Talk:Crybaby Bridge

problems editing this article

In a recent edit - some things seem to have disappeared such as external links and see also section as well as most of the Billy Joe section. These things appear in the history section but not on the page. I have NO clue what gives. i will attempt to restore this stuff after wikipedia gets over its headache and ehaves normally! I didn't do this on purpose folksLisapollison 04:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I managed to get things straightened out.Lisapollison 04:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic speculation

I removed the following addition from the article:

Another possibility is opened by the original spelling if the suicidal youth's name, the feminine "Billie Joe" with an IE, instead of the masculine "Billy Joe" with a Y. The narrator could have been a childhood friend of Billie Joe's and had helped her with her "problem".

It was removed because it had no bearing on the Crybaby bridge folklore. Also, it is pure speculation and original research unless a source can be cited. If this material is to be included anywhere, it would be within the body of the article on the song Ode to Billie Joe and not here. Also, to be included, a citeable source is needed. The supposition that it was a baby thrown off the bridge is properly cited in the article on the song so I added a note to see that article for a full discussion of that implication.LiPollis 12:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Location Discrepency

The supposed other location in Maryland on Beaver Dam Road is actually located in the Agriculture Research Farms in beltsville. Although, I've heard that the location in Bowie is along Govenor's Bridge Road close to Rt. 50. Anonymous

Original research inserted into article

An anonymous editor has recently made some huge changes to this article that appear to constiute original reserach. The section on the hoax, while compelling, is not referenced and reeads like one person's conjucture. I would like to get some feedback before deleting or editing it. I would also like to put back some of the material that appears to have been deleted i n the overhaul by that editor. Interested editors, please feel free to express your opinions about the article in its current state.LiPollis 20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, to clarify things - the inserted material appears to violate this policy: WP:SYN - Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. The arguments being advanced seem to be the editors own based on things they have read.LiPollis 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this material is indeed referenced using primary sources (and cheack external links as well), which is totally acceptable in folkloric scholarship. The material is not conjecture but as close to fact as anyone--this side of the hoaxer--can come, and sufficient evidence is clearly set forth to call into doubt the Carroll County Crybaby Bridge. The argument that the material advances a "position" can be applied to the bulk of the Crybaby Bridge article, which could easily be read as presenting "Crybaby Bridges" as paranormal. This paranormal "position" is enhanced by the inclusion of the "paranormal project tag" (see above!!!!) on the site, which clearly violates the same Wiki rule you cite by presenting an obviousa "position" in relation to the article. Please notice this contradiction before you begin to edit or delete the new material! In summation, this added material is 1) clearly referenced and 2) a needed alternative and an addition to the objectivity of the article, which seems, without it, to be skewed toward the promotion of a belief in the paranormal. Thanks for reading. Dr. Jesse Glass, Maryland historian, and folklorist.

"This paranormal "position" is enhanced by the inclusion of the "paranormal project tag" (see above!!!!) on the site, which clearly violates the same Wiki rule you cite by presenting an obviousa "position" in relation to the article." Actually no. Wikipedia project tags indicate only that the entry falls within the squere of interest of a a particular wikiproject, they don't represent any intrinsic value in the real world. For example, project rational-skeptisism might choose to tag Ufology as being in their sphere of interest. This doesn't mean that Ufology follows the rules of rational skepticism or even that Ufologists are rational and/or skeptical, what it means is that they think that members might like to keep an eye on the page. This is perfectly permissible.

Equally, Project Paranormal isn't simply a project that covers the "true" paranormal (whatever that may be). It cover hoaxes, frauds and urban myths involving the paranormal. perfectblue 18:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned that that entire section is based on a claim made in a single book. That's a lot of sweeping statements to be supported from a single primary source. Also, is the book notable enough to be covered like this. It sounds about notable enough for maybe 1 paragraph. - perfectblue 18:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Perfectblue97, the Wiki tag does not at all make this clear. Indeed, with its visual echo of the X-Files, it clearly indicates just the opposite to anyone who lays eyes on it and who does not take the time to seek out its meaning. I would suggest a re-design of the tag. Where are the sweeping statements in the new material? There are only valid deductions. Primary sources are the cited newspapers and interviews. Secondary sources are the books. The material is clearly presented, rationally argued, and falls within the accepted standards of proof for this type of inquiry. Indeed the material is much more cogently presented than the rest of the information on the site. Nothing else was deleted in the addition of this information. This information is not just based on one book, but on Ghosts and Legends of Carroll County, Maryland, the Witness (which you may read on line, and which is a joint publication between Meikai University and the Carroll County, Maryland Historical Society. In addition, the supporting material for this information is available to one and all in Special Collections at the University of Maryland, College Park, and in the Maryland Room there. There is every indication that these sudden Crybaby Bridges constitutes an Internet Hoax and that information should be available to balance the presentation of this material. Thank you, Perfectblue for reading this, but please do tell us 1) why you think this argument should be reduced to one paragraph--and which one, by the way? And 2) give us some in-dept reasons why the new material contains "sweeping generalizations" when it is clearly answering one specific case and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions about the other cases? Thanks again, Dr. Jesse Glass.

"the Wiki tag does not at all make this clear" - The boiler plate clearly states that it is a project tag not a categorization tag. See Wikiprojects for more details

"Where are the sweeping statements in the new material" - Here are some examples. The language and tone is dramatisized, emotive and unencclopediac. "The almost overnight appearance of "Crybaby Bridges" in Maryland and Ohio", "seeding of selected Internet websites ....", "The complete lack of any local oral history connected with the bridge in question before 1999". The second example in particular is accusational and should either be quoted from the author or written to make it clear that they themselves make the accusation.

"the supporting material for this information is available to one and all in Special Collections at the University of Maryland, College Park, and in the Maryland Room there" - If it is available, why aren't you citing it as a source?

1) The book is the perspective of a single author whose notability you haven't asserted. Ideally you should provide several other authors or researchers who support this perspective as well as media links to back it up. Without these resources all I can see on this entry appears to be the pet hypothesis of somebody with a publishing agent. As for which paragraph, I simply meant that you should condense each element of the hypothesis into a smaller package, not that you should delete all but one element.

2) As I explained above the sentences are provocative and combative, they require a complete re-write for tone and should be worded generically rather than directly. They should also be backed up by sources external to the book to show that they are not merely the options of the writer but are facts that they could have gleaned from elsewhere - perfectblue 09:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that Dr. Glass doesn't understand the nature of our concern. We do not assert that Crybaby Bridges and the stories behind them are real. That's not an editors job. Our only job is to document the topic using reliable sources and referencing those sources according to wikipedia standards. The material inserted into the article reads like a personal opinion based on the reading of one book. As editors, we are not permitted to draw conclusions or make our own deductions based on our reading of one source or even two sources. no matter how logical we believe our personal deductions to be. All we are supposed to do is write what those sources say about the topic and then provide the appropriate in-line citation to lead the reader to the source so they can view it for themself. The material in the article doesn't do any of this. I would direct Dr. Glass to the policy page on Original Research cited above., if the material isn't brought into line with wikipedia standards it will be subject to deletion.

In addtion, other material was deleted from the article either by mistake or to bolster the original research opinion being inserted. I must remind editors of a skeptical viewpoint ( and I am one of them) to remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a message board or chatroom where the loudest voice wins. If editors were permitted to delete or gut articles on topics they personally didn't believe in, then all the religion articles would go poof as would articles on politics and even ones on theoretical science. Wikipedia seeks to document topics that are notable - not topics that are only believed to be true by a certain group of people. The opinion that crybaby bridges and new reports of them are caused by internet postings is interesting and worthy of inclusion but not as written. Internet transmission of folklore is a fascinating subject. As a folklorist myself I am intrigued by the argument presented. However, it is never in a folklorists interests to try and supress accounts of stories and beliefs. it is our job to document those beliefs and their transmission. WHile it may be true that the term Crybaby Bridge was popularized by the Shadowlands site, no reasonable academician could assert that stories of haunted bridges did not exist anywhere before that site's debut. The only legitimate way to ascertain the origin of the beliefs about any given site is to interview the informants who tell the stories or post them on the net. Such interviews may in fact back up Dr. Glass's assertion regarding the Maryland bridges. I encourage him to do some fieldwork. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to cite ourselves or our own research on wikipedia (that OR policy again!). We are however, permitted to cite published reports or reports posted on credible folklore websites. We can also cite our colleagues' works.

I am leaving the material in for a time in the hopes of reaching a consensus on the material. If no consensus can be reached, wikipeida policy will dictate whether it stays or not. In it's present state - it will have to be deleted if we go by policy. I encourage other edtiors to try and slavage the material through judicious rewrites and searching for proper references.

Finally - it is helpful if ALL editors sign their posts on talk pages with four tildas (~'s). it date and time stamps the post and ID's the user by username if logged in or ISP if not. It helps the discussion flow and prevents confusion. properly identifying yourself also enhances credibility.LiPollis 23:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to disabuse you of the notion of my not understanding your position. I wrote those books and did that research--please read the posting closely--and am a recognized authority on the folklore of that area of Maryland. If you read the original posting I am offering a very specific set of deductions about a specific appearance of one Crybaby Bridge in Carroll County, Maryland and do not pretend to offer anything else other than the possibility that the other Crybaby Bridges that appeared at the same time may also be the work of an Internet hoaxer working through Shadowlands. Thanks to everyone taking the time to care about this topic enough to chew it over with this corresponent. Internet Hoaxing and the ease of creating "Fakelore" in the electronic age is indeed the subject of a presentation I am at the moment polishing. More specific documentation is in the works and will be available to you. Thanks and every best wish to Lisa and the others, Dr. Jesse Glass.

You are aware that what you are doing is promoting an accusation that you "personally" made through Wikipedia. This is problematic. Suppose the owners of Shadowlands wrote a book alleging some wrongdoing on your part - accusing you of profiting from Maryland's oral traditions or of distorting them in someway, that kind of thing - then they came to your biography page and wrote 5-6 paragraphs detailing the accusations that they had made in their book, I'm sure you'd be on to Wikipedia about that quite quickly saying that they shouldn't publish such allegations on Wikipedia or that Wikipedia shouldn't allow them here.

I would consider it a personal favor if you could change your additions so that they cited your sources rather than you. This would remove most COI.

perfectblue 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you are signing yourself with the same name as the author of the book. May I remind you that while editors may freely cite academic papers or research that they have conducted which has been published by a neutral body (such as a peer reviewed journal or a compendium of work by a specialist society) without prejudice, it may be considered to be a conflict of interest for them to cite book in which 1) they have a financial interest 2) was not verified by an external and neutral body prior to its release 3) they may simply have paid a publisher to print.

If you really are the Jesse Glass whom authored this book, and you are well intentioned, I would ask you to please cite the sources that you used in writing your book directly rather than the book itself. This will remove any potential COI claims. - perfectblue 09:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I just reorganized the unreferenced template. This article's information is cited through external links, which (for the most part) are going on a state-by-state basis. It would be great to cite in a better manner, but I didn't know what other way these could be presented. If anyone does, go for it. 130.101.100.106 (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fakelore

I can recall hearing stories about Crybaby Bridge as prototypical ghost story as a child in Maryland in the 1980's, well before the internet age, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.167.61 (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Helltown?

Despite an extensive Google search I can't find any evidence that a place called "Helltown, Ohio" or "Boston Mills, Ohio" exists or has ever existed; further, I can't even find any evidence that a real and persistent urban legend about the existence of such a place exists. The multiple references to it across the internet are all on unverified, open content sites - it appears to be an extensive campaign by one individual (with rather poor writing skills) to retroactively create this legend, possibly for the purposes of a work of fiction or Alternate Reality Game. Unless anyone can provide a reliable citation for this "Crybaby Bridge" of Helltown I recommend the reference be deleted. DustFormsWords (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reason Helltown is mentioned in this article is because the reference puts a crybaby bridge there. You might look at starting a discussion at Helltown, Ohio. However, the links provided are already by different sources (and I added an important one about the fakelore aspect of it); more importantly, it's received a decent amount of published coverage as a textbook example of fakelore phenomena- see [1] [2] [3]. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Boston Mills may refer to the Boston Mills Brandywine ski resort area, which is mentioned in the Peninsula, Ohio article. If this is the case, it's not an official city or neighborhood, but a colloquial reference to the Brandywine Falls area. 76.253.132.162 (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Decatur, Alabama

There is supposed to be a Crybaby Hollow outside of Decatur, Alabama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.16 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to be geared towards those that believe in these liebaby--er, crybaby bridges, particularily the Oklahoma section. How do you recommend that the article be changed to have a more neutral point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venku Tur'Mukan (talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I should mention that "you" should not be used, as this is an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual. "You" should only be used in quotation marks. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sulphur Springs (Texas) and Georgia... In these I found a total of ten uses of either you or your. At the moment I don't have enough time to fix it. Not only is this unencyclopedic, but it's written as a tutorial (e.g., "If you put baby powder on your car..."). Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

US-centric?

There's a pattern to all of the locations listed... they're all in the US. Is that because the urban legend itself is of US origin, or is the article biased to that one country? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Markleville

I'm from Anderson, Indiana, and I've been to that bridge, its not in Anderson, its in Markleville, a town next to Anderson. So I corrected that part. --ECayce187 (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

   ... so presumably you're sure you know all the screaming-brat bridges in the county? Don't you feel any obligation to provide geodetic co-ordinates, rather than expecting us to accept your opinions that there aren't two creepy bridges haunted by either 1 or 2 ... uh, phenomena?? C'mon, souls are at stake!
--Jerzy•t 03:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Night and day

   I reworded to

The "baby cries" have been said to be heard at night or during the day.

after finding, roughly, the vaguer yet even less plausible version

The baby cries can be heard night and day.

(Look up the exact bizarre wording in the edit history, if you think i was lax in being more concerned with the exact new wording than abt the old, and might have inadvertantly made the removed wording sound even more outrageous than you think it really was -- if you think i was, don't expect to make your best possible case for you. I'm editing with an iPad 2, and jumping back and forth to make multiple pastes here would be even more stressful than this one-finger typing on the touch-scream. [That's intentional sarcasm, to lessen my stress in this talk-edit; don't hope for me to apologize.])< br>--Jerzy•t 03:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

there’s one in Ridley oklahoma too

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.246.18.45 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Kansas has one too…

About two miles south of the oil refinery in Coffeyville, KS. Only good after dark of course. Scream at your own risk!? 2600:100A:A011:891C:8D43:8610:8A11:EDE1 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)