Jump to content

Talk:Mothman: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →top: code typo
 
(43 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Folklore|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Folklore|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=Low|WV=Yes|WV-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Cryptozoology|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Paranormal|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|WV=Yes|WV-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Visual arts|public-art=yes}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low}}
}}
}}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
{{archivebox|
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-09-01">1 September 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-12-11">11 December 2020</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Rio_Grande/Intro_to_Information_Technology_(Fall)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Jdwatt90|Jdwatt90]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:Kyra05z|Kyra05z]].
# [[Talk:Mothman/Archive 1|2003 &ndash; July 2007]]
# [[Talk:Mothman/Archive 2|August 2007 &ndash; July 2008]]
# [[Talk:Mothman/Archive 3|August 2008 &ndash; July 2010]]
}}

__TOC__

== Mothman seen in Serbia ==

Please translate text from [http://www.blog.hr/print/id/1624992969/mothman.html this page] and add it to this article. It says that there are hundreds of whitnesses who have seen Mothman in Serbia at 2005. Some old woman also describes him at 1995. There is also 2008. picture of Mothman in Serbia. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.143.20.27|93.143.20.27]] ([[User talk:93.143.20.27|talk]]) 12:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==File:Mothman statue 2005.JPG Nominated for Deletion==
{|
|-
| [[File:Image-x-generic.svg|100px]]
| An image used in this article, [[commons:File:Mothman statue 2005.JPG|File:Mothman statue 2005.JPG]], has been nominated for deletion at [[Wikimedia Commons]] in the following category: ''Deletion requests August 2011''
;What should I do?
''Don't panic''; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is [[WP:NFCC|non-free]] then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no [[WP:FUR|fair use rationale]] then it cannot be uploaded or used.

''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
|}

== Mothman ==
I may not know how to navigate Wikipedia, but I know a lot about Mothman. So, please don't call my attempt to fix an obvious misstatement about Mothman as vandalism. I will gladly send you links to the appropriate sources, so that you can post yourself. This will show that you have a genuine interest in correctly describing the Mothman situation. I have applied for a user account on Wikipedia and look forward to working with you to make the Mothman page something that accurately reflects the case. [[Special:Contributions/71.217.12.203|71.217.12.203]] ([[User talk:71.217.12.203|talk]]) 20:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but the manipulation of Mothman on Wikipedia has long been the subject of controversy on the Mothmanlives discussion list (now not very active, due to its being on Yahoo) and on Mothy Talk on Facebook. A lot of people are watching to see if some of the previous citations and researchers that WERE on the page get resinstated, rather than the host of skeptics now listed there. It is really is tragedy, what has been done to this page. So much work tossed out, and for what?[[Special:Contributions/71.217.12.203|71.217.12.203]] ([[User talk:71.217.12.203|talk]]) 20:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for your comments and I hope you take some time to familiarize yourself with the encyclopedia's policies. You may be referring to material recently removed from the article that placed equal or [[WP:UNDUE|undue]] weight on [[WP:FRINGE|fringe views]], or material that was not supported by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Coast-To-Coast AM and forums such as Mothy Talk are not considered reliable or independent sources, and so are not suitable for use here. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 21:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please describe what you consider a credible source. [[User:Western Fortean|Western Fortean]] ([[User talk:Western Fortean|talk]]) 23:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

How can you have a source, reliable or otherwise, for something that isn't real to begin with, it's like haveing a reliable source for Father Christmas or The Tooth Fairy. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.188.214.245|195.188.214.245]] ([[User talk:195.188.214.245|talk]]) 15:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

It would not seem to really matter whether or not further reports after 1967 can be "proven" or not, since the original ones weren't proven either, other than someone having reported them. There are several other reports out there since 1967, which were reported in the same manner as the original ones. Also, the experts that are now being cited on the page are not independent, each having a vested interest in a particular (entirely skeptical or debunking) point of view. [[User:Western Fortean|Western Fortean]] ([[User talk:Western Fortean|talk]]) 23:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edits of Aug. 21st are particular disturbing. Would you happen to be Loren Coleman? [[User:Western Fortean|Western Fortean]] ([[User talk:Western Fortean|talk]]) 01:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

==Folklore is "Skeptical"?==
It is strange that academic [[Jan Harold Brunvand]]'s observations about Mothman folklore is being identified as "skeptical" by being relegated to the Skeptical section. In the case of legendary creatures, the idea that the creature is real should not be given [[WP:GEVAL|equal validity]]. I suggest moving it to a "folklore" section in the very least. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 19:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
:To anyone familiar with Brunvand's work, there is nothing strange about his views being labeled skeptical. He specializes in the folklore of "urban legends," modern tales that some people believe to be true but are either untrue or cannot be confirmed. By identfying folkloric elements in the Mothman tales, he is not supporting the thesis that the creature is real; quite the opposite. Let's leave Brundvand's views where they are. [[User:Plazak|Plazak]] ([[User talk:Plazak|talk]]) 01:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
::Sheriff George Johnson and biologist Dr. Robert L. Smith are not supporting the thesis that the creature is real. Quite the opposite. I sure hope they don't get dumped into the "skeptical" section! In all seriousness, the thesis that "mothman, a flying man-sized creature unknown to [[biology]] is real" is a definite minority [[WP:FRINGE|fringe view]]. I can understand professional debunker Joe Nickell's views being put in a section marked "skeptical", but Brunvand shouldn't be split off into a Skeptic section just because he reflects the majority academic view (i.e., existence of flying man sized creatures unknown to biology is not accepted by science.) - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 03:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
:::The majority (non-fringe) view is skeptical. [[User:Plazak|Plazak]] ([[User talk:Plazak|talk]]) 14:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

== Cryptozoology, Ufology, and Other Pseudoscience versus Folkloristics ==

Folks, this article has long had a problem with not identifying academic studies versus pseudoscientific nonsense. We need to be a lot more careful with this going forward here. I've made some adjustments where necessary to identify pseudoscience versus academia. [[User:Bloodofox|&#58;bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 19:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

== Pseudoscience ==

Economics, Sociology, and Psychology are technically pseudosciences, and those comments aren't tagged with pseudoscience, so cryptozoology shouldn't be either. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:405:8402:ABB0:B5FD:6A0A:88E5:1275|2601:405:8402:ABB0:B5FD:6A0A:88E5:1275]] ([[User talk:2601:405:8402:ABB0:B5FD:6A0A:88E5:1275|talk]]) 03:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:No, pseudoscience should be labelled wherever it is found. What kind of encyclopedia do you think we're running here? The 'hide the truth' handbook? [[User:BrianPansky|BrianPansky]] ([[User talk:BrianPansky|talk]]) 03:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

== Snowy Owl ==

You can't say that because something is rare it's unlikely to happen, and then go on to say that something is likely even though it's unlikely. that's just not how consistency works. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:405:8402:ABB0:B5FD:6A0A:88E5:1275|2601:405:8402:ABB0:B5FD:6A0A:88E5:1275]] ([[User talk:2601:405:8402:ABB0:B5FD:6A0A:88E5:1275|talk]]) 03:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Image ==

Is it a good idea to add this image to the article?

[[File:Mothman Artist's Impression.png|thumb|Artist's rendition of the mothman]]

[[User:Triangulum|Triangulum]] ([[User talk:Triangulum|talk]]) 01:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

: A professional illustration would be more acceptable IMO. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|Dark]]'''[[User talk:Darkknight2149|Knight]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|2149]]''' 05:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

:: What do you think is more professional? We must not forget that this creature nost likely doesn't exist. What kind of image would be better? [[User:Triangulum|Triangulum]] ([[User talk:Triangulum|talk]]) 12:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

::: What I mean by "professional" is an image created by a professional illustrator and published (for example, in a newspaper or encyclopedia). Your illustration of Mothman is impressive but it was created by yourself. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|Dark]]'''[[User talk:Darkknight2149|Knight]]'''[[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|2149]]''' 17:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

:::: Ah, like that. Thank you. I understand. [[User:Triangulum|Triangulum]] ([[User talk:Triangulum|talk]]) 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

::::: If i may resurrect this discussion — while I understand the argument for a professional picture, I believe Triangulum's image would be a better fit than the current image (a photograph of the statue of Mothman). Triangulum's work correctly reflects the folkloristic and/or cryptozoological view of the Mothman, in accordance with the early testimonies — dark stocky shape, glowing red eyes — in contrast with the statue, which, while a fine work of art, was greatly altered into a detailed insectoid monster completely unlike the original creature. --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] ([[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|talk]]) 11:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::: Bear in mind there is no "official" description because there is no "authority" regarding Mothman, it is a thing composed entirely of hearsay and rumor. So WP can't put [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] on one artist's unique interpretation by making it the lead article image. The statue at least can be verified by secondary sources as Point Pleasant's commemoration of the topic. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 16:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

::::::: The use of an image to represent a creature that no one has even seen (because it probably doesn't exist) is trivial. Whether or not it's an accurate representation of the creature shouldn't really matter, because who's to say it's correct or not? [[User:Kakashilover7|Kakashilover7]] ([[User talk:Kakashilover7|talk]]) 03:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

== Polish translation tag ==

Somebody inserted a tag at the top of the article requesting it be expanded using the Polish article as a source. After reviewing the Polish article I can’t agree. It’s full of fringe crypto zoology sources and unreliable personal websites. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

== Sources ==

Here's some sources--[[User:Paleface Jack|Paleface Jack]] ([[User talk:Paleface Jack|talk]]) 20:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC):
* https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2017/08/09/theres-been-a-record-number-of-flying-humanoid-sightings-over-chicago-this-year

* https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/apparently-the-mysterious-mothman-has-been-spotted-flying-over-chicago-mnultiple-times/

* {{cite book|ref=harv|author1=Christopher R. Fee|author2=Jeffrey B. Webb|title=American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore &#91;3 volumes&#93;: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore (3 Volumes)|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kXnEDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA677|date=29 August 2016|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=978-1-61069-568-8}}

== Mothman sighting in Moscow ==

My [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mothman&diff=872473131&oldid=866685531 recent edit] has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mothman&diff=872485118&oldid=872473131 removed]. I can see the point, and I apologize for not having done sufficient research prior to editing the Wikipedia.

That said, there's more than just an English blog to back up my contribution. The story has originally appeared in 2002, in a Russian-language Georgian newspaper "Свободная Грузия". There's a Russian Wikipedia [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%93%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%8F entry] for that newspaper and it has [http://svobodnaya.info/ru/ a website].

Currently the access to that specific article is [https://dlib.eastview.com/browse/doc/4104201 paywalled], but its content has been shared by [http://www.x-libri.ru/elib/smi__653/00000001.htm other resources, as well]. I have verified that the paywalled source does indeed contain the story which was posted in the second link. If you want to prove that, you could either spend 19$, go to a library, or send me an email and I will send you the full text of the paywalled source. Long story short, it contains multiple entries including the one of interest.

So, if the reliability of the source was the only reason to undo my edit, I guess, the information can be now put back into the article. [[User:Document hippo|Document hippo]] ([[User talk:Document hippo|talk]]) 17:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
: According to the translated text, the story is quoting the breathless claims of a Russian UFOlogist that Mothman was sighted before a local tragedy. Given the [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:SENSATIONAL]] aspects, it deserves only a brief mention — if at all. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk:LuckyLouie|talk]]) 20:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
:: Precisely! Also, providing the link to Google translation has been a good idea. Apologies -- the story is so hilarious that I was tempted to explore it just a bit more than it deserved.
:: Another idea I was trying to convey was that UFOlogists have been quite common in Russia in 1990s. Not sure whether they are significantly less common now, but in 1990s they were significantly more apparent.
:: [[Alyoshenka|Here's]] a typical Russia's 1990s story.
:: Your edit is brilliant in regards of conveying that particular idea. [[User:Document hippo|Document hippo]] ([[User talk:Document hippo|talk]]) 21:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

== Inappropriate "See Also" link? ==

I would have to question the "See Also" link, leading to the wikipedia page for "Mothra" ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothra]]). Neither page contains a mention of the other (and, to my knowledge, there is nothing related between the two other than the "moth" in their names), aside from the "See Also" links.

This would also question the corresponding "See Also" link on the "Mothra" page.

[[User:Ballpark frank|Ballpark frank]] ([[User talk:Ballpark frank|talk]]) 07:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

== Today's Mothman ==


Have there been any semi-recent Mothman sightings, like in the past few years, or even decade? [[User:Kakashilover7|Kakashilover7]] ([[User talk:Kakashilover7|talk]]) 00:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 04:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== "Leurozancla" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Leurozancla]] and has thus listed it [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|for discussion]]. This discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Leurozancla]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:TNstingray|TNstingray]] ([[User talk:TNstingray|talk]]) 16:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
== "Winged Draco" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Winged Draco]] and has thus listed it [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|for discussion]]. This discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Winged Draco]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:TNstingray|TNstingray]] ([[User talk:TNstingray|talk]]) 16:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:44, 25 March 2024

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jdwatt90. Peer reviewers: Kyra05z.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Leurozancla" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Leurozancla and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Leurozancla until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Winged Draco" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Winged Draco and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Winged Draco until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mothman&oldid=1215449767"