Talk:Drop bear

My edits and UNDO's without proper review.

Initially - part 1 - 9 April. (wont always break on a date). Adding a bit of structure to ease editing feel free to fine tune.

To those, so far two, people who have reflexively undone my edits. You are not doing proper review of my edits.

I have added a number of scolarly references to back my edits. LOOK AT THE REFERENCES. This is a matter of Australian popular culture. I have added references to show how this is part of Australian culture. I restructured the first two paragraphs, in my initial edit WITHOUT ADDING OR DELETING ANYTHING, to support my subsequent references. I then added references to popular culture in academia. I then added two, initially, solid references to mention of Drop Bears in Australian literature. I intend to add further to this artical over time.

STOP interfering.

YOU HAVE vandalized correctly referenced edits.

READ the REFERENCES before YOU want to undo anything.

˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You boldly edited to bury essential, basic facts about the drop bear. You were reverted. THAT is when you should discuss the issue, per WP:BRD. Instead, you undid the revert. Another editor (me) reverted you. This is now a weak WP:CONSENSUS not to "keep the surprise". You undid the revert again. I am reverting you again, maintaining the prior status quo until after discussion decides otherwise.

If you decide to undo this revision again (prior to a discussion determining otherwise), you will be warned for edit warring.

The drop bear is fictional and Australian. These are essential, basic, descriptive facts about the drop bear the should be in the very first sentence of the article. Yes, this kills the "surprise". The surprise is appropriate for cheeky tourist brochures and children's books. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Yes, they appear in a novel. This is a fact. It is, however, not informative about drop bears. It is a trivial mention of an appearance in popular culture. Please see WP:IPC. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, see the example in WP:HOAX about Piltdown man, showing how articles about hoaxes should appear. The changes made appear to be precisely what is warned against. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I had two references to popular culture in the (my edited) second paragraph, independent of the later novel references.

The point of drop bears are that they are a important part of popular culture in Australia, yes it is also of note that they are not actual creatures.

That first sentence (original) is wrong that they are 'fictitious', they do not originate in fiction, they are much more than that, they are an iconic part of Australian culture, they are not simply 'fictitious', even the reference to that claim (hoaxes.org) is not particularly relevant, it does not claim 'fictitious' but 'According to legend', it is also a self published source, see the box at left "Support the Museum of Hoaxes BUY MY BOOK - BUY SOME STUFF", it is not a reliable source. So at best that reference could support "Drop Bears are LEGENDERY Australian marsuipial", but it is still a crap reference.

Your reference to IPC quotes "They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not." Further, I did not create the 'popular culture' section, I added two referenced novels which referenced Drop Bears in literature. I have no idea whether you are Australian or not,

My references are a. Verifiable (look them up) most are academic. b. Genuine interest to Australian readers. c. details impact on popular culture - I doubt you actually went to the trouble of referring to the references and probably have no idea what the bushells tea references to popular culture actually MEANS in Australia, they are available via inter-library loan should you not have access to the full articles. d. IF YOU DID, you would note that 'the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research' ACADEMIC RESEARCH.

Please provide VERIFIABLE REFERENCES to support your view that the (original) first sentence claim of 'fictitious' as the current reference is not good, worse BAD.

My edits spelled out that they are 'commonly said to be' (the most important aspect of the legend/meme - any I was just re-using the words already there), followed about two lines later, that they are 'fictitious' (again, I was just using the existing terminology), but on reflection, that is the wrong word, I then also used the words 'meme' and 'popular culture' which are more correct.

I did not as you accuse me of "bury essential, basic facts", the essence of the facts were in the first four lines, it is a meme and it is not real.

You seem to have a predilection to make the primary focus on a fictitious animal ( and a hoax), it is not a hoax. It is a significant meme which should be the focus of the first paragraph. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You can always take it to arbitration, see WP:ARB. I don't recommend it, this is a cut-and-dried case. The intro paragraph to a hoax article should specify that it's a hoax (or fictitious, the terms are synonymous in this context), before it describes anything else about the hoax. The article should never pretend to describe anything about the hoax as factual. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm waiting on my query to the National Library of Australia before proceeding. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

and BTW my edit did not describe anything as factual. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the recent flurry of edits, I would suggest noting the policy WP:POINT. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Part 2 - 10 April -

They are fictitious: "not real or true, being imaginary or having been fabricated."[1] This is a central feature of the drop bear. Claims to the contrary or attempts to bury this fact in the body of the article are disruptive at best. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Trouble is the citation does not support your assertion. (should have a response from the NLA ~ a week) ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Mimarx, please clarify: Are you challenging the fact that they are fictional? What have you requested of/from the National Library of Australia? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

One aspect is to document the Drop Bear as a significant meme in Australian culture and it's history. My attempts to include valid citation of academic journals in this regard have been reflexively reverted in whole without due consideration of the citations. Even when I was not editing the first section, I am accused of 'berrying facts in the body of the article' and undone. I believe the NLA will be able to provide older and more complete (than my initial research) references to the history and significance of Drop Bears in Australian society & culture, including (as I suspect) Aboriginal connections and possibly relations to Australian megafauna, such as Phascolarctos stirtoni perhaps, or Diprotodon. Reading between the lines, I suspect you are not Australian and have little understanding of this (no offence), and seem to think this is just some guys trying to pull a fast one. Also I think the 'fictitious' citation of extremely low quality & relevance, in my travels I have not seen a decent one. (fixing my sig - if this works?) [User:Mimarx|˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ]] (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps short of arbitration, you might try getting a third opinion - see WP:3O. It's clear you aren't making any headway with the existing editors on this talk page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW - I 've been looking into the mythology, some reports argue that the early settlers extensive forest clearing was a response to the unknown (to western settlers) animals of the forest, and that the clearing of native forest in Tasmania by the locals is still such a reaction. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Mimarx: Again, are you saying the drop bear is not fictional? Please answer with a direct yes or no. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why spoil the 'surprise'. I haven't made up my mind yet, nice to have an open mind. I m a y be saying the 'simple view' that it is a modern hoax misrepresents the true historical background to the cultural references to Drop Bears, but that is pending my verified sources.

Interesting article Yara-ma-yha-who...(please don't try to suggest I made that up BTW). I'm still waiting on NLA before I start seriously describing the matter. I may drive over to discuss their views. Being in Canberra, I'm close to all the National Institutions, including ANU where I studied (tho not Drop Bear related subjects), and http://aiatsis.gov.au/.

So when I'm ready we can discuss 'fictitious'ness.˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why spoil the surprise? Because this is an encyclopedia. We tell people that Rosebud is a sled, Vader is Luke's father, "she" is a transvestite, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny are fictional. When an article on a "creature" published on April Fool's Day includes a range map that shows it live is an area of the Eastern coast and any area in the Outback shaped like a smiling koala head, it should be a bit of a clue. This is a fictional creature. It is not a subject for "cryptozoology" as no one over the age of 12 things it is real. That's why we have a photoshopped koala for the image.

Supprise was in regard to NLA results.˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You can't make up your mind and won't answer a direct question. I will consider any further edits by you that seem to be aimed at presenting this piece of fiction as fact to be disruptive and will warn you appropriately. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I answered your direct question: "I haven't made up my mind yet, nice to have an open mind. I m a y be saying the 'simple view' that it is a modern hoax misrepresents the true historical background to the cultural references to Drop Bears, but that is pending my verified sources.". Is that not a reasonable approach.

"I will consider any further edits by you that seem to be aimed at presenting this piece of fiction as fact to be disruptive and will warn you appropriately." Feel free, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

Why do you feel my edits 'seem to be aimed at presenting...as fact'? Do you have any basis for this. I have not stated anything as fact, I have consistently used term like meme & cultural references.

Yet you have yet* to suggest any stronger citations than a one para self published very questionable citation, which uses the term 'legendary'. Just saying. (* I wrote this before your recent substitute citation(s) - I'll examine that later - seem to have been a few versions)

I'm sorry that my attempts to document valid cultural references has seemingly caused you to be upset and defensive. That was/is not my intent. (edit - fix sig.) [User:Mimarx|˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ]] (talk) 15:35, April 10, 2015‎

You moved the fact that this is a fictional creature from the very first sentence to the second paragraph to "save the surprise". No, that is not a "reasonable approach" to writing an encyclopedia.

That this is a fictional creature "m a y" now be seen in five reliable sources, making it the best referenced information in the article.

Your "attempts to document valid cultural references" seems to include a need to move an obvious, basic fact from the lede to "preserve the surprise". Additionally, you find a need to dance around the issue on the talk page. It is a fictional creature. Whether you wish to hide this to keep a cute joke alive or don't fully grasp reality is immaterial.

Perhaps you should check our article on the Tooth Fairy and make sure no one is jumping to conclusions or ruining surprises there. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

deleted empty section.

Cont'd - Cryptozoology - cryptid references, terminology commonly used

(I'll get to the relevance of this later)˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC) I also had a close look at Cryptozoology, and the List of cryptids, my pseudo-random (I just went down the list and chose those that sounded interesting/relevant) review of Wikipedia articles and the terminology used. The majority used term like in the following (contracted for brevity):

Bigfoot .. is the name given to a cryptid ape- or hominid-like creature that is said to inhabit forests

The Yeti .. is an ape-like cryptid taller than an average human that is said to inhabit the Himalayan region of Nepal and Tibet.

The chupacabra .. is a legendary cryptid rumored to inhabit parts of the Americas, ..The name comes from the animal's reported habit of attacking and drinking the blood of livestock, especially goats.

The agogwe is a purported small human-like biped reported from the forests of East Africa. It is 1 to 1.7 m (3.3 to 5.6 ft) tall with long arms.. It has also been reported as having black or grey hair. Its feet are said to be about 12 cm (5 in) long with opposable toes.

The Altamaha-ha (or Altie) is a posited aquatic creature, alleged to inhabit the myriad network of small streams and abandoned rice fields near the mouth of the Altamaha River..The legend has its roots in Native American tradition. Cryptozoologists report that there have been uniform sightings of the creature, in which witnesses claim the creature is 30-feet long..

Tales about the existence of the Beaman Monster in Kansas City have been around for more than a century. There is no proof, however, that such a creature exists. .. The tales claim that the Beaman Monster was the offspring of the circus animal escapee. Although there is no evidence, the Beaman Monster's existence is not impossible.

The Devil Bird, ..is a cryptid of Sri Lanka said to emit bloodcurdling human sounding shrieks .. In Sri Lankan folklore, it is believed that the cry of this bird is an omen that portends death..As the bird is not usually seen and its cry only described in vague terms..The precise identity of this bird is one of the mysteries of the Ceylon jungles.

In Hawaiian mythology, the Menehune are said to be a people, sometimes described as dwarfs in size, who live in the deep forests and hidden valleys of the Hawaiian Islands, far from the eyes of normal humans..The Menehune were said to be superb craftspeople. Legends say that the Menehune built temples (heiau), fishponds, roads, canoes, and houses. Some of these structures that Hawaiian folklore attributed to the Menehune still exist..In Beckwith's Hawaiian Mythology, there are references to several other forest dwelling races: the Nawao, who were large-sized wild hunters descended from Lua-nuʻu, the mu people, and the wa people. Folklorist Katharine Luomala believes that the legends of the Menehune are a post-European contact mythology created by adaptation of the term manahune (which by the time of the settling of the Hawaiian Islands had acquired a meaning of "lowly people" or "low social status" and not diminutive in stature).. No physical evidence for the existence of a historical peoples that fit the description of the Menehune has been discovered.

Ogopogo or Naitaka (Salish: n'ha-a-itk, "lake demon") is the name given to a cryptid lake monster reported to live in Okanagan Lake, in British Columbia, Canada. Ogopogo has been allegedly seen by First Nations people since the 19th century..British cryptozoologist Karl Shuker has categorized the Ogopogo as a 'many hump' variety of lake monster..However, because the physical evidence for the beast is limited to unclear photographs and film, it has also been suggested that the sightings are misidentifications of common animals..

Urayuli, or "Hairy Men", are a mythical race of creatures that live in ..southwestern Alaska. Stories ..describe them as standing 10 feet tall with long shaggy fur and luminescent eyes.. are said to emit a high pitch cry, resembling that of a loon..Rumored to live in the forests .. the Urayuli are said to be peaceful creatures, unlike the Kushtaka of Southeastern Alaska. It is said the Urayuli are transformed children who become lost in the woods at night. It is possible that this tale was started to keep children indoors at night.

A Wendigo .. is a demonic half-beast creature appearing in the legends of the Algonquian peoples along the Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes Region..The creature or spirit could either possess characteristics of a human or a monster that had physically transformed from a person.. The Algonquian believed those who indulged in eating human flesh were at particular risk; the legend appears to have reinforced the taboo of the practice of cannibalism.

The tooth fairy is a fantasy figure of early childhood. The folklore states that when children lose one of their baby teeth, they should place it underneath their pillow and the tooth fairy will visit while they sleep, replacing the lost tooth with a small payment. The tradition of leaving a tooth under a pillow for the tooth fairy to collect is practiced in various countries in the Anglosphere.˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked at more than the above.

So, in summary, the common terms are; legendary, mythical, cryptid, allegedly, said to, folklore, tales, posited, purported, etc.

I did not see, in my sample, the word 'fictitious'.

Getting late (rather early) here, so I will raise the relevance of this at a later time˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk)15:35, April 10, 2015‎|Mimarx15:35, April 10, 2015‎]] (fixed sig.)

"Cryptozoology", such as it is, has no relevance to an obvious, well-documented joke. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

to be cont'd - place holder

BTW - is there a way of having a sub-talk page? This discussion seems to be taking a big slice of the page, perhaps it can be moved down to a sub-page or equivalent. ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimarx (talk • contribs) 15:35, April 10, 2015‎

It is possible, but not necessary. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Part 3 - 11 April - sorry, had to move to keep dates aligned, will find a better way

Note to Mimarx - Convention in talk pages is to add comments at the bottom of the page or section, not intersperse them throughout a discussion, nor to add "placeholders" for future comments. If you want your comments read, put them at the bottom where we'll see them - I certainly have no intention of going back and rereading hundreds of lines of text to find your latest additions.

Either way, this discussion has already gone on beyond the limits of reasonableness. This wasn't rocket science, it seems to be a simple attempt to change a hoax article in such a way as to have a "surprise" for the reader, which now seems to have morphed into a claim that the subject isn't properly documented as a hoax, so it must be real. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to add a little structure to what has become a unwieldy beast.

The only, non structural/typo edits, were "Surprise was in regard to NLA results." in reply to the indented sub-thread under "Why spoil the surprise? Because this is an encyclopedia. We tell people that..." post, and adding Tooth Fairy to the Cryptozoology section (which is there for reference to my future arguments that..later).

My original 'surprise' comment was flippant. Regrettably... I am not, and have never said, that Drop Bears exist.

Because it was (is? I haven't read the new refs) badly cited, was not an attempt to claim it is real. That claim needed better citations, the old one was bad.

I am/will state that Drop Bear as a concept is a significant meme in Australian popular AND HISTORICAL culture. Beyond a joke. Non-Australians, only see a joke, therefore they cannot understand the wider picture. As evident by the above. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Your first "surprise" comment was in moving the fact that they are fictional to the second paragraph.[resigned when he was suspended with the intent to dismiss in August 2012] It had nothing whatsoever to do with the NLA. Your second "surprise" comment also had nothing to do with the NLA.[2] Instead, it was your evasive answer to a direct question about whether or not you accept that drop bears are fictional. Rather than a yes or no, you said, "I haven't made up my mind yet, nice to have an open mind. I m a y be saying the 'simple view" that it is a modern hoax misrepresents the true historical background to the cultural references to Drop Bears, but that is pending my verified sources." I am willing to bet you will be back to try to remove, soften or bury the direct statement that drop bears are fictional.

Let's try a little test: Now that you have had a chance to review the new refs (have you read them?): Do you admit that drop bears are fictional creatures, part of a joke played on gullible tourists and children? Or have you still not "made up (your) mind"? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Mimarx, please stop adding and removing headings/subheadings from this page. While you may have a clear understanding of what you are doing and why, it is not obvious to the rest of us. Instead, it would be helpful if you simply answered the direct questions here: Have you taken a look at the new sources? Have you "made up (your) mind" about drop bears being fictional? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Part 4 - 12 April

Good morning (here). 'I am willing to bet you will be back': I have not left yet, I am reviewing references, waiting for the answers from the NLA, and will be visiting my local library after the weekend.

'Your first "surprise" comment' .. 'It had nothing whatsoever to do with the NLA': Correct, my query to the NLA was some time after my first edits, and was initiated after the, in my view, unwarranted revisions of my good faith edits, without even, it appeared, a cursory examination of the citations I included with the edit. Good quality citations IMHO.

'[resigned when he was suspended with the intent to dismiss in August 2012]': I do not understand this??

You are quick to attribute intent, without much basis. Re my second 'surprise' comment, perhaps I was not clear. I said "I haven't made up my mind yet, .. but that is pending my verified sources.". In that context 'surprise' is the results of that process, that was my intent anyway. But IF you have a preconceived idea of my intent/motives, which I seem unable to change (with tooo many lines) of explanation above, I am not likely to do so now. But I will try yet again - later.

'Instead, it was your evasive answer to a direct question': As I said, I have an open mind and was/am pending further citation research.

'had a chance to review the new refs (have you read them?):' Yes & No, some of them are not available online AFAIK, or perhaps you have a link that you did not include in the citation, or did you find them at your library? Some are somewhat tenuous (one reference to D.B in a paper on software-intensive systems written by a software engineer), one is of unknown origin, another is one of the two I included in my earlier edits in regard to the Drop Bears as a significant meme. The other, Francis et al., I have not been able to see the specific reference.

'Do you admit that drop bears are fictional creatures..? Or have you still not "made up (your) mind"?': See above. You do not seem to understand my view. Irrespective of fictionality, the concept of Drop Bears is a concrete part of Australian culture and has been for a long time. Do you think that someone made up a joke, and then it suddenly went into the joke book of all Australians. There is much more to that, ask 10 Ozzies and you would probably get 12 well crafted tales. I go back to my initial edit 'the major characteristic of D.B. is its notoriety, this is more important to be mentioned first'. I have been consistent in this regard. (and I did not bury the 'fictitious Australian' aspect, It immediately followed what I thought should be mentioned first, as a second para so that it stood out as a strong statement, rather than the last sentence of the first para.

BTW, repeatedly demanding Yes or No answers, will not achieve anything. Particularly when I have said I am awaiting further information.

'part of a joke played on gullible tourists and children?': Joke simplifies and understates the meme. But from a Non-Australian's perspective, it probably appears that way.

'I am willing to bet you will be back to try to remove, soften or bury the direct statement that drop bears are fictional.': You m a y win the bet, but not to soften/bury etc, to properly state the nature of Drop Bears in Australian culture.

BTW, I am not the one doing selective editing to maintain a particular point of view. In small staged edits, you have removed my references to popular culture. You have removed my See Also reference to Cryptozoology - 'Unrelated, unless Santa Clause links to missing persons and supercenturians'. You removed someone else's earlier category "Debunked cryptids" - 'not a "cryptid" any more than the tooth fairy is. It is a joke.'. In fact I bet you will remove many of my edits to maintain you point of view.

"This article relating to a myth or legend from Australia is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." apparently not, any expansion gets whittled back...

Have to go now, need to get the damn roo's out of the veggie patch.

p.s. Re editing titles. OK. I will find a better way. All I was trying to do is break this up so I am not editing War & Peace as one whole chunk. Is there a standard way to sectional-ise what is a rolling commentary? I have not had to have such loong Talk's before. For now if my new post occurs on a new day, I'll stick a section break in.˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, so you've decided drop bears might be real, happen to be studied exclusively on April Fool's Day, have a range that happens to include a sharply defined section of the outback that bears a striking resemblance to a koala's face and is notably similar to the hoop snake. Whether you are trolling, remarkably confused or something blending the two is irrelevant. Drop bears are fictional. This is, by far, the best sourced fact in the article. We are done here. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Fictional

The above "discussion" is long since resolved. Another editor has very sensibly cut down the extensive list of sources for this basic fact.[3] This note is simply to make finding the sources again a bit easier, should our "open minded" friend return. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully I haven't annoyed anyone by changing it from fictitious to legendary creature. This is a tall tale. I've also removed the Fictional marsupial category. That is for marsupial characters from works of fiction (e.g. Blinky Bill. Fictional ≠ fictitious. ZayZayEM (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That is inappropriate. I'm reverting your edit. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss appropriately. What part of legendary creature suggests it is real? This idea that "fictional marsupial" somehow reads better than it is a legend is silly. The article as it stands is barely legible. Was there an issue with the numerous other edits I made. Would hoax animal be more acceptable. As this is how it is described in a number of sources.ZayZayEM (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Legendary" does not say fictitious. Peyton Manning is a legendary quarterback, but he lives and breathes. The two most important things that should be called out in the lede are: 1) It's fictitious. 2) it's Australian. Everything after that is gravy. This article sees repeated attempts about 2-3 times a year to make the first point non-obvious, because "that would ruin the joke". Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Legendary creature" has a specific meaning - which is why it is wikilinked --- "A legendary creature is an animal described in non-historical storie" (from teh article) - non-historical means not real. "The unicorn is a legendary animal". This is about internal consistency within the 'pedia about how to refer to such creatures of myth and legend.

I'd also suggest the word legend is being used incorrectly to refer to Peyton Manning (It does not appear once in this article). Because he is real, not fictitious. It is appropriate to refer to someone like Herakles.

We should use words to mean what they mean.

If you look carefully at my edits, there is no attempt to make this animal seem like a real creature, but instead I am trying to use appropriate language to refer to this creature. It is either a hoax and or legend - not a creature popularised by works of fiction. ZayZayEM (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The specific meaning of "Legendary creature" is insufficient for this article - this isn't an animal that is referenced in a legend, this is a hoax, an active attempt to deceive in the immediate present. The article you cited doesn't even say fiction, it simply says "non-historical stories". That's insufficient for a WP:HOAX article, where the fact that it's a hoax must be called out immediately. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Are we really going to argue the difference between fictional and non-historical. This creature is already within the :Category:Legendary creatures of Australia. Urban legends and folklore are still legend. C.f. Jackalope or Hoop snake - legendary doesn't necessarily mean antiquity.

Would hoax animal be an acceptable medium?--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to move this discussion to the new section I made and the suggested rewrite I put there. Thank you.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Age?

How old is the tale of the drop bear? I heard about them in the UK in 1982, but they were just described as wombats, not bears. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

There is reference in a 1982 to it being used in WWII to scare US servicemen in Australia. There is a personal account of them referred to by an Australian soldier in Malaysia c. 1955. I'm still perusing a link to Aboriginal culture.
Wombats climb hills not trees ;) ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You've not seen them climbing trees, and of course they don't stay up there long, they drop! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggested lead rewrite

As there seems to be a little controversy around edits here, open for critcism. I'm modelling on the Unicorn Hoop snake page.

A dropbear or drop bear is legendary creature from Australian folklore described as resembling a carnivorous koala. Their notoriety originates from tall tales and hoaxes designed to scare tourists and other visitors. While koalas are typically docile herbivores (and notable, not bears), drop bears are described as unusually large and vicious marsupials that inhabit treetops and attack unsuspecting tourists (or other prey) by dropping onto their heads from above. {ref here}

In addition to this first paragraph, I'm thinking of putting the next two paragraphs in reverse order under a heading of ==Tall tales== or ==Oral history== And then the sections on Australian Geo and Aus Musuem should be merged together in a section about ==Endorsement of the hoax== or ==History of hoaxes== or just ==Popularisation of the hoax== Again. I am not interested in "removing the surprise" that the drop bear is not real, just really feel the term "fictitious marsupial" is clunky and doesn't match he rest of entries on other legendary creatures.ZayZayEM (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Modeling on Unicorn is inappropriate. That's a legend dating back thousands of years, included by reference in thousands of stories, and as best I can tell, never intended as a joke.

Again, legendary in common use (not referring to specialized usage) does NOT say fictional. It doesn't say "this is a lie". Failing to say that is an inappropriate characterization of drop bear, which consists of an "insider joke", where details are made up on the spot with the intent to deceive an outsider. The drop bear isn't oral history or folklore, it's a running joke. The initial statement needed for a hoax is "fictional", not any gentled-down terms. Legendary, at most, implies a tale handed down from antiquity, not specifically a hoax. Folklore implies stories passed down from indigenous inhabitants, which in this day of political correctness, are presumed to be truthful. Both are improper descriptions (I've seen no evidence that the drop bear joke originated with Australian aborigines).

To repeat myself, the two important pieces of information that should be in the first sentence are some way to say "this is a hoax" and "this is Australian". Anything less would be a misrepresentation. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I still find you are having difficulty telling the difference between a word that is commonly used incorrectly, and it's use is phrasal term with specific meaning. But regardless, so is hoax creature acceptable? I've also changed unicorn to hoop snake and not found much difference. --ZayZayEM (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Folklore does not suggest Indigenous origins. Dreamtime and mythology would. If you continue to show ignorance on what basc terminology such as legendary creature and Australian folklore is (especially given this entry is contained within both relevant categories). I'm going to stop engaging in discussion as you are not bringing anything credible here. ZayZayEM (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nullabor nymph, Ned Kelly and Waltzing matilda are all parts of modern Australian folklore. Please learn what words actually mean. ZayZayEM (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Gonna also refer to Category:Fictional ghosts lead to illustrate there is a different between a fictional creature, and a creature that appears in folklore, myth and/or legend (even though none of them are real)--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into "what words actually mean". I'll just assert that in normal language (as opposed to some kind of specialist use) "legendary" does not call out "this is a lie" and is thus inappropriate for this article. Unicorn is a poor comparison, it has none of the ongoing joke attributes of drop bear. If you still intend to change the lede to remove fictional, I suggest we engage WP:3O. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Unicorn is not the only comparison. Hoop snake. Pope Lick Monster. Chupacabra (the latter two refer directly to legends, rather than legendary creature even). Do these articles somehow suggest that these creatures are less fake then drop bears. I've requested opinion from the WP:HOAX group. But at this point I'm not seeing an attempt to garner consensus from you but an attempt to refuse changes to an article. I've asked you three times now - What about using the term "hoax animal" or "hoax creature" - we both agree it is a hoax.?--ZayZayEM (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Why the aversion to fictitious? That seems to me to accurately describe something where the details are made up on the spot to accommodate current circumstances. Legendary does not. Hoax does, but why go with a fancier word than you need?

As for consensus, it seems nobody else is participating in the discussion, which is why I suggested WP:3O. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Does the question have to do with whether the lede should imply that the dropbear was made up (a hoax), as opposed merely to being legendary? Do reliable sources indicate that the dropbear was made up? Not all legendary creatures were made up. Some are based on mistaken observations, and the origins of some legendary creatures are unknown, going very far back. I would advise the editors to be civil. What is the question?

The underlying question we don't seem to be able to move past is whether it's acceptable to change "fictitious" to "legendary". My contention is that in a WP:HOAX article, we must call out that the subject is untrue, not merely allow the implication by using the term "legendary", which doesn't always mean false. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources indicate that it is fictitious, the lede should say so. The lede should only say fictitious if a reliable source indicates that. Since you don't seem to agree, the next step would be a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Most sources refer to it as a "hoax". I have suggested that "hoax animal" be an acceptable response to this. No source I was able to access referred to them as fictitious.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources say it is a hoax, then it is fictitious, as opposed to merely legendary. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Why object to the term "hoax animal" then. But anyway, see below (it is referred to as both):

Retracted see below

Terminology from accessible sources

• "famous Australian animal hoax" Herald Sun
• "The Australian version of the “snipe” of American snipe hunts is the legendary 'drop bear'" Slate
• "mythical creatures" and "yarns" Great Australian Stories, Seal G
• "urban legend" KASAI novel, Wood BD
• "fictional breed of koala" Lingo Dictionary Miller, J
• "legendary australian animal" Australian Museum
• "Australian folklore" Marvel comics database

I would use the Aus Museum and Herald Sun as the most reliable sources, and continue to support "legendary creature" and "hoax animal" (possibly even both) as the appropriate terminology to use.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"legend" is the most commonly used term from that selection.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

And my objection to "legend" is it doesn't unambiguously and immediately say "fiction". From my perspective, that's the single most important point this article must convey, and it should do so unambiguously and in the first sentence.

I think the sources you quote amply support that this is not merely a legend, since legends can be true (even urban legends sometimes have a grain of truth). The terms snipe, hoax, yarn, and fictional all convey, with varying degrees of obfuscation, that it's a hoax. "Legendary" in those articles is being used, in my ever-so-humble opinion, as a euphemism of "lie". We shouldn't be indulging in euphemisms.

My discomfort to using "hoax" is simply that it's a less common word and the grammar would be awkward. It's a noun and verb, rather than an adjective, so "hoax animal" doesn't work, you'd have to find another way of wording that sentence. That could lead to burying that statement several sentences away from the lead, which again, would be improper since I hold the most important point is that it is fiction in spite of vigorous efforts to convince otherwise. What's the objection to the existing "fictional"? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

New proposal

The page as it stands cannot exist in stasis. That is not how wikipedia works.

New proposal

A dropbear or drop bear is a hoax in contemporary Australian folklore featuring a predatory carnivorous version of koala. The hoax is commonly used in tall tales designed to scare tourists. While koalas are typically docile herbivores (and notably, not bears), drop bears are described as unusually large and vicious marsupials that inhabit treetops and attack unsuspecting tourists (or other prey) by dropping onto their heads from above.{ref here}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 January 2016‎ (UTC)

That works for me. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Huzzah! Progress. I'll edit this and a few further edits after that so please hold off reversions for a bit.--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Drop bear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050510144619/http://www.countrynews.com.au:80/story.asp?TakeNo=200505025048382 to http://www.countrynews.com.au/story.asp?TakeNo=200505025048382

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

bogus science paper?

The article mentions the reference Volker (2012). This was published in December 2012 so is not an April Fool's joke, unlike the Australian Geographic article also mentioned. Does anyone know anymore about the context of it publication? DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Popular culture

Why was this section removed? It seems to me that the appearance of drop bears in the internationally successful Discworld books is a legitimate example of a piece of local folklore having a wider cultural impact. RoryKat (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)