Jump to content

Talk:Black-eyed children

Original's Status as a Creepypasta

  • We have exactly one source saying this thing is a "classic creepypasta" and frankly, it isn't a very good source. It lumps Brian Bethel's original account in with actual classic creepypastas such as Slender Man, Smile Dog, and Candle Cove; it appears to have been written by someone who knew their creepypasta lore, was under the impression that the black-eyed kids were another work of fiction that got out of hand, and threw it on the proverbial pile. The phrasing ("Actually, they're a creepypasta written by a Texas reporter...") seems to support this.
    It's something of an easy/not hard mistake to make (the Abilene report paper often gets overlooked), which is why it's all the more important that we clarify. The original black-eyed kids story was written by a guy whose credentials check out and who still believes with absolute certainty that he came close to dying that night. Urban legend? Sure, it could definitely be said that it's taken on urban legend status. A classic creepypasta? No. 74.77.24.150 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that the dailydot is not a RS? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to exercise common sense. Daily Dot might be a RS, but even reputable sources can contain misinformation. I'm not necessarily proposing we take the link out (it's got a wealth of BEK related links), but I think it's going too far to call the original story a "classic example of creepypasta" just because one site mistakenly believed it was and included it in a list. 74.77.24.150 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we get to pick and choose like that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about picking and choosing. It's about the origins of a phenomenon and describing it in accurate terms. 74.77.24.150 (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have conceded that dailydot is an RS source. If you want to challenge it then you need to cite another RS source that contradicts DD with respect to the issue at hand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Already done this. I've cited Brian Bethel's article in the Abilene Reporter News describing life since his encounter and affirming that it was something he really experienced. It directly contradicts the Daily Dot page's statement that it was intended as a creepypasta.74.77.24.150 (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What he "really experienced", according to his own account, was a couple of kids asking him for a lift so they could go and see the movie Mortal Kombat. Oh the horror, the horror. Everything else is inside his head - feelings of terror, strange sensations etc. He turned this non-event into a creepy story that managed to to get copied by others. Hence "creepypasta", creepy stories that 'stick' and are cut and pasted. Who says such stories have to be purely fictional? 'Creepypasta' is slang expression, not a technical term. It can be used with variations. The story corresponds to the concept in meaningful ways. The most important point here is that the sourced linked term provides a useful context for readers - to learn how stories like this circulate. Hence it is useful and should stay. Paul B (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For heaven's sake, he didn't "turn this non-event into a creepy story." He experienced something he's tried to explain and couldn't, then shared it online. He unanonymously and in full view of his boss swears that it really happened -- an unprecedented, extremely significant fact that can't be said for any other "creepypasta" in existence. There's enough useful information in the Daily Dot source to justify the link staying, but for us to take a single, misleading line from it and include that as a crucial part of this phenomenon's history is straight up inaccurate. 69.207.27.32 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For heaven's sake, what 'really happened' was that two kids wanted to see Mortal Kombat and asked for a ride to the movie theatre in his car. He said no and drove off. That was it, according to his own account. What's to explain? Creepy-looking feral kids are a dime a dozen. Yes, there is no rule that we have to include everything said in a reliable source, but there is good reason to include this for the reasons I've given. Its existence as an urban legend arises from the gloss given in the narrative, which then generates others. The article clearly says that - according to him - he actually met a couple of creepy kids. So there's no claim that it's fiction. It's only your assertion that the term "creepypasta" must refer to stories that are 100% made up. But in fact others are ambiguous, such as the "normal porn" story which refers to some apparently real online videos in order to build up to the supposedly suppressed "snuff" film. Others may have been genuinely believed by their originators. We can't know in all cases. That's the nature of the internet. Paul B (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Normal Porn for Normal People" isn't ambiguous -- you can chat with the people behind it here and here. It's true that not all creepypasta authors come out and openly proclaim their stories to be fictional, but very few of them are adamant on deeming them nonfiction, and no one has ever stuck to their guns for this long. Also, I frankly have no idea which account you're reading. If the story had simply been about two creepy kids asking for something and Bethel driving off, there'd be no story and we wouldn't be here talking about this. You've chosen to ignore the unnatural vibe of the conversation, the sudden disappearance, the primal, pants-soiling terror, and of course, the solid black eyes. Now, you clearly don't believe there was anything paranormal about it, and that's 100% fine, but the point is the original writer genuinely believes to this day -- to the point of putting his reputation as a journalist at some small degree of risk -- that he saw something possibly paranormal and narrowly escaped being killed by it. Because of this, it occupies a very unique place in the annals of Spooky Tales from the Internet. And this is worth noting. 69.207.27.32 (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The account I read was Bethel's own version of the story. The 'article' I referred to was the Daily Dot piece under discussion, which never says that Bethel's account is avowed fiction, or suggests that its author somehow mistakenly believed it to be. In fact the Daily Dot article actually discusses the maleability and evolving nature of the term "creepypasta" itself. I've chosen to ignore the things you refer to because once you take out such subjective matters as "unnatural vibe", "primal, pants-soiling terror" and supposed "sudden disappearance", there's nothing to the story at all (he was apparently driving when he looked back, so the 'disappearance' means next to nothing. Maybe he just didn't notice them when he took his eye off the road. Maybe they were in his optical blind spot). As for 'solid black eyes', who knows what that even means? Any number of tricks of the light might explain it. But that's all beside the point. He turned a relatively banal event into something super-terrifying, which provided a template for others to do the same thing every time they see some creepy-looking kid who stares at them, mysteriously disappears, or acts oddly. That's how urban legends develop, and its how day-to-day experiences become 'supernaturalised', just as will-o-the-whisps and glowworms became dancing fairies and whatever in the old days. The creepypasta link just provides a useful term for indicating how these kinds of story propagate. Paul B (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's not all beside the point, because you keep returning to it as a reason this is just another classic pasta. "Once you take out all the things that left this person legitimately frightened, it's a relatively banal event." It's not about my take on the story or yours, but the rather large impact the event had on the original writer. The problem with the Daily Dot piece is that it starts out by saying that according to some, BEK are real paranormal phenomena. Then it goes on to clarify that they're "actually" a creepypasta written by Brian Bethel -- the implication being that this is a fun, original piece of fiction just like the other six...indeed, like essentially every other pasta in existence. Summing the lore's origins up as just "a classic creepypasta" fails to do justice to the fact that this is, in the most objective terms, a rarity. 69.207.27.32 (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All creepypasta stories use a "this really happened to me" anecdote formula and part of the formula is the teller of the tale says they really believe they experienced something paranormal. I'm not sure why you feel Brian Bethel's story needs to be singled out as extra, extra believable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many creepypasta authors who use the "this really happened to me" anecdote formula will pop up at some point to let everyone know that it was all pretend and that they can breathe easy...a classic example would be Ted's Caving Page. And of course, some don't. But Brian Bethel is sticking to his original story fourteen years after the fact, off the internet, despite having a career that makes it not in his best interest to do this. It's worth singling out because it's the only tidbit of internet horror that can claim this. 69.207.27.32 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt it's the only one. I'm sure many authors do say "it's only a story" and many others don't. In this case the story acquires its creepy quality from the subjective gloss put on the event (nothing significant actually happens), which makes the way it circulates relevant as modern folk-culture. I'm not sure why you think Bethel has a motive to say he made the story up. Rather the contrary, I'd have thought. Collecting 'true' ghost stories seems to be rather central to what he does. The Daily Dot article actually quotes him saying "Do I believe something unnatural was at work? Yes, most likely", so I'm at a loss to understand why you keep saying that it falsely implies that story was pure fiction. Paul B (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the "actually, they're a creepypasta" bit I've already mentioned before, the Daily Dot source says that he "posted dozens of similar ghost stories during his time on the Usenet group." While not technically a lie, it gives the impression that he wrote them all himself and then posted them to alt.folklore.ghost-stories, and that this was a hobby of his that finally caught fire. In reality, he wrote three (also reportedly true) stories, collected more from other people, and archived them on his own very 90s looking website. The fact that it comes at the end of a list featuring actual, classic creepypastas with openly fictional origins suggests that it's one as well, rather than a blend of urban legend/phenomenon that people have legitimately studied and written books on. I'm proposing we don't call it a "classic creepypasta" when it's clearly in a class all its own. 69.207.27.32 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creepypasta is a blend of urban legend and cultural phenomenon, the hallmark of which is the "reportedly true" nature of the story, whether or not it eventually gets revealed as fictional, and we have a reliable secondary source that calls the BEK origin stories creepypasta, so it's very appropriate that we include that in our Wik.ipedia.Pro article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP Horror Tag

WP Horror only covers horror fiction, not urban legends or the paranormal ("WikiProject Horror aims to define a standard of consistency for articles about fictional horror-related articles, primarily those that fall within the parameters of horror fiction and horror film.",Wik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Horror) --KWWight (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel "recanting"?

Until just now, the article said that "In 2012, Brian Bethel recanted his story to the reality television series "Monsters and Mysteries in America." He then attempted to deny his statements by writing a follow up article for the Abilene Reporter News, insisting that his experience was legitimate." - is that a typo for "recount", or (if he then "attempted to deny" his statements on the show) did he deny his story? If it's the latter, did he deny that it was true, or deny that it was fictional Creepypasta? I've cut this down to a more neutral "told his story" for now. --McGeddon (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black-eyed children. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This 'urban legend' is an internet creepypasta that does not pre-date 2012.

There is zero evidence online. Snopes cites it as 2013. The only source is the guy who claims to have invented it and Ashley and Steve Shives, notorious buffoons (you're probably blocked by them on Twitter already, I'm not even joking, they're literally only known for prolific lying, internet brawling with complete strangers, and a fanatical devotion to intersectional feminism) Ashley and Steve Shives who cashed in on this story weeks after they saw it on TV with a kickstarter campaign. There was talk by Matzen, the director of the abysmal 'shot in a weekend by a group of mates yet somehow needs a B-movie budget' film, that he had seen this urban legend kicking around the internet for many years but there is zero substantiating evidence supporting this claim. It just appears the ravings of a kook, a bad TV show, and some unoriginal plagerists grabbing and running with the concept have kick started one of the more lame creepypasta's of the internets and Snopes and all other sources appear to confirm this.

It would be nice if this article reflected reality, somewhat. It sounds like it was written by some kids who wanted to write some creepy pasta's about it but though a wiki article would give it more credence and threw this together. Given I have a strong opinion towards this--specifically I think it's worthless bollocks that's probably worthy of speedy deletion--I have opted not to edit this article but ask that it's current editors over the age of 12 please re-write this to reflect reality. It's a good plug for Matzo ball's indie flick and Ashley's atrocious writing skills, but it's certainly not real, verifiable, supported by any evidence, nor a reflection of the actual claims surrounding this creepypasta. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 22:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't delete an article about a topic that's been covered by multiple reliable independent sources. I did however expand the quote by Sharon Hill to clarify the context. It may have sounded like she was giving credibility to the legend when instead she was actually being sarcastic. Do you have additional sources we might use? Do you have any specific suggestions on how to improve the existing article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the evidence: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.folklore.ghost-stories/HFXkIXeq9ec Brian Bethel cross-posted the story on alt.folklore.ghost-stories on 28th August 1997. --83.216.88.167 (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comic and Mataglap.

The article could perhaps also mention the comic series Black Eyed Kids; and the Indonesian word "mataglap" which means literally black-eyed (from anger), and figuratively going berserk (from mata=eye and gelap=dark). Martin. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete tag

Regarding the recently added tag requesting the article be completed, please specify the reliable independent sources to be used for such an expansion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should do nicely: [1] Cynthia-Coriníon (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black-eyed_children&oldid=1206322568"

See what we do next...

OR

By submitting your email or phone number, you're giving mschf permission to send you email and/or recurring marketing texts. Data rates may apply. Text stop to cancel, help for help.

Success: You're subscribed now !