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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:8402:ABB0:B5FD:6A0A:88E5:1275 (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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? 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:8402:ABB0:B5FD:6A0A:88E5:1275 (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Image

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

Artist's rendition of the mothman

Triangulum (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A professional illustration would be more acceptable IMO. DarkKnight2149 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? 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. DarkKnight2149 17:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, like that. Thank you. I understand. 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. --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 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. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2017 (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. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Here's some sources--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/

• Christopher R. Fee; Jeffrey B. Webb (29 August 2016). American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore [3 volumes]: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore (3 Volumes). ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-61069-568-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Mothman sighting in Moscow

My recent edit has been 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 entry for that newspaper and it has a website.

Currently the access to that specific article is paywalled, but its content has been shared by 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. 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. - 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.

Here's a typical Russia's 1990s story.

Your edit is brilliant in regards of conveying that particular idea. Document hippo (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)