Talk:Mel's Hole

Hey, someone removed all the crazyhead info

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)

Not a problem

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)

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.114.124 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 January 2007

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)

"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."

I don't think science assumes anything one way or another, because that is a BIAS which has absolutely no place in good science. I'm not trying to argue the validity of the article, but everyone's acting like there should be a disclaimer saying "this article is completely false," which is exactly the opposite of what an encyclopedia should do. The information should be presented without stating whether or not it's true or false, or even implying in either direction.

We're not trying to prove it doesn't exist anymore than we're trying to prove it does. Fact is, we're not trying to prove anything, we're just supposed to present information and let people make decisions for themselves. Decision making isn't wikipedia's goal.

This article is problematic (and I personally think it's completely absurd), but saying "it doesn't exist" is no better than saying "it does exist." Hurl insults all you want, but I'm just looking out for the neutrality of the site. Telepwn 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this article belongs in the Wikipedia as much as any other article about myth (urban or otherwise), pop culture elements, religion, science article (crackpot or otherwise). I'd like to point out the articles on alchemical Aether are still included, despite since being proven spurious. It's not particularly worthwhile to dispute whether it belongs in the Wikipedia, merely the form it should take. Like all Wikipedia entries it should be put forth in an unbiased and skeptical fashion.

Hey there guys. I wrote most of the article, as it once appeared. I am not a nut. I don't take Mel's word at its face value. Your ridicule of the opinions of others has done yourselves and Wikipedia a great disservice, and your insecurity has robbed Wikipedia of a complete article. Now all the points that made Mel's Hole an interesting story, as well as hours of my hard work, are gone. I think you should ask yourselves what you've accomplished by removing it all. brain 04:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Science doesn't "disbelieve" unusual claims; it is skeptical and willing to test it, if a test is possible. --BlueNight (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this article is on wikipedia. It is all talk and no substance. Does Wiki intend to have a page for every nut case claiming some exotic unsubstantiated phenomenon. I am a professor of science and although i can see the sense of documenting some paranormal activity as a database, I can't imagine why this is here. Volcanoman7 (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

{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.

Major Overhaul

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZZNFFPrW-0 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZZNFFPrW-0 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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Encyclopedias are generally stocked with non-fiction articles, unlike this one. At best it deserves a footnote under Art Bell-related pages.

It should be tagged as paranormal (and as such, unscientific and most likely false), yet from an information standpoint it does help someone understand the subject. The term comes up and at least it could be defined here and shown to be what it is.

I am against deleting the page. Having the page here doesn't hurt Wikipedia as a whole, and I think the article could be relevant as documentation of what some people believe. It should be filed under whatever other paranormal phenomena / conspiracy theories / alternative science gets stuck under. (I don't think it's unfair if the tone of the article is a bit skeptical, either.) But just because we all think the belief in question is stupid, doesn't mean the article about it should be deleted. The only thing I would be in favor of, would be merging this page into a larger list of "Art Bell Paranormal Phenomena" or something, if there's not enough content on this particular belief to warrant a full-length article. But the content that's here now should not be deleted until it's been merged to another page and the namespace changed to a redirect. --Kadin2048 14:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm against deletion. Please do not delete! Mel's Hole is a topic that crops up in our culture and this article is a resource for explaining why people talk about it. (It's also very entertaining, but I guess that's beside the point.) It would be appropriate to put it in the paranormal category, but the article is relevant and an interesting source of information about a subject that people may come to Wikipedia to inquire about. So again, please don't delete it. (unsigned entry) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZZNFFPrW-0 There seems to be some confusion. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia. Urban legends, especially ones not cited in reputable and reliable sources, do not belong in an encyclopedia. Articles should not be retained because editors want to see them retained, but because they are notable and follow WP policies. I hope no one discovers this article, as it is an embarrassment. This article should be deleted as soon as possible. It has been part of WP for too many years already. David Spector (user/talk) 13:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Lots of unsourced content

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)

I agree, we need to revamp thttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZZNFFPrW-0his article. Strider01 22:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Burning ice

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)

Okay, choppy-choppy time

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)

Do what you feel you must Jaysweet. I trust your judgement.LiPollis 09:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Non, ne choppy choppy pas!

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))

And I see that there are many banners saying that the statement is unsourced, when it is claimed that "so and so said X on Coast to Coast" so I am just wondering how *would* someone source something like that? I am actually a doctoral student! and at the end of the day, when I can no longer read or write etc. I sometimes listen to Art Bell (well, I guess now it is more George Noory, whatever) while I do the dishes or swifer etc. It is very entertaining. And I was listening a few times back in the day when "Mel" was on the show. He really did say these crazy things! But to *link* to the source is hard because you need to subscribe to their site to listen to the past shows. And then you have to hope that certain shows are archived. I am *sure* that the Mel's Hole shows are achived somewhere because they are just so sensationalist. And I imagine that if I were to need to cite information like this for my dissertation, I would have to contact the show, get a copy of the interview, and, depending on the form that copy came in perhaps I would have to transcribe it. But that seems impossible in this case because the information would have to be public and free. So I guess I am just interested in what would constitute a "citation" in this instance.

Anyway, I hope you will forgive the longishness of this opinion / question. I am not the world's biggest Mel's Hole fan, but I did just send a link to this to my friends and I would like them to get the full impact of the theory rather than a brief blurp that says "big hole" "crazy person" "Art Bell" "never found" -- isn't there a way to make the article "about" the controversy and just contextualize it?

good-night Saudade7 08:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- back again but I don't want to sign in because I am on a public computer...just to say that this citation thing is interesting to me also because I am a cultural / art historian and I wonder how one cites things in these new times! For instance, I was wanting to write a short paper on this "Whale Board" thing on IMDB that had over 600 messages from people who believed that they saw the same film, but no one ever was able to name the film. Although I have a printout of the board, the board itself has been retired. How can I verify that the object of my research even exists? Or, I am interested in writing about the films that people post on YouTube of their "matchbox findings" in cases of Morgellon's Disease. But MD might itself be mass hysteria and YouTube is hardly a "reputable source" but like Coast to Coast, YouTube and the IMDB message boards are sites where certain events and claims are made that are themselves transient and worthy of study. Why are so many people fascinated by a story of a deep hole in the ground? In my fields of study the phenomenon itself of a person claiming to see or know X in a public forum *is* the thing needing to be defined/recorded researched.

And is this "verfied" or "unsourced" problem a printed document vs. orally related problem? I don't know!

So can you do anything with that? Saudade 7 128.32.158.192 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZZNFFPrW-0 As I've said elsewhere, a transcript of the original radio show is now linked to and direct quotes are taken from that and referenced to that transcript on the web. Nick mallory 08:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Non, ne choppy choppy pas! Encore!

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)

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)

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)

Hola (a fitting salutation if you pronounce it incorrectly) LiPollis, Sorry if I was snippy, I just did not want to build a website! In fact it is scary what you suggest about "skeptical activism" closing pages down...I think I *do* make the case that this is counter-productive if what we want is an encyclopedia and not just the Yellow Pages. I mean I actually even contribute money to the Wiki when they have their funding drives and while I cannot afford much I would like to think that I help support the crazy subjects as much as the not-so-crazy ones. I'm all for skepticism -- I wrote a paper on Hume once, but people believe in all kinds of things. What if someone starts persecuting me because I don't believe in X, where X is a thing claimed to be supernatural, and when I go on the Wiki X is not covered? How will I know what I have *not* believed in to make people persecute me? It sounds silly but look around! It might not be!! This world is insane! ciao (Saudade7 unsigned in) 66.245.25.104 09:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A transcript of the original radio programme is now linked to extensively from the article and direct quotes from Mel are given, showing that he actually made these claims. There are several new sources in which the hole is discussed by newspapers and every statement in the article is now verifiably true in the sense that the statements were actually made. The article makes clear on several occasions that there's no hard evidence outside of Mel's testimony that the hole exists and because of the new sourcing I think the tag disputing the factual accuracy of the article should be removed. There is, incidently, no hard evidence that 'Mel' actually exists either, as a story from the local newspaper makes clear. Has he ever actually appeared in public outside the radio show? Nick mallory 08:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

made a reference section

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)

Reference 6 links to the melshole.com website, which is defunct and simply holds ad links now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.116.254.197 (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Article still needs work if it is to avoid Deletion

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)

I've put in direct quotes from Mel from the first radio show (with references) to back up the fact that he made these claims. This says nothing about whether such claims are true or not but I think readers can make up their own minds about that. The article states that no evidence backing up this story has ever emerged. Nick mallory 07:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

This article is much improved since I last saw it!

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)

Massive amount of info/nonformatted

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)

Associated Press covered this in 1978

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)

For some reason, I am enthralled by this story whether it be fact or fiction. I'd be delighted if you (or someone else with your knowledge) happened to come around here again and share any more information there may be on this AP article you've mentioned. Anything that would help me search for and identify such an article would be appreciated.

74.178.168.186 (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

parralel universe?

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)

Well, according to Mel, it's basically a gateway to "the unknown". I won't believe it until I see it (and I'm very open-minded toward spiritual/supernatural things), but here's the basic gist according to what I've read: You tether something and lower it into the well. When you bring it up, it will have changed in some sort of abstract physical way. I wouldn't say the spiritual properties of the original object are necessarily altered according to most of the "evidence", but the supposed story of the "seal" being able to affect a portable radio certainly hints at something spiritual and/or psychic. This is all just speculation based on the wholly unsubstantiated claims of some guy on a radio program that's known for being a little "out there". If you were a hardcore skeptic, you probably wouldn't even give this "Mel's Hole" business the time of day. Judging from your post, though, you seem to lean toward the "I want to believe" kind of guy. If that's the case, I'd urge you to be a bit more skeptical and try to reach a more non-biased frame of mind. Don't misunderstand my "open-minded" comment; I am biased toward nothing but proven fact, and even then I tend to question and test the provided proof. I see your comment is somewhat recent, so if you happen to check back here and see my response, feel free to ask me any more questions.

74.178.168.186 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

So, about the trimming of the article some time ago...

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)

Oh, to clarify: What I'm asking, basically, is that if I or someone else were to reinstate the version of the article I linked to with proper documentation and citations (yes, this means I'll listen to archives of the radio broadcasts for which I already have a source!) would it be good to go or would it remain unacceptable? Forgive me, I don't normally edit Wikipedia articles and I've only gone over the basic rules, and quite a while ago, so I'm.. umm.. wikignorant?

Eh, whatever. :P

74.178.166.254 (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Urban myth

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)

This is "Real"

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)

PoV in lead

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)

As I explained above, this article should never have appeared in WP; it should be deleted as soon as possible. WP policies are clear here. David Spector (user/talk) 13:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Archive of old forum discussing possible locations

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture request

Some people suspect Mel's hole either at 46°53′52″N 120°36′18″W or at 47°8′43″N 120°37′25″W. 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)

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)

Proof?

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)

New Video

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)