![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm removing the image because:
I'm not being vindictive. I'm being consistent. The above rationale isn't limited to the discussion it came from, or it wouldn't be a legitimate rationale. Please read and understand Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. - UtherSRG 03:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree that drawings of Orang Pendek should not be included as general supplements to the article. Since almost everything about Orang Pendek is uncertain, though, the animal presents somewhat of an exception to the rule of only including information that is generally accepted as accurate and summarizes the knowledge of experts on the subject. Because of this lack of factual information, one cannot write an encyclopedic entry on Orang Pendek the animal but rather must focus on Orang Pendek as a search and a story. In this light, I think artistic renditions of Orang Pendek would be appropriate within a section dealing with folkloric aspects of the cryptid. In addition, Debbie Martyr's "Identikit" drawing of Orang Pendek would be appropriate within a section dealing with research into the animal, should she ever decide to include it (see Debbie Martyr: The Other Orang in the references section of the article). - Schlegel, 2006-07-08 @ 14:20 UTC
Description is different from Heuvelman's classic "On the track of unknown animals". OP is said to be variable, but hairless and un-orangutan like. Also, several times hunters shot on sight what they thought was orang pendek, which could be therefore examined - they were bears. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.14.19.45 ( talk • contribs) .
The Mammals Wikiproject doesn't appear to state a clear convention on capitalizing common names of species. The only thing I see is "mostly capitalized". In light of this, I am keeping consistent with the capitalization of the Wikipedia entries for "Sumatran tiger" and "sun bear" in my choice not to capitalize these names.
UtherSRG, there are more productive ways to deal with disagreements like these than to just silently change and revert my edits. If you refuse to explain yourself, I see no reason to respect these reverts.
Please see Wikipedia's policy on explaining reverts.
Schlegel 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:BIRD falls under the Tree of Life Wikiproject, which states in the Article titles and common names section:
Many of the WikiProjects listed above have defined standards for the capitalization of common names, which should be used when discussing the groups they focus on. There is currently no common standard, so no particular system should be enforced over-all.
Each group's standards on capitalization apply primarily to that group only.
Wikipedia's article on naming conventions states here: "Mammals are mostly capitalized (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals)." "Mostly" means not always, and since neither that article nor the Mammals Wikiproject explain "mostly" further, the best place to look to see whether capitalization should or should not be used for particular animals is at the articles on those animals. The authors of both the article on the Sumatran tiger and that on the sun bear have chosen not to capitalize the common names of these species. In deference to their decision and to maintain consistency, the article on Orang Pendek shouldn't either. Schlegel 05:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to add my two cents that including this page in Wikipedia's "paranormal" project does absolutely nothing but hurt this article and any claim it has to being an authoritative source of information about Orang Pendek. I can think of little one can do to better remove a subject from the realm of valid science than to label it "paranormal". What exactly are we hoping to accomplish by doing so? Is this article supposed to portray Orang Pendek realistically as a potential new species of ape that is currently the subject of scientific investigation, or as the hominid wet dream of some undisciplined, unknowledgable person or people who would rather speculate without base about missing links and bigfeet and associate this cryptid with X Files-style adventurism (see the WikiProject Paranormal's logo) than treat it as a potentially answerable phenomenon?
There are subjects that would be well-described as "paranormal", i.e. "not scientifically explainable" (Merriam-Webster). UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, etc., regardless of their actual status as real or imaginary, have eluded scientific explanation for many, many years. It is unlikely that scientific investigation will answer questions related to them any time soon. This is not true of Orang Pendek. Scientific investigations into its existence began very recently (less than 15 years ago), are ongoing, and are yielding valid evidence. There is voluminous, consistent, systematically collected eyewitness documentation, sightings by trained investigators, footprint casts and photos, and hair samples deemed by a credible expert to have originated from an undocumented primate. To claim that this cryptid is not explainable using scientific methods is premature and irresponsible.
I propose that the stupid little infobox at the top of the article referring to Orang Pendek as a "creature" and the paranormal association to the article be removed. They do nothing but bolster Orang Pendek as sensationalist pseudoscience. If we want a responsible, mature treatment of this phenomenon, we should treat Orang Pendek as the open scientific question it is rather than as the fruitless adventure story some would have it become. Wikipedia needs to report responsibly, and these sorts of actions on the part of our contributors are what continue to keep Wikipedia from becoming the trusted source of information that encyclopedias like Brittanica will likely continue to be for some time to come.
I would appreciate other people's input.
Schlegel 09:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions." [1]. While the existence of an Orang Pendak would be surprising, it seems physically possible given current scientific assumptions. Thus I think that the paranormal banner should be removed. Nicolharper 05:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I object, and am readding it for the time being. No one is claiming that this creature is "paranormal", nor will there be any such claim in the article. However, our project has a fairly far reaching scope, which includes Cryptozoology, which I don't think anyone can argue that this article doesn't fall under. Again, there are no labels being applied here; this is simply the name of the project that covers Cryptozoology as a part of its scope. -- InShaneee 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There is dispute about whether Orang Pendek should be included in WikiProject Paranormal. 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to call Orang Pendek "paranormal". The authoritative sources of information on Orang Pendek suggest neither that it contradicts our current scientific understanding, nor that it is scientifically unverifiable. Rather, it is an open scientific question that is currently the subject of research. InShaneee, who wants Orang Pendek included in the WikiProject, argues that a topic doesn't need to be paranormal in order to be included in WikiProject Paranormal and that doing so doesn't imply anything about whether or not the topic is paranormal. My response to this is:
- Schlegel 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest this link be added: http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/103/the_orangpendek.html
I think it would be of interest to anyone studying the Orang-pendek
I am the web editor of forteantimes.com, so I am suggesting this be added, rather than adding it in myself
Doctor3uk, you appear to be Richard Freeman and are adding original research about yourself and your own work related to Orang Pendek. Original research is prohibited by Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:No_original_research), and writing about yourself is discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest). At the very least, citing reliable sources by people other than yourself is even more important than usual when editing entries in which you may have a conflict of interest.
I am reverting your entry in light of the dubious nature of the edit and its claims and in keeping with the following statement by Jimmy Wales from Wikipedia:Verifiability:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced...
If you can provide reliable third-party citations for the information you are adding, feel free to do so. After that the passage needs significant grammatical and spelling cleanup.
Please note that I am a member of a research project mentioned in the article. There were similar problems in earlier edits I made and UtherSRG kindly corrected me.
Schlegel 20:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have submitted a request to block Doctor3uk from editing the article here. - Schlegel 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
from the descriptions, there is photographic evidence of foot prints from two sources. can any one provide images of the foot print casts mentioned. or is there any artistic rendering that is available? 99.140.205.202 ( talk) 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed a section which contained self-promoting language and presented unsubstantiated first-party original research. The removed content appears to be direct copy and paste from this press release, written by Adam Davies:
http://www.theparanomalist.com/2684/scientists-extract-dna-from-mystery-ape-hair/
Wikipedia is not the place to present and advance one's own work. The tone of the writing makes it clear that the authors are trying to persuade people rather than present established fact. Furthermore, the information they added may only be presented on Wikipedia if and when it is first written about by a reputable, third party source, and even then, it should not contain a self-promotional tone. Research should be presented by someone not involved with the project.
Wikipedia is not a place to make news.
Tim Mowrer ( talk) 21:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Look, parts of this article are treating the subject like it really exists, just hasn't been fully documented yet. PLEASE. It's almost certain this is just another Bigfoot/Loch Ness Monster legend and nothing more. Why not just shorten it to a lead paragraph, delete the rest, and restore some very small amount of Wikipedia's honor - it's in short enough supply as it is. 98.67.180.135 ( talk) 02:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan
Part of scientific thought is being open to the possibility of new discoveries, even drastically new discoveries. Unless you have a compelling argument (other than "PLEASE") that an animal such as orang pendek could not exist, I suggest you take your fight elsewhere. Otherwise, you could improve on those sections that you think need to be more neutral (note "neutral", not "doubtful"). Overall I think the article does a good job of maintaining a neutral stance, despite a lot of efforts by "believers" whose positions are just as dogmatic as the one you expressed above. Schlegel ( talk) 23:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This statement:
Dr. Hans Brunner, a hair analysis expert from Australia famous for his involvement in the Lindy Chamberlain case in 1980...
Is attributed to "Extreme Expeditions" by Adam Davies. In the book, Davies refers to Brunner simply as "Hans Brunner of Deakin University". While Brunner has coauthored at least one book on hair analysis, I can not otherwise find reference to him outside of articles about orang pendek. He does not appear to hold a doctorate degree, and the claim that he is "famous for his involvement in the Lindy Chamberlain case" seems to be an invention of Davies's.
I suggest an additional attribution to this claim or that it be removed.
Tim Mowrer ( talk) 16:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
94.169.196.96 appears to be someone at the Centre for Fortean Zoology. Based on this user's past edits, is most likely Richard Freeman.
I'm reverting the change because
See also above discussion with Doctor3uk
Tim Mowrer ( talk) 06:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be classed as a legendary creature, since it's been seen for centuries by locals? 65.93.15.213 ( talk) 07:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone find any reliable sources discussing the purported tradition about this entity? I'm not finding anything beyond the usual pseudoscience. If we don't have any reliable sources to draw from, then this article needs to be deleted. :bloodofox: ( talk) 06:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Just removed this from
William Charles Osman Hill but may be marginally relevant here: Osman Hill, William Charles (1945).
"Nittaewo—An unsolved problem of Ceylon". Loris: A Journal of Ceylon Wildlife (Columbo). 4: 251–262.
fiveby(
zero)
14:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm removing the image because:
I'm not being vindictive. I'm being consistent. The above rationale isn't limited to the discussion it came from, or it wouldn't be a legitimate rationale. Please read and understand Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. - UtherSRG 03:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree that drawings of Orang Pendek should not be included as general supplements to the article. Since almost everything about Orang Pendek is uncertain, though, the animal presents somewhat of an exception to the rule of only including information that is generally accepted as accurate and summarizes the knowledge of experts on the subject. Because of this lack of factual information, one cannot write an encyclopedic entry on Orang Pendek the animal but rather must focus on Orang Pendek as a search and a story. In this light, I think artistic renditions of Orang Pendek would be appropriate within a section dealing with folkloric aspects of the cryptid. In addition, Debbie Martyr's "Identikit" drawing of Orang Pendek would be appropriate within a section dealing with research into the animal, should she ever decide to include it (see Debbie Martyr: The Other Orang in the references section of the article). - Schlegel, 2006-07-08 @ 14:20 UTC
Description is different from Heuvelman's classic "On the track of unknown animals". OP is said to be variable, but hairless and un-orangutan like. Also, several times hunters shot on sight what they thought was orang pendek, which could be therefore examined - they were bears. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.14.19.45 ( talk • contribs) .
The Mammals Wikiproject doesn't appear to state a clear convention on capitalizing common names of species. The only thing I see is "mostly capitalized". In light of this, I am keeping consistent with the capitalization of the Wikipedia entries for "Sumatran tiger" and "sun bear" in my choice not to capitalize these names.
UtherSRG, there are more productive ways to deal with disagreements like these than to just silently change and revert my edits. If you refuse to explain yourself, I see no reason to respect these reverts.
Please see Wikipedia's policy on explaining reverts.
Schlegel 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:BIRD falls under the Tree of Life Wikiproject, which states in the Article titles and common names section:
Many of the WikiProjects listed above have defined standards for the capitalization of common names, which should be used when discussing the groups they focus on. There is currently no common standard, so no particular system should be enforced over-all.
Each group's standards on capitalization apply primarily to that group only.
Wikipedia's article on naming conventions states here: "Mammals are mostly capitalized (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals)." "Mostly" means not always, and since neither that article nor the Mammals Wikiproject explain "mostly" further, the best place to look to see whether capitalization should or should not be used for particular animals is at the articles on those animals. The authors of both the article on the Sumatran tiger and that on the sun bear have chosen not to capitalize the common names of these species. In deference to their decision and to maintain consistency, the article on Orang Pendek shouldn't either. Schlegel 05:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to add my two cents that including this page in Wikipedia's "paranormal" project does absolutely nothing but hurt this article and any claim it has to being an authoritative source of information about Orang Pendek. I can think of little one can do to better remove a subject from the realm of valid science than to label it "paranormal". What exactly are we hoping to accomplish by doing so? Is this article supposed to portray Orang Pendek realistically as a potential new species of ape that is currently the subject of scientific investigation, or as the hominid wet dream of some undisciplined, unknowledgable person or people who would rather speculate without base about missing links and bigfeet and associate this cryptid with X Files-style adventurism (see the WikiProject Paranormal's logo) than treat it as a potentially answerable phenomenon?
There are subjects that would be well-described as "paranormal", i.e. "not scientifically explainable" (Merriam-Webster). UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, etc., regardless of their actual status as real or imaginary, have eluded scientific explanation for many, many years. It is unlikely that scientific investigation will answer questions related to them any time soon. This is not true of Orang Pendek. Scientific investigations into its existence began very recently (less than 15 years ago), are ongoing, and are yielding valid evidence. There is voluminous, consistent, systematically collected eyewitness documentation, sightings by trained investigators, footprint casts and photos, and hair samples deemed by a credible expert to have originated from an undocumented primate. To claim that this cryptid is not explainable using scientific methods is premature and irresponsible.
I propose that the stupid little infobox at the top of the article referring to Orang Pendek as a "creature" and the paranormal association to the article be removed. They do nothing but bolster Orang Pendek as sensationalist pseudoscience. If we want a responsible, mature treatment of this phenomenon, we should treat Orang Pendek as the open scientific question it is rather than as the fruitless adventure story some would have it become. Wikipedia needs to report responsibly, and these sorts of actions on the part of our contributors are what continue to keep Wikipedia from becoming the trusted source of information that encyclopedias like Brittanica will likely continue to be for some time to come.
I would appreciate other people's input.
Schlegel 09:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions." [1]. While the existence of an Orang Pendak would be surprising, it seems physically possible given current scientific assumptions. Thus I think that the paranormal banner should be removed. Nicolharper 05:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I object, and am readding it for the time being. No one is claiming that this creature is "paranormal", nor will there be any such claim in the article. However, our project has a fairly far reaching scope, which includes Cryptozoology, which I don't think anyone can argue that this article doesn't fall under. Again, there are no labels being applied here; this is simply the name of the project that covers Cryptozoology as a part of its scope. -- InShaneee 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There is dispute about whether Orang Pendek should be included in WikiProject Paranormal. 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to call Orang Pendek "paranormal". The authoritative sources of information on Orang Pendek suggest neither that it contradicts our current scientific understanding, nor that it is scientifically unverifiable. Rather, it is an open scientific question that is currently the subject of research. InShaneee, who wants Orang Pendek included in the WikiProject, argues that a topic doesn't need to be paranormal in order to be included in WikiProject Paranormal and that doing so doesn't imply anything about whether or not the topic is paranormal. My response to this is:
- Schlegel 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest this link be added: http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/103/the_orangpendek.html
I think it would be of interest to anyone studying the Orang-pendek
I am the web editor of forteantimes.com, so I am suggesting this be added, rather than adding it in myself
Doctor3uk, you appear to be Richard Freeman and are adding original research about yourself and your own work related to Orang Pendek. Original research is prohibited by Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:No_original_research), and writing about yourself is discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest). At the very least, citing reliable sources by people other than yourself is even more important than usual when editing entries in which you may have a conflict of interest.
I am reverting your entry in light of the dubious nature of the edit and its claims and in keeping with the following statement by Jimmy Wales from Wikipedia:Verifiability:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced...
If you can provide reliable third-party citations for the information you are adding, feel free to do so. After that the passage needs significant grammatical and spelling cleanup.
Please note that I am a member of a research project mentioned in the article. There were similar problems in earlier edits I made and UtherSRG kindly corrected me.
Schlegel 20:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have submitted a request to block Doctor3uk from editing the article here. - Schlegel 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
from the descriptions, there is photographic evidence of foot prints from two sources. can any one provide images of the foot print casts mentioned. or is there any artistic rendering that is available? 99.140.205.202 ( talk) 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed a section which contained self-promoting language and presented unsubstantiated first-party original research. The removed content appears to be direct copy and paste from this press release, written by Adam Davies:
http://www.theparanomalist.com/2684/scientists-extract-dna-from-mystery-ape-hair/
Wikipedia is not the place to present and advance one's own work. The tone of the writing makes it clear that the authors are trying to persuade people rather than present established fact. Furthermore, the information they added may only be presented on Wikipedia if and when it is first written about by a reputable, third party source, and even then, it should not contain a self-promotional tone. Research should be presented by someone not involved with the project.
Wikipedia is not a place to make news.
Tim Mowrer ( talk) 21:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Look, parts of this article are treating the subject like it really exists, just hasn't been fully documented yet. PLEASE. It's almost certain this is just another Bigfoot/Loch Ness Monster legend and nothing more. Why not just shorten it to a lead paragraph, delete the rest, and restore some very small amount of Wikipedia's honor - it's in short enough supply as it is. 98.67.180.135 ( talk) 02:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan
Part of scientific thought is being open to the possibility of new discoveries, even drastically new discoveries. Unless you have a compelling argument (other than "PLEASE") that an animal such as orang pendek could not exist, I suggest you take your fight elsewhere. Otherwise, you could improve on those sections that you think need to be more neutral (note "neutral", not "doubtful"). Overall I think the article does a good job of maintaining a neutral stance, despite a lot of efforts by "believers" whose positions are just as dogmatic as the one you expressed above. Schlegel ( talk) 23:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This statement:
Dr. Hans Brunner, a hair analysis expert from Australia famous for his involvement in the Lindy Chamberlain case in 1980...
Is attributed to "Extreme Expeditions" by Adam Davies. In the book, Davies refers to Brunner simply as "Hans Brunner of Deakin University". While Brunner has coauthored at least one book on hair analysis, I can not otherwise find reference to him outside of articles about orang pendek. He does not appear to hold a doctorate degree, and the claim that he is "famous for his involvement in the Lindy Chamberlain case" seems to be an invention of Davies's.
I suggest an additional attribution to this claim or that it be removed.
Tim Mowrer ( talk) 16:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
94.169.196.96 appears to be someone at the Centre for Fortean Zoology. Based on this user's past edits, is most likely Richard Freeman.
I'm reverting the change because
See also above discussion with Doctor3uk
Tim Mowrer ( talk) 06:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be classed as a legendary creature, since it's been seen for centuries by locals? 65.93.15.213 ( talk) 07:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone find any reliable sources discussing the purported tradition about this entity? I'm not finding anything beyond the usual pseudoscience. If we don't have any reliable sources to draw from, then this article needs to be deleted. :bloodofox: ( talk) 06:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Just removed this from
William Charles Osman Hill but may be marginally relevant here: Osman Hill, William Charles (1945).
"Nittaewo—An unsolved problem of Ceylon". Loris: A Journal of Ceylon Wildlife (Columbo). 4: 251–262.
fiveby(
zero)
14:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)