Talk:Mothman

Mothman seen in Serbia

Please translate text from 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.20.27 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mothman statue 2005.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, 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 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 fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --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. 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?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 undue weight on fringe views, or material that was not supported by 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. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please describe what you consider a credible source. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.214.245 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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. Western Fortean (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edits of Aug. 21st are particular disturbing. Would you happen to be Loren Coleman? 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 equal validity. I suggest moving it to a "folklore" section in the very least. - 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. 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 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.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The majority (non-fringe) view is skeptical. 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. :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.