This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ghost towns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ghost towns on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ghost townsWikipedia:WikiProject Ghost townsTemplate:WikiProject Ghost townsGhost town articles
To the person who requested references, I've updated the page with the most accurate information available and cited my references for each item that I wrote. Any remaining information that is without proper references is likely written by the Reverand who guards the place like a mother hen. He'll be back to promote his book. His so called research is sadly lacking.
I hope anyone who wants to visit "dudleytown" for the "ghosts" (that dont existis!), gets arrested and gets a damn ticket. Have some respect for the people who live there, and have some respect for their propery. Anyone who goes there is search of ghosts, should be ashamed of themselves
This person above ^ should be ashamed of themselves!How dare you selfishly wish ill will on someone like myself,that wants to go hike the historic area respectfully!I was there in 1998,and i plan on going back...alot.By the way your opinion that ghosts dont exisit,can stay to yourself.And hiking dosnt DISRESPECT any of the people that live there.So please,respect the people that hike there.And all the NO TRESSPASSING signs,im just gunna ignore them due to the fact that now there will never be permission granted cause of a few bad eggs.I dont plan to avoid such an interesting place of historic value and beauty.(written 11,12,2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.172.54 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please cite some references on this page? it seems like there's been a lot of research done, but no sources are listed. There's also a lot of quotes, I'm assuming they're from the Wierd U.S. book, but they need to be properly cited as well, just to avoid any complications. I'd do it myself, but I just don't have access to the correct information
Dudleytown and Cornwall are home to me. I attended high school in Cornwall and lived with a woman there who became a close friend, Polly Calhoun. She was truly a matriarch of the town, and taught me a great deal about Cornwall's history and Dudleytown's.
I often return to camp in the "ghost town" and occasionally bring friends; however my trips have been hampered due to all the new signs against tresspassing. I know Blair Witch Project brought vandals to the area, so my love for the people of Cornwall and the surrounding woods allows me to be more dismissive of such notices. I just want to be able to enjoy this wonderful place in a quiet, low impact way; and to share it with my friends. Is there someone I can speak with in the town, perhaps a Park Ranger, the next time I plan to camp there? I dont want my car towed, or be arrested for spending time with a place I truly regard as my own.
To avoid the towing problems, I have parked near Baird's and walked up that massive driveway to get to Dark Entry. Really an unpleasant way to get there. --Bgouda18:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to find out what the myth is but the article only has the things that aren't true about the myth.
It really reads strangely to see an article refuting claims that are never even mentioned in the article.
It should either be 'here's what the myths are and here is why they are not true' or drop everything after the first two paragraphs of the Mythology section. There is absolutely no reason to go into such great detail in refuting points if the points are never made.
The problem with the content added in August 2012 by User:Raechelguest (and then re-added a few days ago after I removed it) is that it constitutes original research, specifically synthesis, which is not permitted on Wikipedia (see WP:No original research and WP:Synthesis). It's not enough for reliable sources to verify the truth of individual bits of information (such as "Mary Cheney Greeley never lived anywhere in Cornwall" or "Abiel Dudley did not go insane"), there must also be sources which use this information to reach the conclusion implied in the article ("Abiel Dudley did not go insane, therefore Starr's account is fanciful and inaccurate"). I'm going to remove this content again, and I'd ask that User:Raechelguest address these concerns before restoring it. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last edits I made were in direct response to the comments, which I finally found, by DoctorKubla. I clearly identified popular myths, then followed each one with facts, and all the facts were cited. If that still is considered to be inferior to information citing the fictional Weekly World News, then I suppose there is nothing left to be done, except to realize that the Dudleytown page will always be full of errors and falsehoods. Raechel Guest (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you're trying to do. You just want this article to be accurate and factual, and so do I – but I also want to make sure it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. The sources you added this time were better, and the National Geographic article lent a lot of credibility, in my eyes, to Gary P. Dudley's website, which I have to admit I'd previously dismissed as unreliable. I've rewritten the "Mythology" section using the information in those two sources (the New York Times one looks good as well, but I can't access it), because I do think we (as Wikipedia editors) have a duty to put right popular misconceptions, as long as we can do so without engaging in original research. I know you won't be entirely happy with my latest rewrite, but hopefully we can use it as a springboard to reach a compromise with which all of us can be satisfied. DoctorKubla (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support. Just checked a hardcopy article by Joseph A. Owens, predating the Internet promotion of the place, and it uses "Dudleytown". I don't see what would limit USPLACE to currently populated places to the exclusion of ghost towns. Choess (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
If you compare online maps of the given GPS location (41.8078°N 73.3523°W), with the given 1984 USGS map, you see that the given GPS location is incorrect.
The coordinates you provide appear to be the entrance to the Dark Entry Forest property, not necessarily the site of the historic village. According to the map I found online, you might be marking Dudleytown Hill, not the village. The coordinates in the article, though not cited, put the village at the convergence of Dudleytown Road and and a few other mountain roads deep in the valley, which seems consistent with what is described in the narrative. –Zfish118⋉talk17:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Connecticut State Police enforce trespassing laws at DUDLEYTOWN/Cornwall not Connecticut DEEP. CT DEEP does not enforce trespassing on private property, only on State DEEP-owned property. 32.221.109.201 (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
