012/09/16/waverly-hills-sanatorium/.

The Death Tunnel: The Death Tunnel was an entrance and exit for the workers of the sanatorium. It was built on the first floor with the rest of the building. The corridor is 500 feet to the bottom of the hill and has a set of stairs on one side, which were the stairs used for the workers. On the other side, there was a cart that moved up and down the stair case which transported supplies and other necessities.

Since antibiotics did not exist in the time that the sanatorium was active, other forms of aid were used to cure the TB patients. For example, heat lamps, fresh air, and positive talk and reassurance helped to keep patients alive, since the death rate of a TB patient at the time was one death per day. However, at the peak of the disease the site of the dead being carried away through the tunnel lowered the patient morale, increasing the number of deaths per day. Therefore, the sanatorium tried transporting the dead bodies as secretively as possible to increase the morale and lower the death rates. The doctors and workers of this time also believed that this would help to lower the disease's spreading rate .

New Sections to add...

Waverly Hills Today: The old sanatorium is owned today by private investors who open the historic building up to curious overnight guests and "ghost" tours. The tours inform guests of the building's origin and history.

Rewording...

"The land that is known today as 'Waverly Hill' was purchased by Major Thomas H. Hays in 1883 as the Hays' family home."

Deleting...

I also believe you should get rid of some of the sections towards the end of the article (Statue and Prison) because they distract from the article and are irrelevant to its context.

Pictures...

Adding more pictures of Waverly Hills to the article could help immensely! I see there is a picture of Rio de Janeiro and I don't believe that is appropriate for the article. Sansontm (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Sansontm (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)sansontm
 * "ghostlyworld.org" is a WP:FRINGE website, and on Wikipedia it is not considered a WP:RS for facts about the subject. Additionally, the link appears to be a copy of an old version of this WP article, so we cannot WP:BACKWARDSCOPY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * LuckyLouie: This website has lots of information regarding original information on the Sanatorium. I am from Louisville, Kentucky and have grown up going to the sanatorium myself and learning these facts. Therefore, this website is reliable and states lots of facts about background info on Waverly Hills Sanatorium. I am choosing to neglect information on "ghostly" stories, even though that happens to be the title of the website. Sansontm (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)sansontm
 * "Ghostly World" is clearly WP:FRINGE, and should not be considered a reliable source. If you think otherwise, try the reliable sources noticeboard. --tronvillain (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Sansontm, "Ghostly World" is obviously a WP:FRINGE source with a WP:SENSATIONAL spin on the subject; playing up the supposed "patient abuse" angle, promoting the idea of a ghoulish "death tunnel", and stating as "fact" that videos show ghosts of these unhappy souls haunt Waverly. WP requires non-sensational reliable sources. If you are in Louisville you may be able to visit the city main library reference desk and access records and background history on Waverly Hills compiled by a historical society or other reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The National Register of Historic Places (from the US Park Service) has a very interesting page that you might find useful. Hammona (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Legal issues
We should probably mention the ongoing legal issues between the Mattinglys and the Waverly Hills Historical Society. While the Mattinglys still technically own the site, they have been evicted and no longer have any part in running the operation. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Tunnel
The Tunnel section of this article seems horribly misplaced, possibly a well meaning cleanup gone awry. But it is in the middle of the expansion section, and after the 90s part of that section. Wasn't the tunnel there from the get-go of the main 5 story building? The article reads that way - that it was built with the first floor. Sabalon (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Trashy paranormal TV shows and ghost hunter sites (not WP:RS by the way) publicized the tunnel as having a supposedly sinister purpose, and subsequently haunted and spooky. So at one point, the article was so bloated by fanboys adding this junk, that the tunnel ended up being mentioned in three or four places in the article. It only needs one mention. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Tunnel 2024

 * There was some confusion online with links leading to the wrong publication (something about Tiki and Pinapple Bars), but once located, the book by historian Lynn Pohl (Arcadia Publishing) appears to be a high quality WP:RS for content. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for cleaning up that content! It's now way better than before. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 19:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice this discussion until today, but right before LuckyLouie's work, I realized the "Tunnel" content was misplaced and had issues. I reorganized the article to separate it out, and put all history under History. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 19:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the Tunnel subsection isn't better situated under "History" between "Building of a durable facility" and "Woodhaven Medical Services". It would fit chronologically. It would also help avoid the impression that the tunnel is not a part of history, and is so important it needs its own section. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My intent for separating it out is that it was a discussion of part of the facility, but if it now makes more sense to put into a historical context, then so be it. At any rate, this article could use content that describes the facilities outside of History. I mean, we have virtually nothing about the architecture or what was done where in the facility. It's almost like a black box at this point. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 20:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Google books preview of Pohl's history has some material starting on page 60ish . Glad you're up for improving it. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not have to be me. Anyone can edit. But thanks for the pointer. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 20:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, I have a bad habit of trying to dragoon article improvement volunteers :) &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No prob. I'm well dragooned as it is. But this is certainly on my list to work on. I just don't think it's so important to have to detour for anytime soon. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 23:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)