Talk:Yeti/Archive 3

One thing that concerns me about this article is the amount of info gleaned from, and coverage given to, sources and/or events from the mid 1950s and before. Even the section on "late twentieth century" finishes at 1970. I am not saying that old sources are disreputable somehow, but I think the article suffers from a serious bias inasmuch as almost everything is taken from a few individuals writing between 1938 and 1955. There are a few mentions of more recent writings, but these are exclusively sceptical and support the yeti-bear hypothesis. I am no expert on the Yeti, but I can't belive that this article covers the subject fully or fairly. For example, "events" ends in 1970, yet Chris Bonnington - one of the UKs most famous mountaineers (and, I think, Yeti believers after he saw one) - led an expedition to search for the yeti in the late 1980s. Davkal 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The point here is that the world didn't end in 1970 and so the article should probably deal with things that have happened since then as well.Davkal 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In the intro the following is stated: "most mainstream scientists, explorers and writers with experience of the area, consider current evidence of the Yeti's existence to be weak and better explained as hoax, legend, or misidentification of known species." The source is John Napier. While I do not doubt that Napier's view is that the evidence is weak and better explained in more prosaic ways, I do not feel that this is justifcation for the sweeping statement that "most mainstream scientists, explorers and writers". I will use the following section to provide counter arguments to this claim which, hopefully, can then be used to support a more neutral summing up of current thinking about the yeti.

1. Chris Bonnington, a well known, experienced mountaineer with extensive knowldge of the area led an expedition to find the yeti in 1988 after sighting the creature. I don't think he can therefore be counted amongst the number who think there are more prosaic explanation.

2. Jane Goodall is "convinced" that creatures such as the yeti and bigfoot exist. .com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bfro.net%2Fnews%2Fgoodall.asp

3. "Prof. William Grant, one of the world's noted Yeti experts and a scientist firmly believes that Yeti could be either descendant of a 'Gigantic Anthropoid' [...] or it could be a 'Giant Hominidae' (Ape like men and their descendants like Homo erectus, etc.) known to anthropologists as 'Gigantopithecus' who used to roam in the Himalayas some 10-15 million years ago." .com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeban.com%3A8080%2Fufo%2Fparadocumented.cfm%3FDocID%3D13%26CFID%3D2251234%26CFTOKEN%3D40828539 Hard to see how we can include Professor Grant in the above description.

And the point here is that the first sweeping skeptical statement is merely one POV amongst many/several and should be cited as such rather than the considered opinion of all knowledgable individuals. Davkal 01:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More to come Davkal 18:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If nobody disagrees with the points made in the three sections above about sources, what year it is, and the first skeptical section then I shall make the appropriate changes tomorrow.Davkal 01:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello DavKal. My opinion probably doesn't count for much, I didn't write the summary (I was the one who put the Napier citation in though) and its been there prior to my involvement with the article, however it is important (just as it is in the Bigfoot artcile) to exercise a cautionary tone when discussing the "unknown". I think its important that the summary stay there, at least in some form.

I agree that all the data stops in the 1970 (good point), but thats as far as I got in a week. I'll happily share data with you and we can bring the history upto date. Does that sound fair?.

The translations and alternative words were already in the article I didn't put them all there somebody else did, what I did was put data and citations against them, delete them if you must, but that would leave out the local populations who live from "Kashmir to Kuamon" who dont know the word Yeti but have their own word, quit possibly the same situation exists in Bhutan.

The data trail of the Yeti is very old in terms of scalps, names, stories and has been quite well researched, in the absence of corroberated evidence there's not a lot to add until we have one to disect. (Gowron 08:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

There's not a lot of things that need to be deleted, but some tidying up, shortening and correction I think. 1. The linguistic stuff takes up too much space and is probably wrong/misleading insamuch as the word yeti appears to literally translate as either "rock bear" or rock monkey" or "rock animal" or all of the above. It therefore needs to be made shorter and snappier and to detail this ambiguity. There is also the question of what the word actually "means" which seems to imply some supernatural qualities - this also needs to be briefly noted. I can do this, and will try to leave as many of the sources you have added as possible. 2. I will look for some data from after 1970 and then just write this in as and when I get it. 3. I think enough has been provided above to tone down the initial skeptical summary and I can do this as well. Davkal 15:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff, you are probably right in that the linguistic part looks odd and probably too long, my writing style is pedantic, but I'm working on it. The citations just in the naming took quite a lot of digging up, and found, as you have, some noise. What I settled for was Pranavananda an Indian (who wrote two papers on the Yeti) and was cited by Heuvelmans (the cryptozoologist) and a couple of others, but also tried (and not very expertly) to shore up the suggestion with the reference to the Dzu-Teh (Himalayan Ref bear). I agree something probably needs to be done.

I can help with later references, this is going to sound big headed, I know/knew Chris Bonnigton, Peter Habler, Doug Scott, John Hunt (a proponet of the Yeti), Ed Hillary, Tenzing Norgay, George Band, Jo Brown, etc (I've gone on again), I had the good fortune of being brought up in an Outdoor Education Centre, where they would all come and teach or lecture at regular intervals. I can lay hands on a library of books, but at the moment they are 450 miles away, I'd share the data though. I can also search get a hold of any papers/journals you know of, that can only be searched for if places like JSTOR or specialised libraries.

I agree with the notion "supernatural" or that the Yeti is regarded as near deity or held in high esteem, a note their would be usefull. Although the scalps may not be some long lost animal, does not matter to the Nepalese or Tibetans both are highly religious peoples, it has been reported that they will quite happily make a scalp and treat it as a Yeti, much like a religion creates sculptures that represent their faiths. Stonor went to live with the Sherpa's to try and understand the full meaning from their point of view, he was also a source I used.

Will not get much chance to dig further until after christmas, but this looks like the article can move forward a good ways. Cheers. (Gowron 13:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

The Scottish Yeti reference mostly concerns a ghost like quality, in that it refers to being cought on a clagged hill, most probably alone, where you might have the sense that somebody is following/tracking/watching/etc you but you never see it (its a sort of self induced presence which can be experienced any hill). Having run up and down the Caringorms and Ben Macdui, unfortunatly mostly in the rain, yes if you let your mind wander it could feel like being haunted, but we were so knackered all you could think about was food and drink. Grub over Brain (GoB). (Gowron 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

Haven't researched the DNA data as yet but "unidentified DNA", or words to that effect, is troublesome. DNA that has not been contaminated with other DNA, will discriminate between canine, feline, porcine, flora, poppy, IR 1040, homo-erectus, homo-sapiens, Apes and Orang-utan/monkeys/etc/etc, you can tell what the root of "beast". "Unidentified" is a large problem, it would suggest a line of fauna that have no genetic link with any other animal life on this particular planet. A DNA sample that suggests it cannot be identified, would in many scientific minds mean its contaminated and hence obscuring its real origin. (Gowron 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

I removed all the popular culture references and put them in the relevant article. There's no need for two lists. Totnesmartin 23:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering in my browsers it shows up as "??????", I have a strong feeling most people reading this article would get the same. Maybe they should be retyped into an image than placed in, so everyone would be able to see them. Or at least throw a IndicText template in. LonelyPker 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Should this page become protected or semi-protected? There seems to be a whole lot of vandalism going on on the page over the last 2 weeks or so. Any known reason for this? If someone would protect the page these attacks may stop, correct? I'm bringing this up now because I noticed that Gowron attempted to broach the subject in June 06 without anything really being done about it. Cheers, ABVS1936 06:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What sort of attacks? Gingermint (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

At least twice the mention of Expedition Everest in Disney's Animal Kingdom theme park has been deleted. The most recent edit to this was mine and went as follows:

On April 7, 2006, Walt Disney Imagineering premiered an attraction based on the legend of the yeti called Expedition Everest - Legend of the Forbidden Mountain in Walt Disney World's Animal Kingdom. Inside the waiting area is a Yeti museum, complete with "Yeti-damaged" items and cement-cast footprints.

Now I understand the concern that it sounds a little like an ad, and I'm sure someone can reword it so it's more appropriate for an encyclopedia, but I don't see why a theme park attraction that's put so much emphasis on the legend of the Yeti, and so much research into its authenticity (Imagineer Joe Rohde actually traveled to Nepal and interviewed natives about the legend of the Yeti), would be excluded from a section called "The Yeti in Pop Culture." Disney World is pop culture, and Expedition Everest focuses on the Yeti. If we aren't going to accept this as a validation, we may as well scrap the section altogether. A vague mention of the "Abominable Snowman" as a "comic relief" hardly constitutes an entire section.

Can anyone explain this to me? If not, I'm putting it back in. Justin The Claw 03:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Old Victorian tale of the yeti! (Fiction)

http://www.angelfire.com/darkside/franco/Yeti.html

http://www.angelfire.com/darkside/franco/Yeti2.html

Francesc Roig majoolibaa@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.12.16.56 (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Himalayan Red Bear ist the very same animal as Himalayan Brown Bear. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has a section on appearances of the yeti in popular culture. It is a bit disorganised, but its contents are restricted to that subject; it is not a trivia section, and the advice there (like "convert to narrowly focused lists") doesn't apply. —Toby Bartels (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence read "...manufactured from the skin of the [[Nemorhaedus|serow]], a goat-like Himalayan antelope." However, Nemorhaedus is a redirect to Goral but the link says Serow. Both are listed as being goat-like or antelope-like. Which is the correct animal? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2464419/Mystery-hairs-%27may-have-come-from-a-Yeti%27.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.20.78 (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Transcript of Dr. Jane Goodall's Comments on NPR Regarding Sasquatch

On Friday, September 27, 2002, during National Public Radio's (NPR) Talk of the Nation: Science Friday with Ira Flatow, Dr. Jane Goodall made a striking comment on her strong beliefs that large "undiscovered" primates, such as the Yeti or Sasquatch, do indeed exist.

The following is a transcript of the relevant portion of the program:

Dr. Goodall: As for the other, you're talking about a yeti or bigfoot or sasquatch.

Ira Flatow: Is that what he's talking about?

Dr. Goodall: Yes, it is and ...

Ira Flatow: Is that the message I'm missing here?

Dr. Goodall: I think that's the message you're missing and ...

Ira Flatow: (To the caller) Is that right?

Caller: Pretty much.

Ira Flatow: (Laughing) I'm out of the loop. Go ahead.

Dr. Goodall: Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist.

Ira Flatow: You are?

Dr. Goodall: Yeah. I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. I've probably got about, oh, thirty books that have come from different parts of the world, from China from, from all over the place, and there was a little tiny snippet in the newspaper just last week which says that British scientists have found what they believed to be a yeti hair and that the scientists in the Natural History Museum in London couldn't identify it as any known animal.

Ira Flatow: Wow.

Dr. Goodall: That was just a wee bit in the newspaper and, obviously, we have to hear a little bit more about that.

Ira Flatow: Well, in this age of DNA, if you find a hair there might be some cells on it.

Dr. Goodall: Well, there will be and I'm sure that's what they've examined and they don't match up. That's what my little tiny snippet says. They don't match up with DNA cells from known animals, so -- apes.

Ira Flatow: Did you always have this belief that there., that they, that they existed?

Dr. Goodall: Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist. (Chuckles.)

Ira Flatow: (To the caller) Alright?

Caller: Thank you.

Ira Flatow: Thanks for calling. (To Goodall) Well, how do you go looking for them? I mean, people have been looking, right? It's not like, or has this just been, since we don't really believe they can exist, we really haven't really made a serious search. Dr. Goodall: Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they've seen. Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to.

There's either a myth or a different popular origin of the word "Yeti" than describe on the page that gets a lot of traction out there. It's been mentioned by Neil Gaiman on many times... evidently he (and his fans) believe that the word "Yeti" literally means "That thing over there". I was very disappointed when I found out it was the far more specific and rational "rock bear" reading. In any case, I think a sentence or two dispelling this popular rumor would be useful (or supporting it, if there's any way it might be the truth....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.140.126 (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was reading a thing on Bhutan and this legend/creature was apparently important to their culture once. I guess an artistic rendering of it was even on a stamp. Now they find it embarrassing. Is there anything more to say about that? The article seems to be mostly about cryptozoology and Western views.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how much the writers who have written about the etymology of "yeti" actually know about Tibetan. Maybe they're experts, maybe not; it's not like nobody ever went off half-cocked talking when talking about Tibet. The Wylie g.ya'-dred looks plausible, but the spellings "je-tiet", "yeh", "pe-tah", etc. appear to be entirely ad hoc and bear a dubious relationship to how the these words would actually be pronounced. I put "yeh" in the maybe pile but I have no idea where the p or the a in "pe-tah" would come from out of dred. The expected "Standard" Tibetan pronunciation of g.ya'-dred would be [jãɖeʔ], which could perhaps be written phonetically as yanḍe’. However, it seems plausible that the [a] might be fronted [ɛ], the nasalisation might be considered optional, and the distinction between [ʈ] and [ɖ] might be neutralised. An English-speaking traveller, then, might record [ɖ] as "t", since the retroflexion means nothing to him. I'm not aware of any particular process where the [e] would become a [i], but it doesn't seem too far-fetched. With the glottal stop ignored, the result would be "yeti". It's interesting to note that the exact same discrepancy between the expected "Standard" pronunciation and the conventional English spelling occurs in the case of the lama and monastery named Reting.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/odd/5094232/japanese-climbers-say-footprints-abominable-snowman/

Perhaps there should be a section on "evidence"

or, if there is, then a report on this occurrence might be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.79.82.182 (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

i've tried to post this on the website, but it keeps being edited out. i just want to state that when i was in nepal in october/november of 2005, i trekked the annapurna circuit and the day after walking over the highest pass, i, and many of the other trekkers, saw 3 light gray apes (or large monkeys) scampering up the side of a steep field as farmers threw rocks at them, chasing them out of their grain field. none of the farmers seemed to act like it was particularly out of the ordinary, and i know that at least one scandinavian trekker caught it on his digital video camera. the apes were all about 5 feet tall, light gray, and very muscular, like an nfl defensive back or a world class sprinter, and they all bounded up the side of a very steep hill at an astonishing speed. i didn't see them walking upright, but the angle of the hill would have prevented a human from walking on two legs. in any case, i haven't seen any other record of large gray himalayan apes, other than the mythical yeti. i really want this to be on the record somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.182.113.100 (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

While that is certainly an interesting story, Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. Wikipedia has policies about original research, which can be read here WP:OR, which basically state that personal experiences aren't appropriate content for an article. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

first, i want to say that it was 2004, not 2005 when i was there. sorry. i'm sure that probably puts my whole story in doubt in some people's minds, but it was just a mistake. the rest is as i described it. second, the entire history section is full of "personal reports". third hand, yes, but that's the only difference. i'm not a famous explorer and i didn't rush to the newspapers, but that shouldn't make my observation any less relevant.

But yes, as it is a completely undocumented siting, it is less relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.141.58 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

hey, it's me again. it may have been the arunachal macaque, which was "discovered" in 2005, despite being known about by farmers for raiding their fields. i don't know how big these macaques are, but it fits the behavior. the color's a little off, as is the large tail, which i don't remember seeing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.249.239 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

i really don't think they were, though, since i thought they were chimps when i first saw them. it's also not an undocumented sighting. i'm documenting it right the fuck here.

just like to point out that theres little exsplantion for the scalp picture in this article and when it is mentiond its kind of vague and not much information is realy given about it if anyone knows more about it would it not be a good idea to put it in the article especially considering its the picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.69.132 (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The scalp pictured was recently featured in an episode of Destination Truth Season two. More information about this same scalp including a debunking and more pictures(scroll up) can be found here.

"A buddist monastary near Everest has what it claims is the skull of a Yeti... claims in the past of a monastery that had several "hides" from Yetis. Ivan T. Sanderson dealt with these specific cases in length in his 1961 publication, 'Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come To Life', in Appendix E, entitled "Sir Edmund Hillary's scalp - A News Story From Nepal'. Per Dr. Heuvelmans, the hair and hide material are from a goat-like animal called the Serow (Capricornus Sumatrensis thar) indigenous to the area. Apparently these ceremonial items were designed and constructed to look like the real thing for the purpose of enacting religious ceremonies. The monks aparently were forthright in stating the truth but the frenzy for sensationalism at the time promoted the articles as real, which, clearly, they were not."

-- œ^™ 22:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What I feel is that Yeti is nothing but the legendary myth of Lord hanuman. Now I am not a great believer myself but there have been many people who have received a photograph of Lord Hanuman by a person who claims to have clicked a photograph of a light coming out of a cave in the Himalayas and died after taking the photograph mysteriously. Lord Hanuman is one of the Chiranjeevs (Alive forever) in the Hindu myth - Ramayana.

He says to be waiting for the final avatar (incarnation) of Lord Vishnu Kalki in the 21st Century to destroy the world. Apparently, it has been said that the avatar has already come on earth and the Mystery of 16th December 2012 - the total destrustion of Earth is to be done by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonichirag87 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an unsourced reference to an unreleased film that has no evidence of its own existence. Would the person who placed the reference please explain and provide a link to either evidence for the film or a yeti appearing in supposed film?68.253.213.126 (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I just wanted to point out that 'हिममानव' translates more closely to 'snow man'. I know that evokes the wrong image, but I thought I'd leave this here just the same. (the 'Him' in 'Himalayas' is the same word, translating to something like 'abode of snow'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.238.6 (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

How do you think the term "Abominable Snowman" came around? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

at disney world,florida in animal kingdom their is a ride called the expidition everest they have a bunch of pictures of yeti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.118.179 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

May be it will be best if we change to mythical, no evidence of Yeti only myth!

Well, since there is evidence it would seem unscientific and fairly wrong-headed to call it mythical. Gingermint (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mythological Creature - I would suggest we amend this phrase to something more ambiguous. In common usage, 'mythological' implies that the creature definitely does not exist, whereas its existence is, in fact, the subject of debate. We could either take the phrase out altogether & qualify the remainder of the sentence, so the opening reads "The Yeti or Abominable Snowman is an ape-like cryptid said to inhabit the Himalayan region of Nepal and Tibet, but whose existence is debated" OR we could replace 'mythological' with, say, 'cryptozoological' or 'legendary'. Any views on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcherscross (talk • contribs) 10:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'd call this a consensus. The word is now gone. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} I would just like to add a bit about the show Destination Truth finding a Yeti print they had a big story about them finding this in the rule area of the himilas

Bobmanny11 (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please write the exact sentence(s) that you think should be added. I (and, I assume, other editors) haven't seen the show, so there's no way for us to know what you want to add. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources. If you can supply such a reference, please reinstate your request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  07:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

In 1925, N. A. Tombazi, a photographer and member of the Royal Geographical Society, writes that he saw a creature at about 15,000 ft (4,600 m) near Zemu Glacier. Tombazi later wrote that he observed the creature from about 200 to 300 yd (180 to 270 m), for about a minute. "Unquestionably, the figure in outline was exactly like a human being, walking upright and stopping occasionally to pull at some dwarf rhododendron bushes. It showed up dark against the snow, and as far as I could make out, wore no clothes." About two hours later, Tombazi and his companions descended the mountain and saw the creature's prints, described as "similar in shape to those of a man, but only six to seven inches long by four inches wide[31]... The prints were undoubtedly those of a biped."[citation needed]

The reference cited at the last line doesn't exist in the end. I suggest removing it from the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japaa (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The footprints were examined by Jeffrey Meldrum of Idaho State University, who believed them to be too morphologically accurate to be fake or man made.[citation needed] Meldrum also stated that they were very similar to a pair of Bigfoot footprints that were found in another area.[citation needed] Then, during the 3rd season mid finale visit to Bhutan, Gates' team found a hair sample on a tree that they took back to have analyzed. After it was tested, it was concluded that the hair belonged to an unknown primate.[citation needed]

This whole part has no references and should therefore be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japaa (talk • contribs) 01:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is filled with grammatical errors. Is there any chance it could be copy-edited by someone for clarity's sake?

--24.68.0.118 (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It also has the word "lilby" next to filthy. Does that word exist? or is it vandalism. 110.33.18.172 (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I made some grammar tweaks as well as removing "lilby" which seems to be a fragment from a previous edit. If you have specific suggestions, please post them. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)