Talk:Yeti/Archive 2

message: 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  or remove the offending passage from the article. Be bold and make it so. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "geottan"/"yettin" reference is suspect

message: 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)
replies: text: Same type, yes, but are they the same (albeit non-existant) creture? No. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Bigfoot]]?

message: According to the great cryptozoologist Ivan T. Sanderson, in his seminal ABOMINABLE SNOWMEN: LEGEND COME TO LIFE, Himalayan people recognize THREE species of ABSMs (a term Sanderson coined to encompass every such creature from Sasquatch to Yeti and everything in between): the Meh-Teh, an extremely bestial and often violent ABSM, about 4 to 5 feet in height; the Yeh-Teh, a generally shy and gentle ABSM about 5 to 6 feet in height; and the elusive DZU-TEH (which Sanderson says roughly translates in Tibetan to "The Shambling Thing" (cool name, huh?), a true giant species which may exceed 8 feet in height - making it a possible match for the native North American Bigfoot, or Sasquatch.
That would kind of eliminate ANY sort of bear species as the Dzu-Teh, wouldn't you agree, seeing as how there is no eight-foot bear species in the Himalayas - or much of anywhere, for that matter!
Well there are bears there, the "Himalayan Red Bear - Dzu-Teh", there are "Langur - Chu-Teh" monkey like creates which live high but not above 18,000 feet. There was talk of a "Himalayan Blue Bear", much like the blak bear in the US.  These have been written about a long time ago examples, depicted by "Kapa Kalden" on the walls of Thyangboche Monastery before it burnt down, his son is in the process of re-painting these. As said many times in this article there are many such creatures that can make footprints, stand on their hind legs (humans for instance) which are indigenous to the area, its we who turn these into fiction.  The article if read through will go through quite a large range of material (which is one of the reasons I guess Wikipedia is here, and I'm grateful for it), andthen its over to you as to what you make of it. (Gowron 19:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The yeti or Meh-Teh is a cryptid." 

message: I'm sure that this has been brought up before, however I'm new.  It seems that the YETI entry attracts a lot of unregistered user attacks (for want of a better word), which takes up time for those users who spend quality time here.  Another side affect of vandalism is that these edits will, if left too long, find their way into things like "Answers.com" or "Help.com" etc, it seems as though these Information centres scrape a lot of data from Wikipedia.  Is there some merit in making sure that edits are done by people who have taken the time to register?  Apologies if this is an old subject.  (Gowron 08:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random editing OR Vandalism 

message: I think something sould be in here about the hair sample taken from a tree in Bhutan (identified as Yeti hair by an official Bhutan yeti hunter) which when tested yielded unidentifiable DNA. The article about the hair, from The London Times, can be read here: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/yetidna.htm Davkal 12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: best evidence?

message: Removed from the article and restored by Gowron: "It is incorrectly titled as the Abominable Snowman by the western press". This seems rather unnecessary, since "Abominable Snowman" is just a nickname, and a very commonly accepted one, at that. There is no such thing as an "incorrect" nickname, regardless of whether it's based on a mistranslation or not. wikipediatrix 19:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed all opinion expressed as to whether it's correct or not to refer to as an Abominable Snowman and whether the western press has over dramatized depiction of the creature. If someone can  point to a notable source that claims the nickname is incorrect that that assertion can go back in so long as it's attributed. --Cab88 15:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "incorrectly titled" 

message: Does anyone else think that the opening paragraph of this article could be better written.  I feel that it doesn't give a very good general introduction to the subject and I also find the style of writing quite hard to read.  --Cyberboy 10:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph 

message: From the stories given here, it sounds like the Yeti is, if it exists, usually dark in color... Popular culture and common sense both deem it to be white, so that's interesting, but I guess you don't need camouflage unless you're prey or a sneaky hunter.
"Popular culture" offers very little generally speaking its a wish list to make something else out of it, I agree about being white for usage as Camouflage, you would think so. However at lower altitudes (still very high up though) in the summertime the place becomes quite alpine and green where sheep and Yak are grazed.  The colours reported are apparently "eye witness accounts", from the inhabitants, of very probably normal animals or individuals oddly dressed or carrying large loads in the area that get either mistaken or enhanced into folk lore.  (Gowron 12:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Color

message: Seems to me that The Abominable Snowman should have its own disambiguation page. I took forever a few weeks ago trying to find the film The Abominable Snowman. It's really not obvious where to look, as The Abominable Snowman simply redirects to Yeti. I'm sure there are other entries that would benefit from a disambig. David L Rattigan 13:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abominable Snowman disambig?

message: It is ludicrous to suggest that there is no connection between bigfoot and the yeti. For example, both involve sightings of a large hairy ape-like creature unknown to science.Davkal 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot

message: The opening paragraph needs to be changed. It consists of almost nothing but a list of various names that may or may not refer to the same thing and their etymology/pronunciation. Some part of the article should deal with this (in a far clearer manner) and the intro should say something like "the yeti is known by a variety of names to the indiginous peoples of the area" or some such thing, but the intro is really not the place for what is currently there. Particularly when this is to the exclusion of virtually all other info. There are also a variety of highly dubious (it seems to me) claims in the intro thrown in for good measure that may or may not represent one side of a some "yeti-debate" that may or may not exist within current "yetiology", if that in fact exists.  Alternatively, it could just be a particular POV from one or more of the current authors. Either way, the exclusion of almost any info about the yeti as it currently exists in the Western mind, literature, culture (popular and otherwise), which is the primary reason for the article's inclusion in Wiki seems to me to be highly POV. The fact is that there exists a cryptid the Western imagination (whether or not it turns out to be real) that is a Himalayan version of Bigfoot and is simply wrong to atrribute this to mistranslation or over-zelous newspaper editors or the like, since many people claim to have seen it. And, as far as cryptids are concerned, that's all that needs to have happened  for the descriptions from those sightings to be included prominently in the article.Davkal 17:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've split the opening into two parts. Does that help?  ---J.S (t|c) 20:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr Smith I can accept that, nothings perfect.  The citation from experts is John Napier and the citation for Howard Burry is, and there are lots for this one, in the references section by John Angelo Jackson Adventures in the Himalaya pp135 - 156 and in "More than Mountains".  Not sure at this point how to reference them in the text without making longer sentences, if that ok with you I will do this.  Cheers (Gowron 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this: Reference text.  That will create a note at the bottom of the page in the footnotes area. It's an easy way to make good looking references. ---J.S (t|c) 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Cheers thanks for the pointer.  Will do right away.  (Gowron 21:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Had a go and it works! Library of congress, Jacko woud have been pleased.  (Gowron 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Done my bit for the day, child minding for 4 kids (not all mine) both mums gone on tour for two days, off for a glass of wine,  Had a go at putting relevant citations in, obviously not all at this time, in the correct manner.  (Gowron 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: opening paragraph

message: I suggested above that the claim that the press has over dramatized the yeti as a large primate like creature was almost certainly false. We now have a source for this claim but it is still far from clear what it is supposed to mean let alone how it could be true. The point, from my perspective, is that we have alleged sightings (quite a few of them) of exactly such a creature - this is why the claim seems to me to be straightforwardly false, unless it means something else, in which case, what? Can we have some discussion about exactly what is being claimed here. Davkal 09:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get mad, its a citation from a book of the period probably before you were born. Its data and hence of interest. The rest of your paragraph is a little confused. (Gowron 11:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That paragraph was vandalised 3 times last night. Thanks to all for rescuing it. (Gowron 07:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Over dramatized

message: In order to be clear about what is being disputed and why I think we should start again.
1. I am not disputing the stuff about there being a mistranslation - that is informative and important. 
2. I think the way the details of what the various words mean is currently written is a bit confusing and could be done better, but I also think all that should be kept and is important.
3. I am disputing the claim about the unfortunate results of the mistranslation. That is, that it "conjures up" anything that is not obviously also conjured up (and more) by the correct translation.
OK, that's what I am disputing, now for why.
1. The argument can't possibly be true - I have argued that at length above: "abominable" was the mistranslation; "abominable" does not suggest "primate-like"; "man of the snow" (a correct part of the translation as "snowman) does mean "primate-like"; therefore the mistranslation (theatrical or otherwsise) was not what conjured up the primate-like thing. JS got this spot on above.
2. Given that this argument does not work, the value judgement of an "unfortunate result" simply cannot stand. That is, the outcome (the "primate" connotation) was not a result of the mistranslation at all and therefore cannot be an "unfortunate" result of it.
3. Because it is not immediately obvious what is wrong with the argument - a reader would not see it unless they read, and understood, the fairly confusing remainder of the paragraph and worked it out from that, it is likely that they will get the impression that the whole idea of a primate-like thing in the Himalayas was the result of a mistranslation. This is Jackson's point and it is currently stated as fact, even though, as shown, it can't be fact because it couldn't be true. 
OK, what do I think should be included.
1. Everything that is currently in the paragraph except the conclusion about what the mistranslation led to. That is, I don't mind if we include the "rather theatrical" description of the transaltion - that seems unimportant but nonetheless valid. The only words, then, that I am taking issue with are "unfortunately this ... conjures up" a large primate-like creature,.
2. I do not even mind if we include those very words, but if we do we must make it clear that: a) they are an argument rather than a fact; b) the argument is Jackson's (maybe Napier's as well); and c) the there is something very wrong with the argument. On point c) that is, that the correct translation conjures up exactly the same image.
In conclusion, then: I would like the bad argument about the RESULTS OF the mistranslation to be omitted altogether because: a) it is wrong; b) it is liable to mislead; and c) it is an unimportant side issue/value judgement that has little value because it is wrong. Alternatively, if the argument has to be included (for reasons I can't see) then it should be made clear that: a) it is an claim not a fact; b) that it is Jackson's claim; and c) that there is no way that it can be true. Davkal 10:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: disputed section 2

message: Prior to any further location of references, we need to change the Howard Bury paragraph (one of a few), not in terms of "overdramatised" or "theatrical" etc,  junk that for now, but in terms of the event sequence and who did what, its not quite right as its stands. I wrote it differently sometime ago and it was changed (whilst I was away for some time), even my original one was not factualy correct.  We need to say something like (and I don't mean to shovel this on anybody),  the facts as they are reported: are that C.K. Howard-Bury saw footprints, the Shepra's as they seem to always do (and why not, and in respect of their mythology and understanding) state  that these belong  the Yeti (in C.k. Howard-Bury's book), he then records these as Wolf-Prints in his book, however on his return to Britain he finds that some sort of media "over exitement" (better words needed) has occured that a whole pleathora (better word needed) of stories and mythology and have been created outside of the of any comment from the leaders of the expedition or even the indigenous people.  Henry Newman was responsible for the name "Abominable Snowman" which has been reported on many publications (I will find this in a press cutting, bt its old and very deep), he is reported (and I can provide a reference, but still not fact) to have spoken with the Sherpas of the expedition.  None of the above is said in a note of dirpoval of the xistence of the Yeti, but in a tone of just when, how (to be confirmed) and why it "Abominable Snowman" got so much into the public mind so quickly and within a year.  (Gowron 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A note of Reconciliation

message: I think there is too much focus in the article now on various linguistic points - almost two large paragraphs are devoted entirley to various translations of various words and almost nothing devoted to the actual meaning of those words to the people who use them. The problem with this is that literal translations of words (particularly words formed from joining two or more other words) are notoriously misleading - take "ladybird" for example, or "daddy long-legs". No insight into what we mean by those terms would be had by literally translating them into, say, German. Indeed, it would simply make it look like we didn't know what we are talking about. This may or may not be the purpose of those sections, but in any case there is reason to doubt the translations actually offered. Sticking with "yeti" here, we have "Ye refers to the grayish semi rocky area where the snowy peak ends" and "Ti simply means Monkey. Thus yeti means "Monkey of the Ye"" here, for example. Or, we have "Yah means rock and Teh means animal. So, the literal meaning of Yeti is "a rock living animal"", here for example . And then we have the "bear" translation - the only one dealt with in the article which, although having 4 seperate sources (all 1950's English sources), may not be correct and may all derive from the one (incorrect) source. I think, then, that these sections could: a) be reduced in size; b) do more to capture the ambiguity of the actual translation (bear/monkey/animal); and c) cover a bit about what the words actually mean to the people who use them rather than how these words literally translate into the language of an upper-class Englishman smiling gently at his foolish superstitious "coolies".Davkal 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations

message: 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)
thread_title: 2006 (nearly 7)

message: 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)
thread_title: DNA Data

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of the "Tibetian"?