Talk:Mothman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New Popular Culture Addition

Ben 10: Alien Force character, Big Chill, seems to be loosely based on Mothman. I'd like to him noted in the Popular Culture section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.44.28 (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has been vandalized

Some child seemed to think renaming everyone in the article would be funny. I am unsure of how else to report this.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.225.247 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Hello, fellow Wikipedians. I am Charlie 1 Alpha and I have a theory. I believe that the CIA was experimanting on mutating people and Mothman was one. They have a base at Langley, near Point Pleasant and Mothman escaped from it. He got revenge by destroying the bridge. Thanks.

Sources absolutely necessary

The closing sentence:

[quote]Even though Sherwood reported that Keel would not assist him in clarifying the differences, a simple analysis of Keel's earliest Mothman book "Demon Dogs and Phantom Cats" (1970) shows almost no differences with what Keel wrote in "The Mothman Prophecies" five years later[unquote]

absolutely needs at least two notes indicating the source of the respective statements, namely:

• "Even though Sherwood reported that Keel would not assist him in clarifying the differences"

WHERE is this Sherwood's "report" to be found?

and

• "a simple analysis of Keel's earliest Mothman book <snip> shows almost no differences with what Keel wrote <snip> five years later"

WHERE is a simple protocol of this "simple analysis" to be found? ;)

The same question goes for the second part of the sentence: WHERE can a reader find the actual results of this procedure?

A Sighting Not Mentioned (Ithink)!!!!!!!!!!

Wasn't there a sighting where some guy was watching tv late at night, and then his dog started whining all of a sudden, and the guy got up to look out the door and saw 2 red eyes, so he went to get his gun, but when he came back his dog and the eyes were gone??????

Also...did the article say anything about hawk wings...?I think it did, but I dont remember...And if the Mothman's missing his head, and his eyes are in his chest, then where's his mouth...?--Wolfluv1 (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't list all sightings, only "notable" sightings. DurinsBane87 (talk) 08:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it not notable?!!! If the mothman were an alien(hey, I just made a new theory!), then it'd be like...what, close encounter of the 4th kind(for the dog, that is)...? Also, I'd like to correct my story. The guy's dog didn't start whining, it started howling, because there was a loud whining noise outside. And the dog was never seen again...(bum bum bum...)--Wolfluv1 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not notable because these kinds of "sightings" happen all the time. Unless it's directly related to the Mothman and unusual for a sighting, it's not really relevant for the article. Also, you're nowhere near the first person to come up with the alien theory. Try actually reading the book The Mothman Prophecies: that's the first thing Keel assumed when he went to Point Pleasant. Finally, unless you have sources for the sighting, we couldn't include it anyway. -- Kesh (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• sigh*Ok, so I didn't make a new theory...but I kind of(maybe? I dunno...)have a source where I got that sighting. It was a book called Elemental Encyclopedia of Fantasy Creatures or something like that. Also, I haven't seen the book yet...I was already looking for it. Ha, I probly passed it already...Oh well!!!--Wolfluv1 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

apperance

the apperance of the mothman in the sulpture at the front of the profile is not the image i see of the mothman.the mothman sould have wings and legs and no arms.if the sould look like a man with wing,they would not have enough power to lift off or go 100 mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joby langford (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the wide variety of descriptions for the creature, it's impossible to have an "accurate" sculpture. They went with the most popular image, and I can't fault the artist in that. -- Kesh (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But most places say that he has no head. And the statue does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.10.195 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What "most places"? Cite? -- Kesh (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It says at the start of the artical that mothman was described by witnesses as having mothlike wings.... I was under the impression that mothman's wings were not actually reported as mothlike at all. Typically it is described as having birdlike wings, or bat-like, leathery with hair. The term "mothman" was coined by the press because of the popular tv show batman, at the time. This according to an interview I have seen with John Keel. Dean—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.78.38 (talk • contribs) 07:37, July 29, 2008

The bit about the Batman show is in Keel's book, The Mothman Prophecies (book). Still, this doesn't really have anything to do with the statue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with the statue, and niether does the artical in question. The artical is not about a statue, it is about "mothman", a subject of paranormal interest. What I am questioning is the description of the mothman in the wikipedia artical, which should be in referance to the sightings. Dean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.78.38 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

extent of article

This extent of detail is not encyclopedic. eg. ". Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Wamsley, and Mrs. Marcella Bennett, with her baby daughter Teena in tow, were in a car en-route to visit their friends, Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Thomas, who lived in a bungalow among the "igloos" (concrete dome-shaped dynamite storage structures erected during WW-II) near the TNT plant. The igloos were now empty, some owned by the county, others by companies intending to use them for storage. They were heading back to their car when a figure appeared behind their parked vehicle. Mrs. Bennett said that it seemed like it had been lying down, slowly rising up from the ground, large and gray, with glowing red eyes. While Wamsley phoned the police, the creature walked onto the porch and peered in at them through the window", which should probably read "A group of people at a bungalow in the area saw a figure appeared behind their parked vehicle. It was reported to appear as if it had been lying down, slowly rising up from the ground, large and gray, with glowing red eyes. The figure appeared to then walk onto the porch and peer in at them through the car window" and so for for the rest of the encounters. I do not see how the baby daughter's name adds to the information people expect in an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The example you put on had barely any detail, the paragraph in the article is just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.133.51 (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The description at the start of the article states that the creature has wings like a moth. I don't think that has ever been reported. The name "mothman" is a creation of the popular press, and the wings were never described that way by anyone. -dean-

Colvin

Why does Kesh keep taking citations for Colvin's research out? These witnesses are on record, in print (in Colvin's books and at the Mothman Museum) and on TV (in many specials) saying that they say a humanoid creature. Just because Kesh doesn't believe it, doesn't mean these people didn't see it or report it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.28.169 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, they were removed because you didn't cite any sources. Simply saying "Colvin's books" is not sufficient. You can't expect us to dig through all of them to find out if your additions are correct or not. -- Kesh (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I did cite the sources, giving the ISBN numbers and titles of the books (which happen to be listed under the "books" section already), and URLs for the radio and video material. Is the same scrutiny being given to other aspects of the analysis page? For instance, the claim is made that Coleman has "proven" that the witnesses stories changed, yet there simply isn't any evidence of that - even in Coleman's own book. While everyone writing for wikipedia may not be able to check the veracity of such claims, we do have experts like Colvin doing so. He went to the Mothman Museum himself and found that the written police testimony of witnesses like Linda Scarberry do not differ from what they have been saying on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.28.169 (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

An ISBN is not a citation. We shouldn't have to search through an entire book to verify your statements. This whole mess could be avoided if you had followed the guidelines for citing sources. -- Kesh (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a double standard here. Coleman puts in a link to his website, and that is considered OK, but others have to - I guess - put a specific page from a book, or mail out books to everyone editing the Mothman page? Can you provide a link to the guidelines you cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.28.169 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE. Which "Coleman link" are you referring to? If it's inappropriate (WP:EL), I'll take it out too. -- Kesh (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like all of the citations in the Coleman section are just as vague, wherein someone would have to search through Coleman's book, website, or articles to validate what he is saying. How do we know he was actually on 300 radio programs right after the movie came out? It seems pretty implausible, and all that is given for a cite is the ISBN number for his book. The Death List cites are from his website, and calling them a "research tool" is misleading because his aim is to say that there is a curse at play - again, that is implausible. Then he goes on to try to shoot down witnesses' direct testimony that Mothman looked human (to them) by citing unspecified research he has done. The claim that they changed their testimonies is a very serious charge - amounting to libel or slander if proven false - and needs to be documented. Those of us who study Mothman closely know that their stories have not changed. Can you provide that link to the citation guidelines? I did a search but it doesn't come up when you type it in. BTW, for the record, I wouldn't classify Colvin's stance that Mothman is a holographic hallucination best explained by quantum physics as "controversial." I would classify it as the least controversial. Coleman's claim that a regular bird causes deaths is far more untenable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.28.169 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Gah, I thought I got that "Death List" crap out weeks ago. Thanks for pointing that one out. I've trimmed that whole section down. I really need to get a few days to myself to just read through the books I've got and fix up this article. -- Kesh (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to whatever guidelines you are following. I don't see the value in removing a short description of what the research of Colvin - or any published author on any topic - is about, as long as one or other is not advocated as being absolutely the "right one." If you want a short synopsis of Colvin's research, you can check out the new issue of Paranoia Magazine (#47). Seems like a link to that would be appropriate. In general, what seems to be at issue for many of us is that Coleman's far-out theories on Mothman are presented as factual, while Colvin's - which really only echo the theories of Keel and of quantum physics - are seen as controversial. Seems like the previous material of Colvin should be reinstated because it is simply a short, two sentence description of what was said over the course of very long and exhaustive documentary series and trilogy of books. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.28.169 (talk • contribs) 14:20, May 3, 2008

(time passes) I waited awhile and since I didn't hear back from you, I put it back the way it was. If you want to edit Coleman as you promised earlier, feel free. I tried to edit him a while ago, but you undid them all so... I give up. I'm just trying to help make this an "A" page instead of "B." I focus on Mothman and that's where my expertise is - sorry I'm not a wikipedia wiz. I still think the Colvin material needs another sentence or two discussing the quantum physics angles, as well as the citations I put in earlier, but until I get clear information on what the citation guidelines are, I will wait. I can email you the Colvin article from Paranoia if you like. Thanks again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.28.169 (talk • contribs) 21:43, May 3, 2008

Kesh, there is no "edit warring" going on here. I'm just wondering why you promised to edit Coleman, but then edited Colvin - even though his section was already quite skeletal compared to Coleman's. And why not explain the citation guideline issues? Do you have some special editing authority? I personally wouldn't mind that if the progress of events was logical and clear, but you seem to ignore certain important questions, while forging ahead into things that haven't been cleared with others. It can get confusing, and perhaps lead to the feeling that there may be a bias towards "cryptozoology," even though - technically - most cryptozoologists absolutely do not support the Death Curse theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.28.169 (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the guidelines are WP:V, WP:RS, WP:EL, WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. With a little WP:FRINGE for good measure. Both sections were unsourced (excepting Colvin's website, which is not an independent source), so I took them both down to bare bones. No, I don't have special editing authority: just the same responsibility every other editor does to remove unsourced material. I've not ignored any questions, however I haven't got time to devote to this every day. My work schedule is a mess, so I can't respond instantly to improve this article. Honestly, I'm glad you want to improve this article to A-class. If you can provide some sources (cited per WP:CITE and WP:FOOT), I'm sure we can work out something about Colvin.

By the way, please remember to sign your comments by typing four ~ signs at the end. Makes it a little easier to follow! -- Kesh (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then does this mean that John Keel is not considered to be a reliable third party source? What about Sherwood? Plus the stuff about sandhill cranes has no third party verification. In fact, the whole page needs to be largely excised, except for newspaper articles - even though those can be notoriously unreliable as well. For you have one lady in the late 1960s, Mary Hyre, working for a small newspaper in another state that probably didn't have time to check the veracity of her witnesses. Since Colvin has written for small magazines, it seems like he is at least on par with Hyre, since Hyre never published any books on the subject. Are reviews of Colvin's books by other web news outlets considered OK for summarizing his theories? Thanks for your help 67.40.28.169 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the entire article needs a rewrite. Iv'e been planning to do so, but I haven't had the time. Keel is probably the main source for all this (given he's the one who popularized the whole thing), but others can also be included. We just need to start sourcing everything properly. The hardest part is going to be culling all the little bits, stuff from folks who really have no reliable publishing history. Reviews of Colvin's books would be interesting, and would help put things in perspective, I think. -- Kesh (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Mysteries of Point Pleasant

http://blogs.discovery.com/sleuth_truth/2008/06/the-mysteries-o.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by JToddMatthews (talk • contribs) 01:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)