Talk:Mel's Hole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

1 All from Coast to Coast
2 What the hell?
3 {accuracy} and {unreferenced} tags
4 Major Overhaul
5 Delete?
6 Lots of unsourced content
7 Burning ice

[edit] All from Coast to Coast

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)

Do you have a link for that? ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] What the hell?

This whole article is without scientific merit, it appears to take Mel's word as fact. If Mel were mentally ill then this would explain this entire article. The fact that no evidence of these holes has *EVER* been found needs to be stressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.114.124 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Looks like this page was written by some nut that actually believes in the story, which makes sense, but that needed changin'. I made some clumsy alterations -- better to have a skimpy, encyclopedic article than a lengthy ridiculous one. --151.196.29.69 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If this hole is real (which I'm positive that it's not) how come there are no pictures of it on this page, or anywhere else on the internet, for that matter? 12.218.145.112 01:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, can we at least get a "disputed accuracy" and/or a "does not cite sources" tag here? I don't wanna delete it, bleeped-up bleep like this is half the fun of Wikipedia :D But this is not "encyclopedic" by any stretch of the imagination. --Jaysweet 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's really fair to sit here and say it's completely impossible. A bias towards something being untrue is just as bad as a bias towards something being true. It's farfetched I admit, but five hundred years ago so were molecules and atoms, and heliocentricity. Just because you don't believe what it says doesn't mean you can solicit a vendetta against the topic. It's the same as atheists wanting to call into question articles on deities.

Comments like "If this hole is real (which I'm positive that it's not)" are the last thing an encyclopedia needs.

Edit to remove bias, but don't form one of your own. --Telepwn 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If Wikipedia had existed five hundred years ago, and somebody created an article about molecules, I'd suggest that be deleted as well.

If Mel's hole is real -- and I see no evidence whatsoever to suggest that -- then it is the burden of those promoting the idea to establish proof of this, and then once it is an accepted fact, then it has a place on Wikipedia.

Now, the hoax of Mel's hole is real, so I'm not opposed to this article. But right now, it states these wild allegations as if they are fact. That is unencyclopedic any way you slice it. --Jaysweet 21:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think it's really fair to sit here and say it's completely impossible."

Then you're an idiot.

"A bias towards something being untrue is just as bad as a bias towards something being true."

Scientists won't back you up on that. One assumes something is false unless evidence exists to the contrary. This encyclopedia will do the same. --141.157.106.115 14:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, watch the ad hominem attacks there... the "idiot" comment is inappropriate.

Your other point is well-put, though, yes. If someone claims that a magic hole exists in Washington, it is his or her burden to prove its existence, not my burden to prove its non-existence. --Jaysweet 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {accuracy} and {unreferenced} tags

The only thing in this article that appears factual to me is that some dude named Mel has a really big hole in his backyard. I'm usually not the type to add {accuracy} tags to things, but you're going to need to show me a whole steaming pile of hot fresh proof before I'm going to believe that a sheep gave birth to some sort of divine eel. :D --Jaysweet

actually, it's not even known that 'Mel' is his real name. Anyways, this article should be rewritten in the style of greek myths -- the story should be told, but it should be made clear that this isn't true at all.

[edit] Major Overhaul

I have begun a major overhaul of the article to repair any sentences where Mel's allegations are stated as fact. I have tried very hard to remain NPOV, although it was very difficult to do so when I was fixing the claim about how he has these supposed coins from a parallel universe, but if you try to photograph them they are invisible. How convenient! ha ha ha ha...

I have a feeling some grumpy deletionist is going to come along and whack this whole article. That would be a pity. I got a real kick out of reading these fantastic claims, and as long as the article makes it clear that these are the unsubstantiated rantings of an Art Bell disciple, I think it is a positive contribution to Wikipedia.

I got about halfway through the Burning Ice section if anybody wants to pick up where I left off... Are there any other synonyms for "claims" and "alleges"? hehehe.... --Jaysweet 20:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I finished the overhaul. Phew! Now, assuming the original author(s) of this article did a relatively faithful paraphrase of Mel's Coast to Coast rantings, the article should be mostly factually accurate (although I would prefer to leave the tag in place unless some citations appear).

I tried very very hard not to inject my POV into the article, and I think I have been largely successful at that. However, I can't hold it in anymore, so here's my POV on the Talk page: This guy is a complete tool. heh... Every time his story results in somethign where there might be some trace of evidence, he's like, "Uh, government agents took it," or, "I'd like to show you the coins, but if I photograph them they are invisible," or "Yeah, uh, we threw the sheep guts back into the hole." hahahaha... I'm half expecting him to be like, "Well, I had proof of a government conspiracy, but my dog ate it." ha ha ha ha --Jaysweet 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete?

Should this article even be here, pending one being written in a more factual style? We tell generalized versions of Greek myths, because of their literary significance, but for something like this, there should really be a lot more, "Art Bell said, on Oct 8, 2057, that he believed Mel's Hole was a bottomless pit that connected our world to an infinitude of others, and that its existence was being covered up by the government." Or whatever he actually said. If there's a paranormal project, then maybe this can be revised to be encyclopedic at some point, but until then, it's an eyesore that just serves as exercise for the "Citation Needed" tag.72.83.243.12 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Edit: Holy crap HagermanBot is fast.72.83.243.12 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably it should be deleted. But I find it so entertaining! heh... --Jaysweet 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted. While in all likely hood this Hole is infact nothing more than a great creepy story. It still has not been proven nor disproven. Also its an event in the universe of "Coast to Coast" which, while it is a radio show and this segment is most likely not real, its still a segment in the show non-the-less. A very extensive and detailed one at that. Thus, as most tv shows on wikipedia have episode lists and even some of those have a page for a synopsis of each television show, this is merely a radio show epsisode or event, instead of a television one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.205.70.254 (talk • contribs).

It's awfully long, though... I mean, yes for TV shows they often have a brief episode synopsis, but it's not like the whole script for each show is reproduced on Wikipedia, heh...

If somebody proposes deletion, I will begrudgingly vote a "Weak delete," because I like the article but think it is not up to WP standards. However, there doesn't yet seem to be a lot of momentum to delete it, so for now I think there is no worry. --Jaysweet 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of unsourced content

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)

I agree, we need to revamp this article. Strider01 22:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)