Talk:Yeti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yeti article.
It is requested that an image be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. This image request is specifically for Photos or artists "conception" based on reports..

Archives: Talk:Yeti/Archive1


Contents

[edit] Scientific name?

The article says the yeti's scientific name is Diananthropoides nivalis Soule, 1966. I was very surprised when I found no results in Google for that name. Yahoo only found Wikipedia and a few mirrors. I think it's very unlikely that this scientific name, if existant, has not been mentioned anywhere else on the Internet. Could anybody provide some source for this supposed scientific name (for example a reference to Soule's 1966 paper)? Otherwise I don't think it should be in the article. Ucucha (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I found what can be assumed to be the afore mentioned Soule article. I came across a book citation:
Soule, Gardner. Trail of the Abominable Snowman. New York: Putnam, 1966.
I have not read the book and by no means recommend recognizing the scientific name. If of any help, most people would place Yeti (should a type specimen ever be collected or produced) in the Class Mammalia. The widely accepted authority on mammalian species is Wilson and Reeder's 3rd Edition of Mammalian Species of the World, which makes no mention of Yeti, Saskwatch, or Chupacabra. But since you asked if anyone could find the reference, here it is.
Another thing to consider in presenting the scientific name is that there is no way in knowing it's validity (as defined by the ICZN). Without a specimen or a formal description of the species, the name will likely lack priority should a specimen be collected in the future.FeralAkodon 15:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems very probable to me that the name is a nomen nudum under the ICZN, as I don't think there's a type in existance. Even if the name was actually coined, it may be too obscure to name it here. Ucucha (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "geottan"/"yettin" reference is suspect

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 {{fact}} or remove the offending passage from the article. Be bold and make it so. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

According to www.dictionary.com, [1], yeti seems to be a misunderstanding of a Tibetan word akin to mi-ti to begin with, there hardly seems to be any evidence that they're cognates. Also, they're actually relatively many words where Old Norse j don't correspond to English or Anglo-Saxon y or g.

English earth - Old Norse jǫrð, English udder - Old Norse jú(g)r, English even - Old Norse jafn, English earl - Old Norse jarl, (English I - Swedish jag, English iron - Swedish järn). Old English eoten - Old Norse jǫtunn fits quite nice within the scheme, without having to resort to allegedly fake etymologies and made up words. 惑乱 分からん 11:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Bigfoot?

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))


NO. I agree with the comments made byEmperor, but also a scientific name for the Yeti or Meh-Teh (mentioned above) cannot exist until "one" of these creatures is caught and fully characterised or heaven forbid dissected and its taxonomy known, that information does not exist. Nearly all expeditions find a lot of animal life at very high altitudes, most of which has been fully described. The word Yeti or more appropriately Meh-Teh, is used by the people living in the Himalayas to literarily DESCRIBE what they see, i.e. "Man or Animal of the Snow" and can be attributed to quite a few animals living in these remote parts, it does not suggest a fictional or an imaginary creature. The term "Abominable Snowman" is a fiction of the West and has wrongly conjured up some mythical bi-pedal animal. Langur Monkeys, Red Bears, the possibility of the Blue Bear, Tibetan Mouse Hares live upto 20,000 plus feet. Add the fact that these areas are constantly traversed by local people selling goods and trading, all create their own "footprint" in the area. "Big Foot" is another mythical beast, from another part of the world, with its own culture probably made up out of real occurrences of some animal that has then been augmented into something else. Combining the two articles would be like comparing "Chewbacca" (fictional) with the "Orang Utan" (non-fictional), quite imaginative but quite useless. (Gowron 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC))


I say no. There are two types of content we associate with Yeti and Bigfoot: physical evidence and culture/myths — both, well-cited, are suitable for article content. On both fronts, we have significant differences between Yeti and Bigfoot. That's more than enough reason to keep them separate. --Ds13 16:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I say YES, since both articles discribes the same type of humanoid creature. Martial Law 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Same type, yes, but are they the same (albeit non-existant) creture? No. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely NO. These are different imaginary creatures from different parts of the world. While the descriptions are superficially similar the cultural origins are unrelated. --Centauri 23:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, as per the above arguments. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Also have to vote no. It's a "see also" type connection, not a "merge". Matt Gies 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I say No because the status of Bigfoot and Yeti as either mythical creatures or real animals should keep them separate anyways. If they are both creatures of folklore, then we are dealing with two completely different cultures (Tibet and America) on two separate continents. If they are both real, then, even if they are the same species, it is likely that they are different subspecies. And, if one is real and the other isn't, then they should certainly kept separate. If you really want a catch-all article for hairy humanoids from worldwide sightings/folklore, then create a hairy humanoids article and link Bigfoot, Yeti, Skunk-ape, Woodwose, Big Gray Man and all the rest within that article. Eplombious Peter 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Whats wrong with calling it bigfoot? Bigfoot, to the layman, is just a term for a yeti-like monster. You're actually trying to seperate the two scientifically? Give me a break, its a friggin myth.

This is an encyclopedia. To the layman, a lot of things get lumped together into giant, messy super-categories. Wikipedians are not here to perpetuate sloppy thinking. To the expert, be it an expert in mythology or an expert in cryptozoology, different things deserve different articles. Whether bigfoot is real or not isn't the issue here. Merging Bigfoot and Yeti would be like merging Nephilim and Angel just because many people don't know the difference between the Nephilim and angels.The Sausage Knight 14:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it separate yes, but there should be some mention of the similarity's between the yeti, even if it is to explain WHY they are different. The bigfoot entry references the yeti article, so why not the other way round?--Cyberboy 10:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The yeti or Meh-Teh is a cryptid."

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))

[edit] Random editing OR Vandalism

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))

[edit] best evidence?

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)

This was also done a long time ago in 1955, a funny story is related by one of the 1995 expedition members in that a sample was sent to "Scotland Yard" they reported that they "could not identify the gentleman in question". Generally speaking the hair was not found to be unusual. As far as the DNA, I would like to see the full report, I used to be a "Molecular Biologist". (Gowron 12:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] "incorrectly titled"

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)

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)

I have provided in the past and provided even more information recently, if verifiable data exists then that overrides guesswork or in this case your opinion. I have other documentation, however if that is put into this article we would have another book. The name "Abominable Snowman" came into existence as a result of a mistake that is well known and verified it is an important fact and is of solid interest to a great many people. I am not the only person who has written about this fact and if you search you will also find that many other people who have done work on this phenomena have also turned up similar evidence. (Gowron 16:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Opening Paragraph

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)

I sort of agree, but the structure of the article was dramatically changed by an individual just recently, thus revealing the start of the YETI article as a CRYPTID only?. This creates the impression that the whole phenomenon was created by people visiting the area and creating stories about the the Himalaya with a mythical beast living there. The YETI article is currently poor overall at present dut to vandalism, too much metaphysical garbage, Holywood, etc. However the people who live there have their own impression, well documented, that predates anything we have conjured which needs representing. If Tibetans, Nepalese are deleted from the article then the article scews into a devalued state. I put the second part of the sentence in purely to make sure, and I thank you for noticing, that the people who live the remained somewhere in the public eye. The opening paragraphs used to contain a lot more information, but has been squireled away further down the document. (Gowron 18:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Hello again. Since the disruption in the structure/restructuring of the article a few week ago and also as as result of Cyberboy comments (which I agree with) I've had a go at making the opening statements clearer, I understand that by no means that these edits going to please everybody. Nothing is lost only taxonomic data speculation has been moved. (Gowron 19:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

I've added a brief description to the opening section. I think this may be too Western for some but think something needs to be there. If there is a debate on exactly this point then something about that should be in the introduction as well. As things stood the intro said virtually nothing.Davkal 13:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I note the description was removed from the intro - the description MUST be in the intro. I've put it back - that's what intros are for.Davkal 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color

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))

[edit] Abominable Snowman disambig?

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)


What I find is that Google searches Wikipedia better that Wikipedia, you only have to mistype or not capitalise a letter and Wikipedia won't find it. What I've found ist that Wikipedie feeds other Encyclopedia's and Google find all those as well. Try it.

[edit] Bigfoot

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)

Read the books on the subject and why each one exists or has come about, the bigfoot things has been done to death for decades and they have agrred to keep the two separate. Yes by all means say something but don't sticvk up there on the first line like it sthe truth. neither one is confirmed so a connections cannot exists. Quite a lot of people have added facts and documents "sighting" and mythology to this document and a sweeping statement at the top is just going to aggrivate people.

Which books - all the books on the yeti and/or bigfoot? And who has agreed to "keep them seperate"? Who would even have the authority to insist on such a thing? The simple point is that in the himalaya we have sightings of a large hairy ape-like creature and in N america we have sightings of a large hairy ape-like creature. And since we don't know what the things are (if they are anything at all), to insist that there is no connection between the descriptions arsing from the sightings (which is what was claimed if you bothered to read it) is simply wrong.

That is, this is what was said "Descriptions vary, but most commonly the Yeti is described as a large, bi-pedal ape-like creature similar to the supposed North American Bigfoot." What do think is wrong with that? Davkal 12:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And this is what the article currently says "The Yeti was erroneously termed Abominable Snowman by the western press and as a result has been over dramatized as a large primate-like creature living in the mountains of the Himalaya." which could only possibly be true if you ignore the sightings of a large primate-like creature living in the mountains of the Himalaya. Davkal 12:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll get to the book in a bit, but there is nothing to statet that a Yeti is an Ape. Well I have read book on the subject my father wrote two (he was on one expedition to find the thing), I knew John Hunt who wrote about it, Tom Stobbart, Stan jeves, Ralph Izzard Who wrote a book on the "Abominable Snowman Expedition and all the dispatches he sent back daily at the time to the Daily mail (which I have and have read) and a slew of others at the Royal geographical Society, so getting anxious isn't going to help you. The fact are that the mountain people of Tibet, Nepal and the Himalaya do not call it Bigfoot, they term it Meth-Teh "Man Sized wild creature" whch is what the Sherpa's call it. Ok other names exist but we've done a lot of that.


Ape-like does not mean that the thing is an ape, and so nobody has claimed that the yeti is an ape. The claim, which has still not been shown to be wrong in any way, is that descriptions of the yeti are similar to descriptions of bigfoot - ie. reports have been made from both places of a large hairy ape-like creature, fact. And nobody is saying that anyone in the himalaya calls it bigfoot. And, and I'm not that anxious.Davkal 12:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for terming you anxious, I was being as delicate as possible. I think you should read the whole article, the references and some of the links, the people who've bee there and written about it never term it or confuse it with Bigfoot. The article has been subject to daily vandalism and so the `article has broken down over the months. As I said ist maybe of value to say something about bigfoot but further down wher it might make more sense. The same goes for the taxonomic guess work thats gone on, means nothing until you have one in your hands, all you can comment on is wht the Shepas have said, people who've been there and said what people have written. Everything else, guesswork, is a waste of effort.

I am not trying to claim the yeti is bigfoot. Can I be clear on this. The point is that the descriptions of the yeti (even some of the sherpa ones) are very similar to descriptions of bigfoot. I don't see what confusion it would cause to say so prominently in the article.Davkal 13:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opening paragraph

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)

I've split the opening into two parts. Does that help? ---J.S (t|c) 20:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
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))
Try this: <ref>Reference text</ref>. 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)
Cheers thanks for the pointer. Will do right away. (Gowron 21:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC))
Had a go and it works! Library of congress, Jacko woud have been pleased. (Gowron 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC))
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))

[edit] Over dramatized

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)

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


Well, we are presenting "Over dramatized" as fact... where it's actually the opinion of an author. That's a bit of a problem. That means our source doesn't verify they way we are using the claim in the article. Perhaps we can re-word it a bit to avoid taking a POV stance? ---J.S (t|c) 07:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you mean't to intimate that it should be vandalised. You may have a point, but there's more to worry about in the document that has little or no fact based content at all, the Yeti very probably does not exist (John Napier book). The "over dramatized" is from a explorer/writer/treker that has been on location (many times) over a 50 year period and looked for the phenomena on one occasion, found footprints but never any Apes, but did find evidence of bear type activity, snow leapards, Tibetan Mouse Hairs and so forth, a lot of which he photographed. Like Napier the writer has made a statement from experience (we have none), however the last 100 or so years has produced very little other than occurences of normal carniverous aniumal activity by animals which are known to exists there. So it is possible for us to understand that the writer would take that considered view (it was not just his own view), the John Napier citation is quite important here also. The article unfortunately is saturated with POV. However if you want to re-word it have a go, but I don't think its fair to change printed word without a very good reason. Maybe offer up some alternatives here before inserting it into the article. I coud put the relevant sentence into quotes and attrubute it? By the way I apologize in advance for the way a write, some have said it can seem a little "abrupt", I don't mean any of it that way. (Gowron 08:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

I have found a slightly different quote from an earlier book (by the same author) and it reads (it refers to Abominable Snowman - the name) "Unfortunately, this rather theatrical translation conjures up a picture of huge and hairy barefooted human, possibly club in hand", he was right we do think its something along those lines (proportionally speaking). We could use "rather theatrical translation" which it was, if not wrong. (Gowron 08:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

Had a go using the less dramatic version, cited that as well, may need more work as it doesn't pan well. (Gowron 08:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)) .

I don't really see that my point above was confused. The point is: A) people report seeing a large hairy primate like thing wandering about the himlayas: and b) the press report this. It is not the name abominable snowman that make the press write the stories, it is the sightings (and the footprints, and the maybe hoaxes) that fuel the press reports. I don't see how the press are guilty of inventing, or over dramatising something, when they are reporting the something that is reported to them by what few witnesses we have. The bottom line, as well, is that this is Napier's (perhaps considered) opinion, but it is clearly not the opinion of those who mount expeditions to find the thing. As such, it should be cited as a claim made by Napier and not as a fact. Although, as noted, it is far from clear that Napier is not simply wrong here and so maybe it shouldn't be cited at all.Davkal 09:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Still muddled thinking, sorry. FYI John Napier (primatologist) (Gowron 09:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

If you would care to explain why. People report seeing X; the press say, "people have reported seeing x". In what sense, if any, is this over dramatization? Davkal 09:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Still muddled thinking, sorry. FYI John Napier (primatologist) (Gowron 09:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC))


That's a good explanation! It is simply not enough to provide a link to someone's wiki write up or to point to their credentials as if that is supposed to confer some kind of infallibility on the statements of that person. The simple point is that if you look at the sightings reported in the very article we're talking about (sighting of a biped, large footprints possibly from a large biped, large hairy primate-like biped reportedly seen etc. etc. etc.) then you can see that Napier is just plain wrong when he thinks that the name "abominable snowman" unfortunately conjures up images of a large bipedal primate because that's exactly what the few witnesses we have (as well as the indiginous peoples' accounts in some cases) are suggesting. It would therefore be helpful if you could explain why this quote from one particular perspective is supposed to over-ride all the other evidence to the contrary, rather than merely asserting that anyone who doesn't believe it should do is in someway confused. I also don't think much of your tone.Davkal 10:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


And the quote in question isn't even from Napier, it is attributed to John Angelo Jackson. So what Napier has to do with any of this is beyond me. The original point, then, has still not been addressed: how can relatively accurate press coverage of alleged sightings be explained away as mere over-dramatization on account of a name that suggests exactly what the sightings suggest? What is the point being made here? Davkal 10:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Is this getting needlessly mundane?. I suggest you do some reading of the references, citations and wiki links. In no way is one paragraph in the article forcing anybody to adopt that point of view, it is there to point out alternatives, they are merely reports from documentation. Bringing the broader perspective to an article, especially one where there is no hard evidence, is somewhat necessary. Please have a go at reading some of the background or other articles on the Internet, they are generally quite broad and report similar information. All those citations are there at he behest of J.Smith, I did them yesterday, you have provided nothing. I don't think there is much more need to keep going on this point. (Gowron 10:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC))


I don't need to read any further to know a dodgy argument when I see one. Even the basis for the claim is nonsense. The point made is that it was the word "abominable" that was the result of a misunderstanding: the word "metoh" meaning filthy or disgusting and which yielded "abominable" was mistakenly taken to have been used when the word that was actually used was "met-teh" which apparently means "man-sized wild creature". And yet this, when added to "kangmi", the other word that was actually used, meaning "man of the snow" would yield "man-sized wild creature man of the snow". Now, if this is a more accurate translation as the argument suggests then it is hard to think of a name that could do any more to conjure up an image of a large bipedal primate (man sized wild man of the snow) - the inclusion of the word "man" twice being the key here. My point being that the mistranslation did, if anything, lessen the association with a primate. And so it seems that even the basis for the claim (which would be false in any case for the "sightings" reasons outlined above) does not actually support it. Davkal 10:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


I have removed the argument since once understood it would have to read something like this:

"unfortunately this rather theatrical translation [abominable snowman] conjures up" a large primate-like creature, whereas the correct translation "man-sized wild creature man of the snow" does as well!"

And this is obvious nonsense. Davkal 14:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


The points you make re the reintroduction of this claim are good ones Gowron - where are they? Davkal 19:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed section

In [[1921]] the name '''Abominable Snowman''' was inadvertently coined by Lieutenant Colonel [[Charles Kenneth Howard-Bury]] <ref>{{cite book |title=The Epic of Mount Everest (pp21,22,31,57,80,90)|author=Sir Francis Younghusband|year=[[1926]] |publisher=Edward Arnold & Co.}}</ref> and "unfortunately this rather theatrical translation conjures up" <ref>{{cite book |title=More than Mountains (pp92)|author=John Angelo Jackson |year= [[1955]] ||chapter=Chapter 10}}</ref> a large [[primate]]-like [[animal|creature]], but nevertheless was adopted by the media.

Thats the disputed section... There is a fairly solid source in there as well. I think the main problem here is the wording:

and "unfortunately this rather theatrical translation conjures up"

We need to cite that in the prose. Perhaps:

and the view of John Jackson is that "unfortunately this rather theatrical translation conjures up" a large primate-like creature, but nevertheless was adopted by the media.[ref]

I don't know know if the source backs the statement up, but under the assumption that it does this would be a good way to say the statement without actually implying that wikipedia is taking a stand one way or another. ---J.S (t|c) 19:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the Yeti for a few weeks, most men and women are just ok, but no longer?. Your emnity seems very real, a wild man from America is not whats wanted or expected here. Had a look at your discussion page and you've been banned for this behaviour before. (PaidyMaly 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

What emnity? The point is that the argument itself is a non-starter. We don't have to put every silly argument into an article just because we have a source - we are allowed to use our discretion. "Abominable snowman" simply cannot do any more to conjure up a large bipedal primate than "man-sized wild creature man of the snow" can. And all of this remains true whether I have been banned, not banned, or am in jail for serial murder. By the way, mentioning a ban re a straightforward content dispute is regarded as a personal attack - please make no more such attacks PaidyMaly.Davkal 19:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So very mad "Nos Da", get some sleep it'll do you good "cysgy Iawn". (PaidyMaly 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Also, since you mention my talk page, you will also see that I narrowly avoided a ban for using a meatpuppet/sockpuppet because I didn't know what it was - I do now. It is interesting to see the "extensive" contribution list for PaidyMaly covers two articles: the himalyas (talk) and the yeti and his edits take place at virtually the exact same times as Gowron (is having a dispute). I wonder I wonder, two men from N wales both editing nothing but the yeti and the himalayas, with identical opinions on both subjects, hmmmn. Davkal 20:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion, JS. Davkal, are you seriously saying that your discretion is not only better than the other editors' here, but also better than John Jackson's, and therefore the argument from him has to go, together with its reference? (And you ask "What enmity"?) Gowron is obviously extremely well-read on this subject and has much to add to improve the article and make it more scholarly. It's not necessary to jump on him and delete his contributions and references as soon as something in them is unclear to you. How about assuming good faith and editing them helpfully instead, if you have some objection to the way he puts things? That's the wiki way. And don't throw sockpuppet accusations around in that "hmm, hmm, I wonder" way, request a CheckUser. (Like I did for you.) BTW, Gowron, are you aware of what "rvv" stands for? "Revert vandalism". That's a very confrontational edit summary, which does nothing to improve the editing climate at this page. It's always better to avoid accusing people of vandalism altogether, even if you're feeling frustrated, it seldom helps anything. Please save "vandalism" for contributions like TEH YETI IS TEH GAY. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
Back to the content. Can we can discuss this in a polite manner? ---J.S (t|c) 20:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the rvv you are right, I was wrong. I'm still fairly new. I am happy to work with Mr. Smith and have been before. (Gowron 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

I am perfectly happy to discuss it in a polite manner. I made the points I made above about a day ago and when nobody said anything about them I made the changes they suggested. The point being that the world "abominable" doesn't mean primate or anything like it and so a mistranslation of a phrase that DOES mean something like a primate into something that doesn't can't do more to conjure up the image of a primate than the correctly transalated phrase which would conjure up (correctly) exactly that image. Now if someone would like to explain to me what is wrong with THIS argument I would be grateful. Simply pointing out that the orignal argument has a source is neither here nor there.Davkal 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Davkal has gone and done it again, there seems to be no stopping him, This is not fair, you can't argue with the guy and he does what he wants. Can others also help? It seems like this chap never sleeps. (Gowron 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC))
Davkal, I see from the timestamps that your latest revert, where you refer to a meat- or sockpuppet, happened before you had a chance to read my admonition about such accusations above. But now you have. Please revert yourself and request a CheckUser if you intend to go on with these accusations. I mean it. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
"kangmi" meaning "man of the snow". - isn't that the part that sugusts a "primate-like creature"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument...?
Ok, I've re-read the section a few times and let me see If I'm finally getting it... your objection is that a literal translation of the expression of the Sherpas means almost exactly the same thing as "abominable snowman" so the slight mistranslation of metoh is unremarkable? Ok, if that's the point your making I think I can agree with that. ---J.S (t|c) 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's bad-form to make changes during a discussion. ---J.S (t|c) 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re JS's point here - that is exactly what I'm saying. The mistranslation of the word for "man-sized wild creature" into "abominable" isn't/can't be what conjures up the image of a primate. Therefore the argument that this unfortunate conjuring up is down to the mistranslation is nonsense. If the quote has to be included then we should at least point out the obvious flaw in the argument so that readers don't go away thinking that the whoile "snowman" bit is down to a simply mistranslation working on overactive imaginations. Something they are likely to do when they skip the impenetrable next section explainiung what the mistranlation actually was. 03:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Its the human condition to fill in the blanks or what it imagines is wants to see take a look [2] ,The term "Abominable Snowman" has never been a problem?, just how the name came into being is and how its changed peoples thinking of what it is, it is well documented and also that "it" was the result of a mistake in traslation wheather it be Henry Newman (primary source ) or the the Indian elegraphonist (secondary), if I have wriiten this poorly its my fault. However in an endevour get at facts. I've not only obtained the documentation of the period but have I have also spoken to and written to some of the people who been there, that are still alive, for their contributions. Prior to 1921 the term ape/humanoid is not documented, prior to the date they were termed but more like beast, John Dalton Hooker 1850s and so forth. What I am prepared to do is list every item that I can find prior to 1921 (even if I'm wrong) and those afterwards and put that into an external website . [[John Napier {primatologist]] is pivotal in that he was a respected scientist, on both continents, with extensive credentials in this area, he also does it in better than we have done. In the interest of this article before it decends towards Hollywood (I've probably put it poorly again) that someone picks up the book by John Napier (primatologist) and have a look its a good read and contains all the data and the discussion is far more advanced that we have here (including mine). (Gowron 21:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC))
Is there a book or article that talks specificity about how the reports changed after the coining of the term "Abominable Snowman"? This sounds like something that should have it's own paragraph. That way it would be spelled out a little clearer... but what we would need here is a secondary source talking about the change in the sightings. If that can't be found then we can't include it... It does sound like a compelling theory. ---J.S (t|c) 22:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that it could be made clearer (my fault again), no problem there at all. But to answer your question, " there is no one simple book", but a complete appraisal of all documentation prior to 1921 is necessary. Apart from having a large proportion of those books (all very lengthy) there is a huge amount you can do by searching libraries such as JSTOR (I can but I don't think its fair for me to have spend my money to do it all and then suffer ridicule for it, I have done some). I'll ask my brother for his opinion, he's a far better writer than I am and knows a lot more regarding these subjects. So, I'll have to trawl the books again, there is just so many of them, this work will take at least a month as I'm on the road again for week. The comment regarding the 1921 cutoff resembles (ever so slightly) the "Cretecious Tertiary Boundary Event" I'll take as much as I can with me and write it when I get back, Is that ok? Cheers (Gowron 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC))
Well, unfortunately we can only publish theories that have been brought up by people outside of wikipedia first. (See Wikipedia:No Original Research) I do think it's a very interesting theory... it might be valuable for you to do the research anyway and submit it to a peer-review. ---J.S (t|c) 23:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


The problem is a straightforward one: the word "abominable" (the word that was mistakenly included remember) does not evoke images of a primate at all. The argument, then, that this mistranslation has resulted in the view of the yeti as a primate-like thing is nonsense because the correct translation does all this and more - "man-sized wild creature man of the snow". If the word for "man of the snow" had been the one that was subject to a mistake such that it should have read "snow creature" or some such thing then the argument would work. But that is not what we have. we have "wild snowman snowman" any way you look at it - ie. primate-like primatey thing in the snow, and wild to boot; or so the sherpas say. End of.

My point never being that there was no mistranslation (that's why I left all the stuff about the mistranslation in the article), but that the mistranslation could not possibly have had the unfortunate consequences claimed for it because the correct translation has even more primate connotations. Davkal 01:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Our job isn't to judge the value of an argument... It's ok if it's illogical, etc. We just need to decide if it's important, verifiable and not origional research. ---J.S (t|c) 08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Gowron, before I request a sock/meatpuppet check. Would you confirm whether the edits listed under PaidyMaly are your edits using a second account, or a friend of yours editing on your behalf, or whether there is no relation between you and PaidyMaly at all. Davkal 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page. I asked and he's addressed the question there. ---J.S (t|c) 08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] disputed section 2

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)


I have now made the changes. Before reverting them, I would be grateful if anyone wishing to do so would actually read them and comment here first as to what is wrong with the way the paragraph is currently written. Davkal 12:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


I have read the link Gowron put on Bishonen's talk page rather than here in an attempt to have the above edit reverted. Nothing in the passages in the link provide the least support for the claim that was in the article here. That is, the theatrical misrepresentation referred to in the link is a whole newspaper article (series of articles) published in the 1920s and NOT the simple mistranslation issue. The point made in the article here was that a "mistranslation" of a word had (falsley) conjured up an image of a primate. Not only did the mistranslation not do that, but nobody in the pasasages in the link provided is even claiming that it did. This is simply Gowron/PaidyMaly's (mis)take on what is written there. The bottom line being that we don't even have a source now for the claim that was in the article!Davkal 18:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is degrading, anyone can write what I've collated from the original documentation, its not hard you just have to go and dig it up from the libraries. I wrote for about 5 hours from about 15 books & articles and it is dismissed like rabid priest. What I could do is take away all my data and there would not be a lot left and then you could see what it is I've added and in an inclusive way. Would you like to contend Mr. Davkal? go ahead say YES. Ok I will get banned forever, I guess you will have achieved your aim of bullying someone out of the article. (Gowron 01:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC))


5 minutes, 5 days, 55 years isn't going to turn the passage you cite into what you want it to say. There is simply nothing in the passages you cite that says anything like what you have written in the article. That's why you need to break the quote off half-way through and insert your own conclusion. Produce the source that says that the mistranslation conjured up images of a primate-like thing when the correct transaltion would not. If you can then let it be produced, if you can't then accept that this piece of POV nonsense has no place in the article. Davkal 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note of Reconciliation

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))

[edit] Update necessary

Just got back to this over the weekend, have almost too much data. However just as importantly the article needs an overhaul in a few areas, for which I've done some initial research.

1. There needs to be a better discussion of the word YETI, with references - its only one or two lines + references

2. The "Pangboche Scalp" and hair analysis done in 1954 by Proffessor Wood-Jones - some 6 years before Hillary's.

3. Other names which indigenous people use to describe the legend/myth/truth needs more work - can provide reference and text for this, you guys can have a go at it.

4. The Howard-Bury/Henry Newman - "Abominable Snowman" has been re-written from top to bottom - with a long list of referenece material.

My problems is that I've tested the pages in a sandbox, however the list of references/citations reaches 35+, the major problem is duplicate citations and their multiple appearences in the citation list. I'd rather initially have them all in, but I need help to organize or use different methods to pare them down, but please be award that some citations will look identicle but have different page numbers. Anybody got any problems with installing some of the new data? (Gowron 19:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC))


Does anyone know of a wau to simplify citations, if there are multiple citations refering to different parts of a particular journal or book, or for that matter statements made on the same page within a title, is there a way of refering a citation from the body of the text to a single item in the citations list at the bottom of the article. The current list is over 64, with many duplicates. Thanks in advance for any help. (Gowron 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Hmmm... perhaps something like this:
Blah blah blah.(pg 15[1]) Blah blah impse wegh w3hws gegesw.(pg 12[1])
References
  1. ^ a b Book citation

Maybe? ---J.S (T/C) 21:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

<sup>(pg 12<ref name=blah />)</sup> ---J.S (T/C) 21:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll check WP:FOOT if there is a better solution. ---J.S (T/C) 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the tip, I've had a go, quite difficult at first as I made a lot of mistakes, but your suggestion has chopped out at least twenty + duplicate citations. Many thanks. (Gowron 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Translations

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[3]. Or, we have "Yah means rock and Teh means animal. So, the literal meaning of Yeti is "a rock living animal"", here for example [4]. 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)

The point here is that the translations as they are currently given in the article are, in all likliehood, wrong and therefore need to be changed.Davkal 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 (nearly 7)

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)

[edit] First skeptical summary

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. [5]

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." [6] 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 Hhutan.
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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/e/t/Talk%7EYeti_3dd9.html"