Jump to content

Talk:Yeti/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

In 1997, Italian mountaineer Reinhold Messner claimed to have come face to face with a Yeti. He has since written a book, My Quest for the Yeti, and eventually killed one. According to him, the Yeti is actually an endangered Himalayan brown bear, ursus arctos, that can walk upright or on all fours.

Can someone who knows more about this subject clarify this paragraph. It is rather ambigious. What did he kill? A book? A book he has written? Did he kill a Yeti? Did he kill a bear? If he killed a bear than that wouldn't be a yeti now would it? If it is endangered species why did he kill this bear? I'm not sure what to make of this paragraph.

I've had it. Enough's enough. I'm calling for mediation. Do you agree that we are at an impasse, Lizard King? - UtherSRG 21:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You do whatever you want to do, Uther. I have been as reasonable as I could with you. Try and remember a few things. You are the one who started the conflict, moved the conflict to the "conflict forum", deleted others votes and entries, accused other members of vandalism and of having multiple IDs, even after evidence to the contrary was brought forth, and implicitly and in some cases overtly and blattantly insulted other Wikipedia users. I have no desire to waste the time of developers and administrators but if you see fit to involve them take into full consideration what that action entails. --LK 4:30pm 1-20-04



User:Javaman42:Javaman42 Hello everyone, my name is George. I’m quite new to this web site and my first impressions of it were positive. I thought this would be a good place to discuss my recent experiences the with Florida Skunk Ape, with intelligent people. My impression has been shattered, and I kind of have a feel for how juvenile the people who frequent this page really are. Capitan Jack Sparrow said “You need to get a woman mate!” and that is my advice for all of you, especially the ones who like to play God and mess with the entries of others. Yes I am a real person, I have a family and a business, I also have a couple of web sites that I created and maintain. You can go to George’s Salvador Dali Image Gallery and that’s my site. I don’t see the big deal with the images, frankly I would rather see a drawing than nothing at all, and in my opinion, you should be thankful that someone is willing to take the time and contribute to the good of this site. That’s all I have to say, if you have any questions just ask.

I do not care that you are an individual. I care that you are not a Wikipedian, but a friend of Lizard King whom he has told to come here and make edits or votes at his direction. - UtherSRG 20:50, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙

"I do not care that you are an individual". "I care that you are not a Wickepedian...". Your words. He registered, therfore he is a member. First you cross out people's votes, then you say you did it because I told you to (like anyone would buy that). Then you insult registered Wikepidia members. My friend, you have a problem and you have just demonstrated that today to a degree that even those strongly biased against my input will most likely not overlook. --LK 4:30pm 1-20-04

THANK YOU UTHERSRG! YOU HAVE SHOWN US WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON WIKEPEDIA AND WHO DOES NOT. EACH PERSON YOU JUST STRUCK OUT WAS A SEPERATE PERSON WITH A DIFFERENT IP. HALF OF THEM HAVE THIER OWN WEBSITES. YOU HAVE JUST DEMONSTRATED EXACTLY HOW ETHICAL YOU REALLY ARE AND WHAT YOUR MOTIVES ARE. --LK 3pm 1-20-04

You really can't complain for me doing what you asked. I really didn't know it was sarcasm. You should be more specific next time. - UtherSRG 20:09, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙

Yah right. I believe you. ( : LK 3:30pm 1-20-04

Image

LizardKing - Instead of trying to out do yourself by making more fake pictures of Yeti, etc., why not do the real work of perusing the existing research of Yetis and finding an image that is both:

  1. representative of what a Yeti supposedly looks like
  2. free from copyright or whose copyright holder permits the image being used on Wikipedia.

None of the images you've used so far meet these criteria, particularly the first one. Until then, plese do not keep adding poor images to this article. - UtherSRG 01:38, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The image is an accurate representation of a Yeti. It is free of copyright complications. Your innaproriate insult to my artwork has been noted. --Lizard_King

OK, I'm tired of seeing this entry yo-yo around all over the place. Let's settle the matter, and settle it here in talk, not via a mindless edit war. Tannin 02:57, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The options seem to be:

  • 1: This image, or a variant of it, is best.

File:Yeti5.jpg

  • 2: This image, or a variant of it is best.

  • 3: This image from various websites.

[[image:Yeti.jpg]]

image deleted (possibly copyvio), now an unrelated image has been uploaded with the same name. -- Paddu 20:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 4: No image so far put forward is suitable. Until further notice, this page is better without any images.

Vote here:

1: Yeti5 image

2: Newbug image

  • — No-One Jones (talk)
  • Lizard_King
  • ScifiterX
  • The_Agent
  • Korath
  • Popcorncafe
  • Javaman42
  • Jack 13:39, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: Jack's vote came after the close of the poll - UtherSRG 18:25, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Were was the date of the close of the pole specified?Lizard King 03:54, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Jack insists that he voted before the poll closed and I am not only going to agree with that but I am going to submit that this statement, by UtherSRG, was deliberately made BEFORE the polls were closed in order to pursuade members not to vote, thus making this entire poll invalid. Thank you. Lizard King 22:24, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

3: Yeti image

4: No image

5: All three of the above images

  • Jeez, what's so hard about that? Just say these are "various renderings." Give their sources, if you have them, as best you can. What rule is there that says there can only be a single image? They all look pretty much alike to me (an outsider with no particular interest in Yetis) but if there are differences that are thought to be significant, describe them in the text and indicate what the areas of controversy might be. (Something tells me I need to don an asbestos suit...) Dpbsmith

I have some doubts as to the credibility of ScifiterX's independance: ScifiterX's Contributions - UtherSRG 20:30, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you want proof I am who I say I am, I present my IP address: 69.22.99.232. It's an earthlink account. 9:16 PM 1/19/2004 You can even visit my website. The link is on my user page. 9:24 PM 1/19/2004 *ScifiterX

I just did a little checking using an application built into Mac OS X called "Network Utility". Lizard King's IP address resolves at 136.66.35.65.cfl.rr.com (65.35.66.136). For all those in the peanut gallery That's a Road Runner address based in Central Florida. 3:36 PM 1/20/2004 ScifiterX

Again, I really don't care that you are not the same person as Lizard King. I do care that you are not a Wikipedian, but a friend of Lizard King whom he has told to come here and make edits or votes at his direction. - UtherSRG 20:50, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙

If you are a representative example of what a Wikipedian is, than I consider it an honor you do not count me as one, From what I've witnessed, you have acted in a spiteful, rude, and arrogant manner to others who do no share your narrow opinion. I feel Stan is has been the flagship example of how a Wikipedian should act in this discussion. That said I prefer a visual image to a lengthy written description but see the benefit of the written description as well. I like Lizard Kings representations more than the colored image. While the colored image is good it looks like something out of a book out of the 1960-70s. While I find anthropology books from that era interesting I find the some of the conclusions in them are skewed to fit a particular point of view and I feel that the artistic renderings in them would be representative of that. If Lizard kings submissions were not already available, I feel the third one would suffice. 8:50 PM 1/20/2004 ScifiterX

Now you simply telling a bold lie. ScifiterX has made contributions, though mostly anonymous, and some from his old IP (he just moved out of a bad neighborhood). I know that first hand. Not only has he made his own contributions but he has also been a resource in assisting me in finding information I needed.--LK 4:30pm 1-20-04
  • Would you quit slinging mud! First off, ScifiterX contributed anonymously before he joined. Could you please ask him for his IP address before you start making these unsubstantiated and unfair accusations! As Uther already saw fit to show everyone my IP address it should be fairly easy for ScifiterX to prove he is a different person.
I agree that all evidence indicates that ScifiterX is a lizardking sockpuppet. Are there any rules against voting twice in the same poll? --snoyes 20:50, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You mean form multiple accounts? It would certainly be dishonest. But to vote for more than one option, that's fair. - UtherSRG 21:04, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the former is what I meant. --snoyes 21:44, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Right. I wouldn't go 100% so far as to say sockpuppet (although I do think the developers should investigate for such). They may simply be one of Lizard King's high school buddies that he has bullied into working for him. -

UtherSRG 22:20, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Right. That's it. I went to a high school and forced a student to log onto the internet to vote. You caught me red handed, Columbo.--LK 10pm 1-19-04

I find it highly improbable that The_Agent, ScifiterX, and Popcorncafe - the sum total of their edit being very small and the pages editted being only those you have editted and only those you have had edit conflicts on and only made edits in a direction in your favor in an edit war - are anyone either than yourself or your close friends with you over their shoulder or on the phone with them, or some other such arrangement. - UtherSRG 02:48, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So now you are saying that people who are my friends cannot vote? So who exactly is allowed to vote for me? Please tell everyone who's vote counts and who's does not. We are not as informed as you, obviously.--LK (10:30pm 1-19-04)
Did I say their votes don't count? All I'm saying is I find it highly improbable that they are independant of you. If that's the way you want to be, I'll make sure to get all my buddies at work to vote. Feh. No, I won't stoop to your level again. - UtherSRG 03:10, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You implied it. You seldom say anything clearly, but simply obfuscate the relevant issues and use the less relevant points to cloud the argument in your favor. That way you can suggest something implicitly, and if it isn't recieved well, you can say that you did not say what you said after you said it. You usually do this by saying you were misunderstood or that others are not intelligent enough to comprehend your intellectually precise meaning, to avoid the consequences of anything unethical implied in your proposition. It also serves to aggravate your opponent in the argument into doing something that weakens his or her position in the perception of others observing and participating in the discussion.--LK 2:30pm 1-20-04
  • Yes please get the developers too investigate! That is what I have been asking for all along!--LK

Despite their protestations, I have some doubts as to the credibility of The_Agent's independance as well: The_Agent's Contributions - UtherSRG 21:04, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yet another individual with some lack of credible independance from Lizard King weighs in: Popcorncafe's Contributions - UtherSRG 02:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Another dubious voter: Javaman42's Contributions - UtherSRG 12:55, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is a rule that says that user has to have contributed to vote? Are you sure?--LK 10pm 1-19-04

  • Which one was originally on the page, or are all three Lizard King's? (I'm not going to vote until I know) PMC 01:32, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, everyone on here is actually me pretending to be other users including yourself, PMC. I have multiple personality disorder. You are simply another repressed aspect of my psyche that has fragmented from my core intelligence, and "believes" itself to be independent (I joke).--LK 10pm 1-19-04
      • I was talking about the images, your comment is completely irrelevant. PMC 23:41, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I know you were talking about the images. I was making a joke. The original image that was posted on the page was my own. You assumed that I had replaced an existing image on the entry with one I rendered. You give credibility to the wrong parties in this argument. Contrary to a certain accusation, I have never taken down the original image associated with an entry. I have only added images to have them replaced with crappy ones by envious wiki gremlins. Also why would it matter who created the images? An unbiased vote would be concerned with quality, not with origin (unless trademark is involved). I think you just admitted that you wanted to make sure that you did not vote for my image. But that's okay.Lizard King 11:15, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • The votes and opinions of those with few edits or a good reputation on Wiki will always count for less. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of new users who suddenly appear and start voting the same way on the same subject are always going to be suspected of being sock-puppets. Revealing your IP address proves little. It is easy for a single person to use a range of IPs. Similarly, different users with the same ISP often come via the same (proxy) IP. Stay here a few months and make good, regular edits. Then people will listen to you. Tough, but you have to serve your time! SpellBott 07:56, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Okay, so you are saying that members who have not contributed to Wikepedia much or at all have votes that do not count. I would suggest that you erase the votes that you have chosen not to count then, in the name of fairness.--LK 2pm 1-20-04
I've struck a line through those names. - UtherSRG 19:45, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
That was sarcasm UTher. But as you have taken it upon yourself to erase the votes of others I highly appreciate your actions.

--LK 3pm 1-20-04.

I did not see it as sarcasm. I saw it as a compromise on your part. I'll take you at your word that it was sarcasm and un-strike the names. - UtherSRG 20:09, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
No one on here is stupid enough to believe that, even the people who are biased against my input. You are starting to become very transparant. --LK 5pm 1-20-04
Explain to me again exactly how I could have different IPs? I was able to get ScifiterX to prove he wasn't me and in time I should be able to get the others to follow suite. Especially popcorn cafe. He is a black guy and also has his own website, just as ScifiterX does. At this point, after being provided IP address and personal information (that is really unnecessary) you have the proof that these people, though some may be my friends, are not bieng forced to vote and are not imposters. Everytime you suggest that you are lowering yourself to mudslinging.--LK 3pm 1-20-04
Once more: I do not think these critters are you. I think they are your buddies who will vote how ever you tell them to. I think they are not regular Wikipedians, but friends of yours you've convinced to come here and make votes for you, and make edits for you. And you continue to prove it. - UtherSRG 20:09, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙
Yet again you choose to immaturely deride others, this time by calling them "critters" rather than people. Do you feel that this somehow elevates you? Then you implicitly invent a rule. "A person registered as a Wikipedia user who has not made siginificant contributions cannot vote or has a vote with negligable value." Why don't you just come out and say that. Then the principle can be tested. If it is confirmed by the powers that be then let it stand. Otherwise....--LK-5pm 1-20-04
  • I vote no image. The best is to use no image at all. Optim 01:38, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I would vote for the third, if copyright wasn't an issue. Does anybody know where it comes from? Tuf-Kat 01:46, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Any image to be added would have to have evidence of being more than a fantasy, i.e., results of a panel of mug shots shown to putative witnesses of the critter, under control of a professional eye-witness-testimony expert hired by a mainstream foundation. However, if there is enuf material in the way of short stories about yetis and about patterns of baseless sensational press coverage, i'd favor disamb, moving Yeti to Yeti (cryptobiology) and using the most popular of these as an illustration, labelled "one of the unfounded conceptions used to illustrate the literature of yeti fantasy" in Yeti (pop culture). --Jerzy 03:42, 2004 Jan 20 (UTC)

At first I was going to say "none of these is suitable", then I started thinking , what would be a suitable image? They are all going to be "artist's conceptions", so am I waiting for a professional artist's conception? That can't be it, because we already use thousands of amateur photographs all over WP, so professionalism apparently isn't a requirement. Am I waiting for an image produced under the supervision of experts? But we have lots of scientific diagrams produced by unsupervised amateurs too, and nobody complains about those if they are close enough to what we see in professional works. All three of the proposed images look much like what I've seen in books, so I'd say they're all as accurate as necessary for the purpose, which is to communicate the general idea of yeti appearance without using a plethora of verbiage. To choose between them, I'd apply the usual criteria for image preferences - color over monochrome, pen-and-ink over pencil sketch, etc. A pre-1923 engraving would be cool too, if any exist. Stan 04:03, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I go with UtherSRG's original suggestion that any image should be:

  1. representative of what a Yeti supposedly looks like
  2. free from copyright or whose copyright holder permits the image being used on Wikipedia.

It is not clear that any proposed image yet meets those requirements. SpellBott 07:56, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Okay, it has become obvious that that the powers that be here are simply going distort the truth concerning the images, but I will attempt to prove, rationally, that my images are in fact what a Yeti is supposed to look like.

  • 1) Domed, almost triangular, pointed head.
  • 2) No neck
  • 3) Bipedal, pelvis is similar to representaives of the homo, australopithicus, or paranthropus genuses.
  • 4) Covered with dark hair. Some accounts black, some accounts red.
  • 5) Face is distinctly human-like (as a hominid), not that of a bear.
  • 6) Unusually long arms in proportion to the body.
  • 7) Very large, ham-fisted hands.
  • Anybody who, as an adolescent, read books about bigfoot such as the "Time Life Books Series" and the various books such as "Still Living", "The Neanderthal Enigma", etc would recognize that my illustrations are very good characterizations of what a Yeti, mythological or not, is supposed to look like. However, at this point Uther has turned this into a pissing contest and I don't honestly believe that the people corresponding here (with the exception of myself and my camp) are concerned about creating quality as they are in proving to themselves that they can absolutely control the content of this Wikipedia entry.

--LK 2pm 1-20-04

Poll Results

Looking at the poll above, it seems that we have a clear majority view.

  • Yeti5 image: 1 vote (plus 4 sock puppets)
  • Newbug image: 3 votes (plus the same 4 sock puppets)
  • Yeti image: 3 votes
  • No image: 10 votes

Poll Results (unedited)

  • Yeti5 image: 5 votes
  • Newbug image: 7 votes
  • Yeti image: 3 votes
  • No image: 10 votes

No further discussion seems to be required. Tannin 14:54, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Deleting votes is the same as striking out names. The people are registered ebay users. Most proved who they were conclusively. Websites with their pictures and pictures of thier children should sort of make your whole sock-puppet argument mute. Not only that, but these people were contributing to Wikipedia before anonymously and though they would not have voted (because they were unaware of the issue) they did do it of thier own free will and without being coerced once I told them people were taking down the image.Lizard King 11:34, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No further discussion seems to be required. Tannin 14:54, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Image suitability criteria

My questions above seem to have gotten lost in all the irrelevent back-and-forth, so let me try again; what would be a suitable image? If I were to go out today and try to secure an image for this article, what exactly are the conditions necessary for people to agree that it's worth including? Or is it that everybody wants this to be the only general encyclopedia in the world without a Yeti picture? 1/2 :-) Stan 17:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think one of the major issues is that Yeti's appearance, if it existed, is not known beyond some vague generalities. Thus, any drawing will be one person's expression of what he or she believes the yeti to look like. Lizard King has listed some common characteristics above, which is good, but I would still rather use something equivalent to Bigfoot's Patterson-Gimlin photo because it is definitely one well-known interpretation of Bigfoot's appearance. That's why I would support the third one (it appears on multiple web sites, and is thus a well-known intepretation) except that its copyright status has not been cleared up. Tuf-Kat 19:45, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
Since three of the websites are foreign, I've contacted the webmaster of the Texas site to find out specifics about the image. - UtherSRG 19:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

File:Newbug-smaller.jpg

Artist's impression of a Yeti.

OK, this is going to surprise a few people, but I think that the original and highly controversial image is actually not too bad, except that in its original form it stood out like dog's balls. If it were resized, it might be perfectly OK.

Picture this discreetly dropped down on the lower right-hand side of the entry.

What do you think, people? Tannin 23:03, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't find it an appropriate for an encyclopedia, and it sets a dangerous precedent of allowing any artist to add a sketch to any article that doesn't have an image. - UtherSRG 00:49, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Ya, dangerous. Wikipedia has links to images of old men bending over and showing thier rectums and harlequin fetuses. How much more dangerous can you get than that? Lizard King 07:34, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but those are real photos of real harlequin babies, and real photos of old men. Besides, they aren't actually on the Wiki, they're just linked to from it. And that's not dangerous. Harlequin type ichthyosis is a real disease, not some invented concept, and the old men...that's a real perversion. It's real. It is standard - not created. Uther is talking about sketched images, not photographs. PMC 08:02, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Really, if it is that questionable the developers will put an end to it, and possibly the administrators before that. Lizard King 07:34, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And so that some people don't misinterpret my words: I think it is good art. I think it should be showcased somewhere. Wikipedia is not that place. - UtherSRG 00:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, on many occasions you have said the images were "bad", "silly", "useless" and implied that they were poorly drawn. You can't have it both ways, but if that was some kind of compliment, than I do appreciate it. Lizard King 07:34, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is there any reason we should not set that precedent? Set the current article aside and ponder this from an all-of-Wikipedia standpoint. We allow and indeed encourage editors to contribute factual, NPOV text, we allow and encourage photographers to contribute their art if it serves to illustrate an article, why should he rule be different for people who use pen and ink instead of a camera or a word processor? (Again, I'm asking this as a general question, not about this article in particular.) Tannin 03:29, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What text and photos have in common and whole-cloth created art doesn't is the centerpeice of my argument.
Text is either factual and NPOV, or can be made so through community involvement. Photos are essentially built upon fact (although they can be faked, etc). When there are enough hard facts to build a picture through artistic media, the results can be quite good (eg. [[Image:Galloanseri2.png]] a flowchart showing the relationships between various orders of Birds). Also, there are times when the diagram is the best way to accurately describe an idea, such as the location of a country using a map, or to demonstrate the interactions of vectors.
Pen-and-ink sketches (or water colors or computer graphics, etc.) with no concrete facts behind them are inherently POV, and there is no reasonable ability for the community to work the material until it has NPOV. With text, the community can offer phrases or word changes; the community can use the same medium for communicating changes as the data will finally be presented. With art, the community has to fall back to using words that the artist then needs to interpret into their art - which is still a POV process.
I know there are some holes in my logic. Fact-based art can be manipulated to have POV, to emphasize or allude to relatinships that don't exist. I stand by the statement "No image is better than a bad image", despite some peoples' possibly over-sensitive interpretation that I mean the art is bad art.
Bringing this back to the local subject at hand, I found a few images of supposed Yeti artifacts while the voting was going on, as I dug for better images to use. Like with the Patterson-Gimlin photo on Bigfoot, images that can be linked to some of the hard facts in the article. I don't know the copyright status of them, but you can see them here. - UtherSRG 04:10, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Then use one of those. You will have to use one of the pictures of scalps made of goat hair and not the illustration, because we have already decided, in consensus, that illustrations are dangerous to Wikipedia. Lizard King 07:40, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
So in the case of a hypothetical object for which only an artist's conception is ever possible, how can you say that one image has "concrete facts" behind it and another doesn't? It seems more useful to have an obvious artist's closeup of the hypothetical object than a fuzzy photo that is quite possibly faked, but if used as the illustration, sugggests that there are real Yetis whose pictures have been taken. That's one of the reasons that the "reputable" encyclopedias use artist's conceptions in the first place. Stan 06:32, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
When all else fails, then yes, a purely artistic image would be useful. I do not think that could be the case for any cryptid. One of the primary reasons they stick around in the meme-pool is because of the (usually fabricated) hard evidence, and it should be somewhat easy to find a fact-based image of the evidence and use that as the article's image. I'd also suggest that the "reputable" encyclopedias have a significantly more vast array of images they can pick from, and a team who can come together and make a decision about which to include and obtain (read: purchase) permission from the copyright holders. Under GFDL, we have somewhat tighter constraint and that limits us to finding copyright-free images. The only alternative after that is to find an artist. "Reputable" artists, though, will generally shy away from us, for if I'm correct, if they put their image here they are de facto declaring they relinquish their rights to the image. - UtherSRG 01:25, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
A "reputable artist" requirement for a Wikipedia image is completely novel, I suspect a lot of people will object to that as "un-wiki". Stan 06:02, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And I'd never suggest one. But I do think we should highly scrutinize original art as a last resort for an article's image. - UtherSRG 06:15, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Take a look at items 15, 18 and 19 (and in lesser ways 9 through 13) on Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Combining all three of them tells me we shouldn't generally allow an artist to create an image for Wikipedia articles, or to add their existing artwork here, unless they are specifically asked to make an image for an article, or if a general call is put out for an image for an article. Neither of these were true for this article, nor for the other articles that Lizard King put his artwork on. (As things stand, Lizard King's user page potentially puts him in violation of these three items.) - UtherSRG 01:25, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't follow the reasoning - as I mentioned earlier, people have personally created lots of scientific-type diagrams and similar kinds of artwork, at social cost for instance, just to pick a recent example, and nobody complains that they're doing undesirably-original work. For that matter, one could argue that the thousands of amateur photos constitute original work and shouldn't be here, but I think you'll get flamed a lot if you suggest it at the pump. :-) The bit about original research is to stop people from publishing nutball ideas, not to interfere with contributions of artwork. Items 15, 18, and 19 specifically exist to address cases of people creating articles that are not plausibly part of an encyclopedia (which has happened a number of times), they're not about whether a given image is suitable as an illustration for a valid article. We don't have any rule that one can't contribute an image until someone else asks for one, in fact there's no circumstance where persons may not add to articles on their own initiative. Stan 05:57, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You can't follow the reasoning because there isn't any. Its a smokescreen.Lizard King 11:15, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The images on social cost are exactly the kind that are fact-based and very descriptive of the circumstances. And a photo is truely worth a thousand words. But when (particularly amateur) artists create an image from wholecloth is where we run into a problem. A drawing of a Yeti, for instance, will always draw in mis-facts (if one can be allowed to say that *grins*). Is it's stomach so muscular? Is that the way it holds itself upright? Is it's conical head pointed that far upwards? These mis-facts should not be in an encyclopedia, but this kind of image brings them in. The only facts we have are the hard data artifacts (a supposed skull worn by a local, some footprints). - UtherSRG 06:11, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
At this point no one is buying it anymore. You can stop now.Lizard King 11:15, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The image is certainly well within the variations of Yeti images I've seen in reputable books, so I don't see how this particular artist's conception is fundamentally different from all the others that are out there. Seems like a double standard to me. If you want to attack actively misleading images, go check out Anglo-Saxon kings - completely fabricated pictures of real people, obvious anachronisms all over the place, but apparently OK because they were scanned in from a Book. :-) Stan 07:46, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, Stan they probably shouldn't use illustrations because, you see, they are dangerous. The next thing you know they will have nipples and naked people and gosh only knows what else and it will corrupt the whole system that encyclopedias are founded upon. - Lizard King 07:34, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And what makes those Encyclopedias reputable anyway? How do we know they aren't dangerous in and of themselves??? Maybe we should burn them!!! Or at least just the illustrations. Sorry, I have had a few tonight, couldn't resist, just too funny. - Lizard King 07:43, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My Vote

I made my vote from Wikipedia:Current polls. At that time this vote was listed as a "current poll". I don't agree that my vote was after the poll closed, and thus invalid. Your moving the poll to "closed polls" after my vote does not in any way make my vote invalid. If you are going to be this unreasonable about something so simple, perhaps LK has alot more to complain about that it may look at first sight. I have had my own troubles with User:tannin and I am thus necessarilly sympathetic w complaints about his abrasiveness,and theoretical misdeeds. This in no way means I am taking a side here, (I am almost completely ignorant of the particulars) I just happen to like LK's "bigfoot" drawing, and think it would make a fine addition to either yeti or bigfoot (the two should be combined, BTW). Also, I don't like what I see on this talk page, nor what you have stated about my vote. Please reform any and all ill behaviours. Jack 06:38, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just who are you talking about, Jack? Tannin 06:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You may take my advice to be generally helpful :) Jack 07:47, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I repeat the question. Who are you talking to here, Jack? Tannin 08:02, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, it looks like I'm talking to you, Tony. Jack 08:24, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear. In that case, you have utterly lost the plot. Your crazy complaint about my "moving the poll in Wikipedia:Current polls" for starters: a quick look at the edit history would have showed you that I have never edited that page for any reason, let alone to discredit your tardy vote. Secondly, if you had troubled to read this talk page, you have discovered that I, in fact, proposed the use of the exact same image you voted for, suggeting that "if it were resized, it might be perfectly OK". None of your post above makes the slightest sense. (insult removed by Jack 22:48, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)). Tannin 10:41, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Rather than accusing you of having personally edited the current polls list, I simply mentioned the obvious: that we were (for the first time in a long time) having some sort of communication betwixt the two of us. I don't find it pleasing that you took such an opportunity for intellegent discourse to make bizarre insinuations as to my assumptions, and topped them off with insults. Please reform any and all ill behaviours. Jack 22:48, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not to start a whole new argument, but aren't Yeti supposed to be white... you know, to blend in with the snow in the Himalayas? --Dante Alighieri 18:19, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No it isn't. Read the literature. They are only white in movies. They are red, brown, and black in the reports from the area (around Tibet) and in the local mythology. Besides, the pencil drawing could be interpreted as any color you want. I read most of the good literature on these things when I was in the 5th grade. Lizard King 21:20, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not that there really is good literature on yetis. ( : Lizard King 21:23, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello, ..interesting page, but I just wanted to say that 100 meters is NOT 300 feet. At least put the word "around 300 feet"..

Scientific name?

The article says the yeti's scientific name is Diananthropoides nivalis Soule, 1966. I was very surprised when I found no results in Google for that name. Yahoo only found Wikipedia and a few mirrors. I think it's very unlikely that this scientific name, if existant, has not been mentioned anywhere else on the Internet. Could anybody provide some source for this supposed scientific name (for example a reference to Soule's 1966 paper)? Otherwise I don't think it should be in the article. Ucucha (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I found what can be assumed to be the afore mentioned Soule article. I came across a book citation:
Soule, Gardner. Trail of the Abominable Snowman. New York: Putnam, 1966.
I have not read the book and by no means recommend recognizing the scientific name. If of any help, most people would place Yeti (should a type specimen ever be collected or produced) in the Class Mammalia. The widely accepted authority on mammalian species is Wilson and Reeder's 3rd Edition of Mammalian Species of the World, which makes no mention of Yeti, Saskwatch, or Chupacabra. But since you asked if anyone could find the reference, here it is.
Another thing to consider in presenting the scientific name is that there is no way in knowing it's validity (as defined by the ICZN). Without a specimen or a formal description of the species, the name will likely lack priority should a specimen be collected in the future.FeralAkodon 15:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems very probable to me that the name is a nomen nudum under the ICZN, as I don't think there's a type in existance. Even if the name was actually coined, it may be too obscure to name it here. Ucucha (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientific name?

The article says the yeti's scientific name is Diananthropoides nivalis Soule, 1966. I was very surprised when I found no results in Google for that name. Yahoo only found Wikipedia and a few mirrors. I think it's very unlikely that this scientific name, if existant, has not been mentioned anywhere else on the Internet. Could anybody provide some source for this supposed scientific name (for example a reference to Soule's 1966 paper)? Otherwise I don't think it should be in the article. Ucucha (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I found what can be assumed to be the afore mentioned Soule article. I came across a book citation:
Soule, Gardner. Trail of the Abominable Snowman. New York: Putnam, 1966.
I have not read the book and by no means recommend recognizing the scientific name. If of any help, most people would place Yeti (should a type specimen ever be collected or produced) in the Class Mammalia. The widely accepted authority on mammalian species is Wilson and Reeder's 3rd Edition of Mammalian Species of the World, which makes no mention of Yeti, Saskwatch, or Chupacabra. But since you asked if anyone could find the reference, here it is.
Another thing to consider in presenting the scientific name is that there is no way in knowing it's validity (as defined by the ICZN). Without a specimen or a formal description of the species, the name will likely lack priority should a specimen be collected in the future.FeralAkodon 15:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems very probable to me that the name is a nomen nudum under the ICZN, as I don't think there's a type in existance. Even if the name was actually coined, it may be too obscure to name it here. Ucucha (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"geottan"/"yettin" reference is suspect

I don't think "geottan" is an Anglo-Saxon word, and "yettin" is not a modern English word. There is an Anglo-Saxon word "eoten," and a modern English word "ettin," both basically meaning "giant". My reference is http://beowulf.engl.uky.edu/~kiernan/BT/bosworth.htm, the Bosworth-Toller online dictionary of Anglo-Saxon.

If you search Google for "geottan" or "yettin," you will find multiple instances and minor variations of this sentence at various reference and new-age sites:

'The name derives from The Tibetan yeh-teh, "little man-like animal"; it is a false cognate with Old English Geottan (or Yettin In Modern English),...'

...which also appears here, in the main article. Whether these other sites were cribbed form here or vice-versa, I don't know. Add "-tibetan" or "-cognate" to the Google search, and you get nothing but a handful of Wikipedia matches to this article, in another language. Can anyone give an independent reference for the existance or meaning of these words, "geottan" or "yettin"? If not, I would like to remove the phrase "it is a false cognate with Old English geottan (or yettin in Modern English), an antiquated word for an orc or troll (see also jotun)" from the article.

The similarity between "ettin" and "yeti" is interesting, but they are both English words, so calling them false cognates seems a bit much. "Eoten" and "yeh-teh"/"gYa' dred" are not so similar, but at least they are from different languages. Adding the "ge"/"y" to "eoten"/"ettin" looks like salesmanship to me.

The orc reference is also highly dubious, but I'll leave that to the orc page.... Silarius

Sounds like you want to use {{fact}} or remove the offending passage from the article. Be bold and make it so. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

According to www.dictionary.com, [1], yeti seems to be a misunderstanding of a Tibetan word akin to mi-ti to begin with, there hardly seems to be any evidence that they're cognates. Also, they're actually relatively many words where Old Norse j don't correspond to English or Anglo-Saxon y or g.

English earth - Old Norse jǫrð, English udder - Old Norse jú(g)r, English even - Old Norse jafn, English earl - Old Norse jarl, (English I - Swedish jag, English iron - Swedish järn). Old English eoten - Old Norse jǫtunn fits quite nice within the scheme, without having to resort to allegedly fake etymologies and made up words. 惑乱 分からん 11:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Bigfoot?

I say no - they could easily be two separate entities within the larger group of unkoown humanoid cryptids - merging them would impose some kind of classificatory judgement on the status of the two creatures which is currently unwarranted. (Emperor 13:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

NO. I agree with the comments made byEmperor, but also a scientific name for the Yeti or Meh-Teh (mentioned above) cannot exist until "one" of these creatures is caught and fully characterised or heaven forbid dissected and its taxonomy known, that information does not exist. Nearly all expeditions find a lot of animal life at very high altitudes, most of which has been fully described. The word Yeti or more appropriately Meh-Teh, is used by the people living in the Himalayas to literarily DESCRIBE what they see, i.e. "Man or Animal of the Snow" and can be attributed to quite a few animals living in these remote parts, it does not suggest a fictional or an imaginary creature. The term "Abominable Snowman" is a fiction of the West and has wrongly conjured up some mythical bi-pedal animal. Langur Monkeys, Red Bears, the possibility of the Blue Bear, Tibetan Mouse Hares live upto 20,000 plus feet. Add the fact that these areas are constantly traversed by local people selling goods and trading, all create their own "footprint" in the area. "Big Foot" is another mythical beast, from another part of the world, with its own culture probably made up out of real occurrences of some animal that has then been augmented into something else. Combining the two articles would be like comparing "Chewbacca" (fictional) with the "Orang Utan" (non-fictional), quite imaginative but quite useless. (Gowron 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

I say no. There are two types of content we associate with Yeti and Bigfoot: physical evidence and culture/myths — both, well-cited, are suitable for article content. On both fronts, we have significant differences between Yeti and Bigfoot. That's more than enough reason to keep them separate. --Ds13 16:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I say YES, since both articles discribes the same type of humanoid creature. Martial Law 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Same type, yes, but are they the same (albeit non-existant) creture? No. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely NO. These are different imaginary creatures from different parts of the world. While the descriptions are superficially similar the cultural origins are unrelated. --Centauri 23:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, as per the above arguments. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Also have to vote no. It's a "see also" type connection, not a "merge". Matt Gies 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I say No because the status of Bigfoot and Yeti as either mythical creatures or real animals should keep them separate anyways. If they are both creatures of folklore, then we are dealing with two completely different cultures (Tibet and America) on two separate continents. If they are both real, then, even if they are the same species, it is likely that they are different subspecies. And, if one is real and the other isn't, then they should certainly kept separate. If you really want a catch-all article for hairy humanoids from worldwide sightings/folklore, then create a hairy humanoids article and link Bigfoot, Yeti, Skunk-ape, Woodwose, Big Gray Man and all the rest within that article. Eplombious Peter 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Whats wrong with calling it bigfoot? Bigfoot, to the layman, is just a term for a yeti-like monster. You're actually trying to seperate the two scientifically? Give me a break, its a friggin myth.

This is an encyclopedia. To the layman, a lot of things get lumped together into giant, messy super-categories. Wikipedians are not here to perpetuate sloppy thinking. To the expert, be it an expert in mythology or an expert in cryptozoology, different things deserve different articles. Whether bigfoot is real or not isn't the issue here. Merging Bigfoot and Yeti would be like merging Nephilim and Angel just because many people don't know the difference between the Nephilim and angels.The Sausage Knight 14:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it separate yes, but there should be some mention of the similarity's between the yeti, even if it is to explain WHY they are different. The bigfoot entry references the yeti article, so why not the other way round?--Cyberboy 10:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yeti/Archive_1&oldid=1264994580"