Talk:Bunyip

message: I removed:
::In 1846 a strange skull was taken from the banks of Murrumbidgee River in NSW. In the first flush of excitement, several experts concluded that it was the skull of something unknown to science. In 1847 the so-called bunyip skull was put on exhibitin in the Australian Museum (Sydney) for two days. Visitors flocked to see it and it the Sydney Morning Herald said that it prompted many people to speak out about their 'bunyip sightings'
::"Almost everyone became immediately aware that he had heard 'strange sounds' from the lagoons at night, or had seen 'something black' in the water."
Gradually the debate calmed down but on final mystery remains-
What happened to the 'bunyip skull'?
It disappeared and has never been sighted since.
As it had no reference.  Happy to put back if referenced. Maustrauser 05:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That bunyip is still here.  People who try and work out re this stuff are funny.  I heard it here big time in Feb 2004,.  He is a bit quiet lately though so hope he stays quiet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.202 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 July 2006   (UTC+10 hours (AEST)) 
Here is a reference: http://www.nla.gov.au/exhibitions/bunyips/html-site/evidence/skull.html  addition seems a little too verbatim from the National Library site, but it is still factual --A  Y  Arktos 06:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely - I remember it too. --Centauri 07:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removed sections

message: The Characteristics section is HORRIBLE!
It needs a complete re-write.
It sounds like its out of a horror film.
:That's because it is, or actually horror tales. While it seems that the bunyip is a preserved folk memory of diprotodonts, after their extinction the characteristics of the living animal gradually changed into a mythological bogeyman, as they could no longer be observed to be peaceful herbivores with a lifestyle similar to a less-aquatic hippo and only the most conspicuous attributes (size, loud voice) stuck and became embellished until the bunyip became a dangerous mythological beast.
That being said, I wonder whether the translation is accurate, or an European attempt to rephrase in more familiar terminology something they had no idea that it might actually have once existed. "Devil" is certainly a mistranslation ("bogeyman" might be more accurate), and "spirit" is rather shaky given that numerous "spirit" entities were presumed to hang around in Alchera. Dysmorodrepanis 13:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics? 

message: From which language(s) is the name? As Aborigines seem to identify diprotodont bones as "bunyip bones", it is altogether likely that at least some of the oral tradition refers in fact to this animal. Etnhologic research coupled with paleontology could draw a lot from this, but one would have to know first where the name originated, and corellate this with known diprotodont remains in that particular area. Dysmorodrepanis 13:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: That note needs to be cleaned up--Matau 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: In the article, "bunyip" is sometimes capitalised, sometimes not.  </br>
Initially it isn't, then later on it intermittently is.  In place-names, and in the titles of books, TV shows, and so on, and for bunyip characters that appear in them, Bunyip is correct.  Otherwise, tho?  I don't have an opinon either way, I just think that the article should be consistent in its capitalisation or not of the name of its subject matter.Mmm...
Articles about existing Australian animals: 
* in Emu, 'emu' is capitalised thruout the article;
* in Kangaroo, apart from genera/species names, 'kangaroo' is mosty, though not always, uncaptitalised;
* in Koala, there is no consistency in capitalisation.
Articles about legendary animals:
* in Yeti, 'Yeti' is capitalised thruout the article;
* in Bigfoot, 'Bigfoot' is capitalised thruought the article, but 'Sasquatch' starts off being capitalised, then later on isn't. 
* in Yowie, 'Yowie' is always captitalised.  Interesting to note that the article includes this: "The earliest published reference to the word in its current usage is in Donald Friend's Hillendiana  a collection of writing about the goldfields near Hill End in New South Wales. Friend refers to the "Yowie" as a species of "bunyip", an Aboriginal term used to describe monsters said to dwell in many Australian rivers and lakes 
Your opinions and views about any or all of the above?
--Shirt58 11:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to know what's the recommended way, I was looking at fixing up the consistency also but like you found it was inconsistent (I too looked at the Kangaroo page amusingly).. I think the thing is that it's not a proper noun and as such should be lower case. If we were talking about "Barry the Bunyip" (proper noun) who is a bunyip (common noun). Although I guess you are then assuming that there's more than one bunyip for it to not be a proper noun. Though is it "The Bunyip" as a singular instance of a monster/creature? *shrug* I'm thinking lower case at this stage.. NathanLee 12:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "bunyip" be capitalised throught the article or not? 

message: The Bunyip is described as being distributed across Australia, however i would argue that it is primarily an Eastern States phenomena. The article itself only cites claims originating from the south-eastern region. As a West Australian i am unfamiliar with the bunyip as being part of the popular local folklore. I would suggest the distriution either be amended to reflect the regional origins of the myth or a broader variety of claims be included to approximate an Australia-wide distribution in local culture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyldeboye (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution 

message: Excuse me, aren't sections Early accounts and Explanations almost entirely copied from that page? Thank you. --82.54.219.45 (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it seems SkepticWorld has copied us, since the content here has been up way before December 2007 Wiki page history for November 2007 Archive.org. Bidgee (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thank you very much. --82.54.219.45 (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.skepticworld.com/cryptozoology/bunyip.asp SkepticWorld.com]

message: I think we should add William Buckley's account of the Bunyip to the "early accounts" section. Tim Flannery edited an excellent reprint of Buckley's "Life and Adventures.."  in 2002 --Nickm57 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Buckley's account 

message: "The skull and the skin is now in the Macleay Museum, at the University of Sydney. Zoologists have since concluded that the "bunyip" was a deformed foal."
This was added recently to replace a cited source saying the location is unknown. If true, this would be good to have. Unfortunately without a source we cannot include it. DreamGuy (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced info 

message: I have access to two interesting and useful books Bunyips: Australia's Folklore of Fear by Robert Holden (2001) and Bunyips and Billabongs by Charles Fenner (1933) which I will use to further inform this article over the next few days. I have begun by turning the repetitive list into text, in accordance with the changes suggested in July 2009.--Nickm57 (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still a work in progress, but as indicated, I have edited and provided references in this article to as much reference material as I can. I have removed the sightings that I felt don't provide further understanding, but made several links to the exhaustive "Bunyip and Inland Seal Archive."--Nickm57 (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reverted the bullet point list of trivia added back in by Rtkat3 on the basis of the Wikipedia:Trivia sections policy which has previously been raised on this page. It is also repetitive. However if Rtkat3 would like to discuss this here ?? --Nickm57 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits

message: I think this is a difficult section of some articles, including this one. Such sections tend to become a miscellaneous list of bits and pieces that often don't add anything to the topic, other than record that they have appeared in popular culture recently. For this reason, I've made a couple of further edits, in addition to deleting a definition from a website relating to Charmed, thats actually not as good as our own here on WPNickm57 (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture

message: Im not sure that the meaning of the word Bunyip can only be considered in terms of the mythical creature, as per recent changes. All the same, perhaps Bunyip in its modern meaning could go in a separate section. Also, the final popular culture section is becoming increasingly unsatisfactory I think - a bit of a dumping ground for any other mention of the Bunyip. Other opinions?Nickm57 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ive thought about this for some time. Given the article covers bunyip in all its manifestations from mythical creature to contemporary TV, I think the various meanings is more appropriate as it stood.Nickm57 (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning section

message: Bunyip was also the name of a race horse, and of a river steamboat, in the 1840s.
Search Trove for numerous references.
86.139.40.215 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: The art on the bottom of the Bunyip seems to have been traced from this drawing, not sure if that causes any issues as I think it's public domain either way but letting people know KanyeWestDropout (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you follow this image back, you will see its from a 1937 Indian book, as mentioned in the text. So its in the public domain as mentioned. The drawing you have linked above is certainly similar. All that said, the image probably is not very relevant here - just happens to be a monster that's been given the same name! Nickm57 (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bunyip art was plagiarized