Talk:Mel's Hole

message: The article used to be much longer and included claims by Mel about what his fantastic hole could do. Now they're gone. Someone revert it back, the material was very amusing! --Gmuir 18:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey, someone removed all the crazyhead info 

message: So long as this article is labeled properly, which it is, there's no problem. It's listed under the paranormal and people know this is supposed to be weird stuff, some of it might be proven true, some of it might be proven fakery. I mean we cover religion on here, don't we? That the belief exists warrants a mention just for the sake of completeness. When it is proven a hoax, the article can be updated at that time. 
--74.163.134.12 16:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a problem 

message: All the text in the article at this point is an original summary of the content of the post-2000 Coast to Coast broadcasts.  brain 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link for that? ---J.S  (T/C) 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already listed under "References" - "Audio Clips from a Coast to Coast show featuring Mel Waters."  There are 8 mp3 files, totalling over 160 minutes.  brain 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is no References section, just an external links section which is not the same thing as a reference section.  There are some inline cites that can be teased out into a reference section but the rest of the larger factual assertions need to be properly sourced or deleted.LiPollis 08:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain what you mean by "factual assertions", the fact is that a man named Mel made several wild claims on a popular talk radio segment and that this in turn generated a lot of pop culture and legend tripping interest. The only facts that this page should be asserting are that claims were made and that beliefs are held. This topic should be tackled exactly as any notable urban myth/legend as there isn't any geological, archaeological or scientific evidence from which to derive facts.  - perfectblue 10:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All from Coast to Coast 

message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZZNFFPrW-0
This article has a ton of unsourced content in it, and as Jaysweet has pointed out risks being deleted. Perhaps it should be stripped back to just the essentials - those details referenced by legitimate external sources. It could then be built up from there, but only where legitimate sources exist. The Seattle Times and Seattle Pi articles listed in External Links would be good sources to start with. Thoughts? --Careax 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of unsourced content 

message: just when I was ready to laugh at the whole burning ice thing in this article, I stumbled across this news item:
Scientists Make Ice Hotter Than Boiling Water
Freaky, huh?  maybe Mel was unto something (or On something as the case may be)?LiPollis 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Burning ice

message: So, every time this whackjob goes on Art Bell, are the crazies going to update this article with the latest tale of lunacy?  As discussed above, this article is just about the definition of unencyclopedic.  I was opposed to chopping it initially because it's so entertaining, but I've changed my mind.
If no objections in the next couple of days, I am going to delete 90+% of this article and just leave a couple of paragraphs stating the general idea.  --Jaysweet 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do what you feel you must Jaysweet.  I trust your judgement.LiPollis 09:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support removing most of this, and possibly deleting it outright.  There is really only one thing about this article that needs verification:  How well known are Mel's claims?  How significant are they?  I'm seeing about 500 Google hits from Mel's hole, most of them Google mirrors of this article or posts from a handful of forums.  This article is the #1 hit, a very bad sign, while many of those other hits refer to other things called "Mel's Hole"...  and, note, the supposed craze about this hole is claimed to be an internet phenomenon, which should imply that most of its presence is online.  If this is just something that was discussed on the Art Bell show and later became interesting to a few internet forums, it should be merged into the Art Bell article as a paragraph or so, if it's mentioned at all.  Wikipedia does not exist to catalog every claim made by anyone.  One key thing that could determine whether this article should be deleted or not:  Has anyone other than Mel Walters ever written anything significant about the hole, said anything worth quoting here, done any extensive investigations we can cite, and so forth?  Everything in the article is about him, and as I see it, unless that's fixed it ought to be nominated for deletion. Notable urban legends, paranormal myths and so forth have large numbers of things written about them; this, well, doesn't. --Aquillion 10:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes articles in thehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZZNFFPrW-0 various Fortean or Skeptical publications don't show up in Google searches so you have to go to their sites (Skeptical Inquirer, Fortean Times, Strange etc.) or to websites such as Tilted Paranoia and do the searches there to see how popular these topics are with online readers.  just a thought.  Incidentally, Jaysweet has been doing the majority of work editing this article and I trust his judgement when it comes to Choppy Choppy and Non, ne Choppy Pas!LiPollis 10:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay, choppy-choppy time

message: I am not sure what Jaysweet is proposing, or if he has already done it, if he has I guess it is okay, but if he hasn't, I think it could just be cleaned up for grammar and POV and left! Of course it is a kooky idea! But that doesn't make it unencyclopedic! I mean, there are a lot of us that think the story of the Christian Easter is pretty kooky and far fetched too. The only difference is that a lot of scholars have devoted endless hours to the subject, and culture itself has accreted around that crazy kernel. So stop picking on the Mel's hole article! (Update, I just read the article and it is very badly written POV etc. wise, yes, I agree...but can't we keep ALL the Info?! and couch it differently? 128.32.158.192 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for how to cite statements made on Art bell's show, you would cite them in the same format as any radio show.  Admittedly, you might need a transcript to tease out exact quotes.  Absent that, at least noting the date of the show where the statement was made would permit people to double check if they wished to.  For what Wikipedia considers a reliable Source, please click on this wikilink:  WP:RS  - in the past, Art Bell and Coast to Coast have been disputed by Skeptical editors as not meeting the wikipedia standards.  Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just the host of interesting stories about stuff.  Nothing prevents you or anyone else from hosting a full account of Mel's Hole on your own webpage so that people googling it can get the full and unabridged story.  As it stands now, this article could be nominated for deletion due to sourcing issues and notability.  if every crackpot idea from Art Bell got its own article ...., ya know?  I too am very amused by this story.  let's just try to at least cite the dates of his appearances and particular statements so we can show how the story got wackier as mel got used to having an audience.LiPollis 08:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non, ne choppy choppy pas!

message: Thanks LiPollis -- I agree that the article needs to have concrete citations of info which include date and time of original broadcast, whatever, but that seems a little different than nominating the article for deletion. I also think it is a little reactionary to say that I or anyone else should just host our own website, as if (I) am some kind of Mel zealot! I care about the existence of this encyclopedia entry because it references something that is claimed to exist in the world. Wiki has pages about God and bigfoot and UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster and the Ark of the Covenant and Mermaids and the Burning Bush, and all kinds of things that individual people have claimed to see without providing any collaborating empirical material evidence. And also, there are many Wiki pages exploring the "crackpot ideas" on Coast to Coast such as those on Indigo children, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Creationism, various eschatological theories and Crystal skulls. 
These are perfectly acceptable objects for placement in an encyclopedia which is not the type of reference that discriminates between things that exist and things that do not. I have an encyclopedia from early nineteenth-century France, just post-Enlightenment, that includes "la licorne", "l'ange", "la sirène", etc. Encyclopedias do not entertain ontological arguments in their selection processes, rather they document things that are *said* to exist and which are agreed on as existing, by convention, by various populations of people in the world. There are many people who believe that this hole exists. They believe that it has a certain location in space and time, and that it has certain properties and characteristics that distinguish it from other holes in the world. That you, or I ! fully doubt the existence of the Hole is not at issue. I am sure that we can both agree that there are no Unicorns either, and yet when you and I speak of a unicorn, we both have a similar concept in mind. The fact that there is a discussion board about this article, in which different people disagree about the subject of Mel's Hole is further proof that we both entertain relatively clear mental concepts of what the hole is, we just disagree on whether or not it is a fitting object for encyclopedia coverage. Disagreement about this last point seems to center on whether the Hole exists or not, and whether these claims about the Hole are made from a "skeptical" position or one of "madness". I hope I have shown that neither existence nor non-existence of the hole itself, nor arguments about the mental states of those holding said beliefs should have a determining interest in the article's viability for the encyclopedia.
As I said, the only problem with the article, as it stands, is that the fact of its ontological insecurity / questioned existence needs to be made clear; it needs to be written in NPOV and exact dates of the orignal and/or re-broadcast(s) need to be cited. Even you are not claiming that Mel never appeared on Art Bell's show. Therefore, to my thinking there is no valid or sound argument for the entry's deletion.
The funny thing is, I am not even passionate about Mel's Hole! But I am passionate about protecting an article which is slated for deletion for fallacious reasons. Saudade7 20:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fundamental point is not whether or not he appeared on the show, but how notable his appearance was.  Simply saying "person X appeared on show Y and said Z" isn't enough for an encyclopedic article.  Why is this important?  Are there large numbers of people interested in what he said--were there other people worth quoting who commented on it, for instance?  That's the main issue.  If we can't find anything anyone else has ever said about this worth quoting, then the article should probably be folded into a few sentences on the Art Bell Show's article; there just wouldn't be anything meaningful to say here.  We don't create individual articles for everything and anything said on the Art Bell Show, in other words; what's special enough about these broadcasts that they'd get their own article, seperate from Art Bell? --Aquillion 19:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, Saudade7, I would politely remind you to assume good faith on the part of editors responding to your comments and questions.  If you check the editing history of the article, you will see that I invested some time in trying to bring the article more in line with Wiki standards by sourcing some statements, adding the reference section etc etc.  I am not the enemy here.  I am, in fact, an active member of WikiProject Paranormal.  I'm an anthropologist and folklorist and I find these types of stories fascinating.  I have, however, seen a great deal of what I call skeptical activisim on wikipedia.  What that refers to is the overutilization of wikipedia standards amd rules to make sure as many paranormal articles as possible get deleted, gutted or edited in such a way as to make sure the reader will conculde that the topic is sheer nonsense.  Articles such as Mel's Hole are prime targets for such activisim.  If we want to keep such articles up here and as neutrally worded as possible, we have to bring them in line with wiki standards by structuring them properly, sourcing and referencing and cooperating with eachother.  Art Bell topics are at the top of the skeptical "hit-list" precisely becuase there are rarely any other citeable sources other than the guests themselves(and yeah, they do have one. I'll try and find the link to it.  it's in the archives of the paranormal project").  Every time I try to improve a topic that originated on Coast to Coast, I encounter the same set of issues.  Work with us on this, OK?  Right now, the best thing to do is try and dig up more newspaper articles on mel's Hole.  They are good for linking specific details to a reliable source.  Thanks in advance.LiPollis 20:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non, ne choppy choppy pas! Encore!

message: I made a reference section and put the audi file links there and set it up so inline cites will automatically appear there if put in correctly.LiPollis 14:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: made a reference section

message: SInce I am involved in another article that is waaay to chatty and cozy for its own good, it wouldn't be right for me not to warn Mel's Hole enthusiasts that this article, as it stands, might not survive a nomination for deletion for being non-notable and unencyclopedic. Help me out if you can.  We need to source some of the tag "facts" or statements asserting the 'fact" either with the day and date those things were stated on Coast to Coast or with a link to a newspaper article that repeats them.  Also, the article could benefit from some re-organization.  I would suggest ordering the things Mel has asserted in chronological order of those assertions first being made on Coast to Coast (if that's even possible).  I also feel the article would benefit if we simply made a bulletted list of the more esoteric claims in chronological order.  I realize that outside of Coast to Coast and regional newspapers, there's not an awful lot to cite, but every little bit helps.  At least we could trim the article to sourced claims if we had to deal with a nomination for deletion.LiPollis 09:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to try and recover the deleted sources.  man, why did someoone do away with them?LiPollis 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article still needs work if it is to avoid Deletion

message: Whoever did the last overhaul here, great job!  This is actually well-cited and reads like an encyclopedia article now.  The level of detail is just about perfect, and the picture helps.  It also seems very NPOV to me.  Great job! --Jaysweet 17:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is much improved since I last saw it! 

message: I removed a huge chunk of text tonight, please see the history for details. Two contributors, first one was IP, second user name, but same text, so probably (yay) the user created an account. I did put notes on both pages explaining why I reverted it. The reasons were: First, the large amount of text was not formatted, had spelling and grammar errors, and no headers or sections, making it nearly impossible to read. Second, since I'm unfamiliar with this particular place, I have no idea of knowing if that large chunk of text was simply copy/pasted from somewhere else (or if it was even true). If so, it violates the copyright issues. Finally, there were absolutely no references or citations for all the information posted. I'd appreciate someone who may know something about this re-formatting the chunk of text, (If the original poster of it hasn't done so) and verifying the text is original. 
 Apologies to the original poster of the material, as I said on your talk page, I understand you are trying to help the article, and it is appreciated.Ariel♥Gold 04:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive amount of info/nonformatted 

message: I first heard/read about Me's Hole in 1978 or 1979. I believe it was in the Tri-City Herald - it was an Associated Press article. I also recall a few years later an obituary - Mel (I don't know if that was his real name)died about 1984. His body was tossed in the hole per his request. I also recall this hole is farther south than what everyone thinks it is.  A search of cemetary records in Kittitas and Yakima counties show no burial plot for Mel Waters - or even any burial plots for people with that last name. The guy who called Art Bell is a hoaxter - although the hole exists, somewhere, and was taken over by the U.S. government - as per the AP article I read when I was a senior in high school.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanaman4 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Associated Press covered this in 1978 

message: does the hole lead to some sort of parralel uniferse or something cause he has these coins and one of his sheep gave birth to a baby seal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.254.190 (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  parralel universe? 

message: I was first linked to an older version of the article that more or less summarized the various claims Mel made while on that radio show. When I checked the newer version, it cut most of that out. I kind of don't understand why the article was trimmed so much. It never seemed to be claiming that what Mel said as true at any point, rather simply stating "this is what Mel claims he experienced".
The citations weren't properly done, but that was the only fault I noticed. Is there some other reason that the older article is unacceptable? I certainly preferred reading the detailed article to spending hours listening to the radio presentations.
Mel's claims have zero evidence to support them, but reading about them was enjoyable in the same way that a paranormal story or television program might be. You can find the "old version" I keep going on about here. I'll try to remember to check back here sometime later, though I doubt there will be a reply. I just wanted to possibly encourage a restoration of the old article. It makes for great discussion in conversations and forum threads about freaky stuff!
74.178.166.254 (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, about the trimming of the article some time ago... 

message: Question:  Does "Urban myth" cover a claim of paranormal? 
Is "Urban Myth" a clear category? 
How about replace Urban Myth with "geographic anomaly allegedly associated with paranormal claims". 
--Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban myth  

message: Even if the actual hole does not exist, the story / legend / myth of Mel's Hole does exist as a cultural reference of our society. The article should remain for that reason alone, even if a skeptical view is taken towards the existence of the hole itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.154.104 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is "Real" 

message: Mel's Hole is a geographic anomaly that Mel Waters claims to have discovered seems an inappropriate lead: It is a statement that asserts that the hole exists and that Mel Waters exists, both of which are unproven. dramatic (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoV in lead 

message: The user "Grantbo3" was actually accused of being Mel Waters.  More here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070916033123/http://www.melshole.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi
Arkmabat (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive of old forum discussing possible locations

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mel's Hole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928074042/http://www.uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=5160&fID=1474 to http://www.uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=5160&fID=1474
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some people suspect Mel's hole either at  or at . Can someone please make pictures at these sites and add them to the archive. If there are hole-like structures than describe them as objects mistakenly kept for Mel's Hole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:df:1f11:ac10:4180:9270:68df:8176 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this isn’t a forum for coordination of WP:OR based on what “some people suspect”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture request 

message: So what exactly is the proof of this? It sounds like no one has ever found it. 79.106.203.28 (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof? 

message: There's an apparently new video about this on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZZNFFPrW-0
One odd thing I noticed is that although the narrator's speech is unaccented American English, at one point he uses a distinctly Indian expression. He says that someone lowered 880,000 feet of line into the hole without hitting bottom. He pronounced this: "eight lakh eighty-thousand". Only people from India use lakh for 100,000.Bill (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: New Video

message: "Geologist Pat Pringle doubted Waters story about having lowered 80,000 feet of fishing line into a hole, saying that the heat of the Earth would have snapped it before it could reach such a depth." -- from the current article
Although the referenced article says that, Pat Pringle may be wrong. The line would have broken from its own weight, probably before the heat of the earth was a factor. I don't support the deletion of this article, but I still do support the deletion of articles about publicity-seeking celebrities and their pretended feuds. To debunk this Mel's Hole nonsense, we need better surveys of the area with reliable citations, not news stories. However, scientists generally don't waste their time on obvious nonsense.  (Sorry, Pat.) Wastrel Way (talk) Eric Wastrel Way (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishing line