Talk:Yowie

Note about older discussions

For discussions prior to 2009, see Talk:Yowie (disambiguation).

likelihoods and other

If the animal is a pongid it is likely related to the nearest pongid in the region - ie the orang-utan. Otherwise we have to assume it is gigantopithecus or homo erectus - both extremely unlikely. In any case, if hominid it needs lots of calories - local vegetation unlikely to provide this; we must assume therefore it is a carnivore and gets calories from fat. Why no evidence of large numbers of kills? Only possible explanation is that it buries kills. Most unlikely in much of Australia's hard soils, thus either it buries kills in leaves, below rocks, or where the soil is soft. This limits distribution to forest country. We must also assume it buries its dung and its dead. If not smart enough to do that; there'd be lots of poo around, bones and evidence of its habitation. No habitation means sleeping rough, and a more or less solitary habit. In that case expect loud mating calls at certain seasons of the year. If orang-descended, it must have gone through major changes to locomotion style to get away from the weakly bipedal clumsy gait of the orang on the ground to an upright, plantigrade style of movement to cope with Australia's open country and long distances. Not to mention competition with the megafauna, Aboriginals, fire and flood. So: the candidate is smart, upright, secretive, forest-dwelling, solitary and a seasonal mater. All fits with the orang-utan. Expect, then, if the beast if ever properly filmed, to see an upright, smart, reddish animal, which will show movements far more like a man than an ape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgh (talk • contribs) 10:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that usually when a Yowie is spotted in one region it forms clusters of other sightings within a couple days difference implies that only one Yowie was seen in all of those sightings, and given the large herds of mega-fauna, roaming Australia's Gold Coast, Yowie's would potentially feed off of fruit, large insects and spiders, possible kangaroos or wallabies and scavenge whenever possible. Also, given that around the time of Gigantopithecus Indonesia was one landmass connecting Australia with Asia, I find it quite plausible that Gigantopithecus, Homo Erectus or Homo Flourensiensis could've migrated to Australia and got stranded there when Indonesia became an archipelago. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

RE: Ant Creatures

Not sure of where else to put this, but the reference to yowies also being a species of weird ant-lizard hybrids is taken almost word for word from the book Out of This World by Robert Ingpen & Michael Page - a fictional encyclopedia of myths and legends in which the authors often freely disregarded the facts, and just made stuff up. This reference to ant-lizards is almost certainly purely the result of one or both of the two men's imaginations. At any rate, I've never encountered it anywhere else. I'll delete that part, but leave it pasted here in case I'm wrong.

"Rather confusingly, "Yowie" (or "Yowie-Whowie") is also the name of a completely different mythological character in native Australian Aboriginal folklore. This version of the Yowie is said to be a bizarre, hybrid beast resembling a cross between a lizard and an ant with big red eyes on the side of his head, big canine teeth and large fangs. It emerges from the ground at night to eat whatever it can find, including humans. This creature's characteristics and legend are sometimes interchangeable with those of the bunyip. "

References

Edit of April 2010

Have added inline citations as per 2009 note, using Robert Holden's book. Also standardised quotations.--Nickm57 (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How about having a discussion here?

Clare - would you like to justify your edits - especially the description of the yowie ?Nickm57 (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I only just now saw your note from 18 March. Since this time I have added a string of references to the edit. Happy to discuss further if you would like? Sorry about the delay. Regards Clare Clare. (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Origins of the term at April 2013

I think the title 'origins of the term' is maybe misleading? It seems to be discussing the origin of the myth more likely. I am going to have a think about this one, but keen to hear if any other people have thoughts? Clare. (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Some people really like the word 'mythical': May 2013

So there are several people who think that mythical should be in the first sentence (first added 29 April), and people have been directing me to the WP: Fringe (twice now) when I have changed it back (surely covered off by 'some people believe'???), and now I have been directed to bunyips.

A difference I perceive between bunyips and yowies is that no-one claims to have seen a bunyip (or at least I haven't heard about people claiming to have seen them), whereas we semi-regularly hear about people seeing yowies, or what they believe is evidence that yowies may exist. There is (terrible fidelity, very likely doctored) footage of yowies and there are people out there who make a point of looking for them. I think that the yowie is best described as similar to big foot, rather than like bunyips (with the exception that bunyips are also Australian). The opening paragraphs did previously more closely resemble the big foot page.

When I looked up mythology, the page said myths are generally very old (ancient), but the article seems to imply that yowie stories may have started in the 19th century, which is considered young.

I agree, yes, yowie is a fringe theory, but why isn't "that some people believe" enough? Is the article better with mythical in the first sentence? I don't think it is.

Maybe it could say:

Yowie is one of several names given to a hominid that a very small minority of people believe lives in the Australian wilderness.

What do you think? I'd really like to have a discussion about this, hear what others have to say in a more verbose way than allowed in the edit summary, especially because the limited space there means that sometimes people take a tone they may not wish to take (myself included). Clare. (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

In reference to your comments and edits here. My problem with your approach in editing so far, and the one you have advocated above is several. First – your edits seem to have changed the tone of the article entirely – from being one that acknowledged a figure in Aboriginal mythology, with brief mention of a few enthusiasts who search for it as a physical entity today, to the reverse - an article that suggests such creatures may exist without a clear indigenous context. The article as it stands now looks very fringe theory to me, with its numerous accounts of recent "sightings". The second issue is your use of qualifying Weasel words such as "some people believe," which, while well-intentioned, have not improved the article. A third issue might be the works you have used. I have not read most of the sources you have access to but least one seems self published.

I believe the connection or parallel you refer to - some unproven similarity between North American Bigfoot stories and Yowie legends, is a modern construction and one that largely denies its valid Australian indigenous context. I believe it was me who suggested using the Bunyip article as a model for that reason. It's pretty irrelevant in my view, therefore, whether or not "someone" claims to have seen a Bunyip or Yowie recently or not, when accepted consensus amongst the scientific community is that it does not exist.

You need to remember that there are people very active on Wikipedia who would be happy to guide you or critique your edits. User:Gillyweed has been around a long time and has also edited this page and User:Dougweller often writes on fringe matters. They might be willing to help you and may possibly provide an alternative perspective to mine if you write on their talk pages. Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick, I looked back on what the page looked like before I added any edits, I would encourage you to do so too: [[1]].

• Your comments sound like you are implying that I was diminishing reference to Aboriginal interaction/history of the yowie, when in fact I added in Indigenous names for yowies, and I haven't deleted anything.
• Almost all of the sources I have cited are linked to places that they appear on the Internet. I have mainly used mainstream Australian media, if you take a look. I have referenced The Newcastle Herald, The Daily Telegraph and The Australian, among others.

It sounds like you would like to delete/have deleted the Yowie#Contemporary accounts of yowie sightings section, which we can talk about more if you wish. I added this section because previously the article had a Yowie#Nineteenth Century eyewitness accounts and I wanted to complement that part of the article. Clare. (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to make clear - my suggestions for further improvements to this article are: 1) start where the story begins – the Yowie as a part of Indigenous Australian mythology. That isn’t fringe history. 2) Edit out the qualifiers/weasel words. 3) Dismiss the connection to the Yeti etc, unless there are some reliable sources that make this connection. 4) On a topic like this check all sources for reliability – good luck on that. Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. They should use "cryptid" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not the same as Whowie, or bunyip

I'm not at all convinced that Whowie should redirect here. Most of the texts I've found indicate that the whowie was a giant, six-legged, man-eating lizard, often described as having a frog's head. If the yowie article is going to be about a humanoid cryptid, I feel that the whowie should have its own page. Krychek (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kyrchek. I agree, good idea to make a new article - the whowie sounds very different. I will take a look at the page as you develop it if you like?

I also don't think we should be saying that the Yowie legend is "sometimes interchangeable with the bunyip" (second paragraph - in the lede - cited to Holden, 2001), as bunyips are described as swamp-dwellers / water spirits, and yowies are described as humanoid cryptids, and I'm not sure what context Holden said this in - did Holden describe that it sometimes is interchangeable, or did Holden link to more sources?

What do you and others think? Clare. (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yowie in film

I'm preparing to add a section directing to 'Yowie in film' as several movies are either in production or have recently been released.

Rejection of the Yowie Comment

Hi User:110.22.62.227, while your edits look useful, they need to be sourced. If you can't find sources for them, then it can't be added to the article. If you don't have time or think they are out there but can't find them. Then please put your information here and then others can try find it so it can be added. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 02:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That section is questionable. While the perception of the yowie might have changed, it certainly fits into the ogre/manbeast paradigm which is pretty much universal across all human cultures as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.193.146 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Heavy revisions necessary

Currently this article focuses on purported "sightings". This is an approach common to poorly-composed fringe articles, particularly those that, whether intentionally or not, violate WP:PROFRINGE. As another editor recently noted, the article needs to be checked for sensationalism and source misrepresentation. Additionally, secondary sources from folklorists or other relevant academics should be in the foreground, not hidden behind the label of 'Rejection of the yowie' (of course, pushed behind 'prominent yowie hunters'!). :bloodofox: (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

After finding the first couple of entries here and here were grossly exaggerated versions of the cited source material, I recommend the entire "History of sightings" section be reviewed for the purpose of correcting overly credulous interpretations of the sources. Whether originally done intentionally or in good faith, it seems much of the text got slanted toward supporting the fringe assumption that yowies are real creatures. A long list of "eyewitness sightings" is a technique used in unencyclopedic fringe-based narratives. A better approach would be to find an independent source that can put these into context, or at least identify the most significant ones. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

References

I would like to add to the section on reports and sightings by referencing a YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJc4xuqi8BHCOm_PxIhP66Q). The channel has over 150 independent interviews of witnesses who have had sightings of the Yowie. The interviews are based on a series of unsensational, rational, standard questions and the interviewees are not endorsed or paid for their contributions. What do others think? Polymath uk (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not appropriate, per WP:NOYT and WP:FRIND. The article at present may have a few dodgy sources in it, but that is no reason to add more. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I find that a remarkable misjudgement. Just so that I understand this correctly, we are talking about an encyclopaedia article that refers to a creature that may or may not exist, and the official position of the encyclopaedia is to disallow over 150 independent witness statements where eye-witnesses recount, unprompted and un-lead, in their own words, primary evidence of the creature's existence? Polymath uk (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You could file a question at WP:RSN for more opinions if you like. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)