This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For discussions prior to 2009, see Talk:Yowie (disambiguation).
If the animal is a pongid it is likely related to the nearest pongid in the region - ie the orang-utan. Otherwise we have to assume it is gigantopithecus or homo erectus - both extremely unlikely. In any case, if hominid it needs lots of calories - local vegetation unlikely to provide this; we must assume therefore it is a carnivore and gets calories from fat. Why no evidence of large numbers of kills? Only possible explanation is that it buries kills. Most unlikely in much of Australia's hard soils, thus either it buries kills in leaves, below rocks, or where the soil is soft. This limits distribution to forest country. We must also assume it buries its dung and its dead. If not smart enough to do that; there'd be lots of poo around, bones and evidence of its habitation. No habitation means sleeping rough, and a more or less solitary habit. In that case expect loud mating calls at certain seasons of the year. If orang-descended, it must have gone through major changes to locomotion style to get away from the weakly bipedal clumsy gait of the orang on the ground to an upright, plantigrade style of movement to cope with Australia's open country and long distances. Not to mention competition with the megafauna, Aboriginals, fire and flood. So: the candidate is smart, upright, secretive, forest-dwelling, solitary and a seasonal mater. All fits with the orang-utan. Expect, then, if the beast if ever properly filmed, to see an upright, smart, reddish animal, which will show movements far more like a man than an ape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgh ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Given that usually when a Yowie is spotted in one region it forms clusters of other sightings within a couple days difference implies that only one Yowie was seen in all of those sightings, and given the large herds of mega-fauna, roaming Australia's Gold Coast, Yowie's would potentially feed off of fruit, large insects and spiders, possible kangaroos or wallabies and scavenge whenever possible. Also, given that around the time of Gigantopithecus Indonesia was one landmass connecting Australia with Asia, I find it quite plausible that Gigantopithecus, Homo Erectus or Homo Flourensiensis could've migrated to Australia and got stranded there when Indonesia became an archipelago. Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 00:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure of where else to put this, but the reference to yowies also being a species of weird ant-lizard hybrids is taken almost word for word from the book Out of This World by Robert Ingpen & Michael Page - a fictional encyclopedia of myths and legends in which the authors often freely disregarded the facts, and just made stuff up. This reference to ant-lizards is almost certainly purely the result of one or both of the two men's imaginations. At any rate, I've never encountered it anywhere else. I'll delete that part, but leave it pasted here in case I'm wrong.
"Rather confusingly, "Yowie" (or "Yowie-Whowie") is also the name of a completely different mythological character in native Australian Aboriginal folklore. This version of the Yowie is said to be a bizarre, hybrid beast resembling a cross between a lizard and an ant with big red eyes on the side of his head, big canine teeth and large fangs. It emerges from the ground at night to eat whatever it can find, including humans. This creature's characteristics and legend are sometimes interchangeable with those of the bunyip. [1]"
References
Have added inline citations as per 2009 note, using Robert Holden's book. Also standardised quotations.-- Nickm57 ( talk) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Clare - would you like to justify your edits - especially the description of the yowie ? Nickm57 ( talk) 10:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I only just now saw your note from 18 March. Since this time I have added a string of references to the edit. Happy to discuss further if you would like? Sorry about the delay. Regards Clare Clare. ( talk) 01:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the title 'origins of the term' is maybe misleading? It seems to be discussing the origin of the myth more likely. I am going to have a think about this one, but keen to hear if any other people have thoughts? Clare. ( talk) 08:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
So there are several people who think that mythical should be in the first sentence (first added 29 April), and people have been directing me to the WP: Fringe (twice now) when I have changed it back (surely covered off by 'some people believe'???), and now I have been directed to bunyips.
A difference I perceive between bunyips and yowies is that no-one claims to have seen a bunyip (or at least I haven't heard about people claiming to have seen them), whereas we semi-regularly hear about people seeing yowies, or what they believe is evidence that yowies may exist. There is (terrible fidelity, very likely doctored) footage of yowies and there are people out there who make a point of looking for them. I think that the yowie is best described as similar to big foot, rather than like bunyips (with the exception that bunyips are also Australian). The opening paragraphs did previously more closely resemble the big foot page.
When I looked up mythology, the page said myths are generally very old (ancient), but the article seems to imply that yowie stories may have started in the 19th century, which is considered young.
I agree, yes, yowie is a fringe theory, but why isn't "that some people believe" enough? Is the article better with mythical in the first sentence? I don't think it is.
Maybe it could say:
Yowie is one of several names given to a hominid that a very small minority of people believe lives in the Australian wilderness.
What do you think? I'd really like to have a discussion about this, hear what others have to say in a more verbose way than allowed in the edit summary, especially because the limited space there means that sometimes people take a tone they may not wish to take (myself included). Clare. ( talk) 01:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Nick, I looked back on what the page looked like before I added any edits, I would encourage you to do so too: [ [1]].
It sounds like you would like to delete/have deleted the Yowie#Contemporary accounts of yowie sightings section, which we can talk about more if you wish. I added this section because previously the article had a Yowie#Nineteenth Century eyewitness accounts and I wanted to complement that part of the article. Clare. ( talk) 02:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. They should use "cryptid" Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 00:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced that Whowie should redirect here. Most of the texts I've found indicate that the whowie was a giant, six-legged, man-eating lizard, often described as having a frog's head. If the yowie article is going to be about a humanoid cryptid, I feel that the whowie should have its own page. Krychek ( talk) 18:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm preparing to add a section directing to 'Yowie in film' as several movies are either in production or have recently been released.
Hi User:110.22.62.227, while your edits look useful, they need to be sourced. If you can't find sources for them, then it can't be added to the article. If you don't have time or think they are out there but can't find them. Then please put your information here and then others can try find it so it can be added. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently this article focuses on purported "sightings". This is an approach common to poorly-composed fringe articles, particularly those that, whether intentionally or not, violate WP:PROFRINGE. As another editor recently noted, the article needs to be checked for sensationalism and source misrepresentation. Additionally, secondary sources from folklorists or other relevant academics should be in the foreground, not hidden behind the label of 'Rejection of the yowie' (of course, pushed behind 'prominent yowie hunters'!). :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to add to the section on reports and sightings by referencing a YouTube channel ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJc4xuqi8BHCOm_PxIhP66Q). The channel has over 150 independent interviews of witnesses who have had sightings of the Yowie. The interviews are based on a series of unsensational, rational, standard questions and the interviewees are not endorsed or paid for their contributions. What do others think? Polymath uk ( talk) 16:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For discussions prior to 2009, see Talk:Yowie (disambiguation).
If the animal is a pongid it is likely related to the nearest pongid in the region - ie the orang-utan. Otherwise we have to assume it is gigantopithecus or homo erectus - both extremely unlikely. In any case, if hominid it needs lots of calories - local vegetation unlikely to provide this; we must assume therefore it is a carnivore and gets calories from fat. Why no evidence of large numbers of kills? Only possible explanation is that it buries kills. Most unlikely in much of Australia's hard soils, thus either it buries kills in leaves, below rocks, or where the soil is soft. This limits distribution to forest country. We must also assume it buries its dung and its dead. If not smart enough to do that; there'd be lots of poo around, bones and evidence of its habitation. No habitation means sleeping rough, and a more or less solitary habit. In that case expect loud mating calls at certain seasons of the year. If orang-descended, it must have gone through major changes to locomotion style to get away from the weakly bipedal clumsy gait of the orang on the ground to an upright, plantigrade style of movement to cope with Australia's open country and long distances. Not to mention competition with the megafauna, Aboriginals, fire and flood. So: the candidate is smart, upright, secretive, forest-dwelling, solitary and a seasonal mater. All fits with the orang-utan. Expect, then, if the beast if ever properly filmed, to see an upright, smart, reddish animal, which will show movements far more like a man than an ape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgh ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Given that usually when a Yowie is spotted in one region it forms clusters of other sightings within a couple days difference implies that only one Yowie was seen in all of those sightings, and given the large herds of mega-fauna, roaming Australia's Gold Coast, Yowie's would potentially feed off of fruit, large insects and spiders, possible kangaroos or wallabies and scavenge whenever possible. Also, given that around the time of Gigantopithecus Indonesia was one landmass connecting Australia with Asia, I find it quite plausible that Gigantopithecus, Homo Erectus or Homo Flourensiensis could've migrated to Australia and got stranded there when Indonesia became an archipelago. Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 00:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure of where else to put this, but the reference to yowies also being a species of weird ant-lizard hybrids is taken almost word for word from the book Out of This World by Robert Ingpen & Michael Page - a fictional encyclopedia of myths and legends in which the authors often freely disregarded the facts, and just made stuff up. This reference to ant-lizards is almost certainly purely the result of one or both of the two men's imaginations. At any rate, I've never encountered it anywhere else. I'll delete that part, but leave it pasted here in case I'm wrong.
"Rather confusingly, "Yowie" (or "Yowie-Whowie") is also the name of a completely different mythological character in native Australian Aboriginal folklore. This version of the Yowie is said to be a bizarre, hybrid beast resembling a cross between a lizard and an ant with big red eyes on the side of his head, big canine teeth and large fangs. It emerges from the ground at night to eat whatever it can find, including humans. This creature's characteristics and legend are sometimes interchangeable with those of the bunyip. [1]"
References
Have added inline citations as per 2009 note, using Robert Holden's book. Also standardised quotations.-- Nickm57 ( talk) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Clare - would you like to justify your edits - especially the description of the yowie ? Nickm57 ( talk) 10:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I only just now saw your note from 18 March. Since this time I have added a string of references to the edit. Happy to discuss further if you would like? Sorry about the delay. Regards Clare Clare. ( talk) 01:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the title 'origins of the term' is maybe misleading? It seems to be discussing the origin of the myth more likely. I am going to have a think about this one, but keen to hear if any other people have thoughts? Clare. ( talk) 08:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
So there are several people who think that mythical should be in the first sentence (first added 29 April), and people have been directing me to the WP: Fringe (twice now) when I have changed it back (surely covered off by 'some people believe'???), and now I have been directed to bunyips.
A difference I perceive between bunyips and yowies is that no-one claims to have seen a bunyip (or at least I haven't heard about people claiming to have seen them), whereas we semi-regularly hear about people seeing yowies, or what they believe is evidence that yowies may exist. There is (terrible fidelity, very likely doctored) footage of yowies and there are people out there who make a point of looking for them. I think that the yowie is best described as similar to big foot, rather than like bunyips (with the exception that bunyips are also Australian). The opening paragraphs did previously more closely resemble the big foot page.
When I looked up mythology, the page said myths are generally very old (ancient), but the article seems to imply that yowie stories may have started in the 19th century, which is considered young.
I agree, yes, yowie is a fringe theory, but why isn't "that some people believe" enough? Is the article better with mythical in the first sentence? I don't think it is.
Maybe it could say:
Yowie is one of several names given to a hominid that a very small minority of people believe lives in the Australian wilderness.
What do you think? I'd really like to have a discussion about this, hear what others have to say in a more verbose way than allowed in the edit summary, especially because the limited space there means that sometimes people take a tone they may not wish to take (myself included). Clare. ( talk) 01:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Nick, I looked back on what the page looked like before I added any edits, I would encourage you to do so too: [ [1]].
It sounds like you would like to delete/have deleted the Yowie#Contemporary accounts of yowie sightings section, which we can talk about more if you wish. I added this section because previously the article had a Yowie#Nineteenth Century eyewitness accounts and I wanted to complement that part of the article. Clare. ( talk) 02:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. They should use "cryptid" Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 00:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced that Whowie should redirect here. Most of the texts I've found indicate that the whowie was a giant, six-legged, man-eating lizard, often described as having a frog's head. If the yowie article is going to be about a humanoid cryptid, I feel that the whowie should have its own page. Krychek ( talk) 18:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm preparing to add a section directing to 'Yowie in film' as several movies are either in production or have recently been released.
Hi User:110.22.62.227, while your edits look useful, they need to be sourced. If you can't find sources for them, then it can't be added to the article. If you don't have time or think they are out there but can't find them. Then please put your information here and then others can try find it so it can be added. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently this article focuses on purported "sightings". This is an approach common to poorly-composed fringe articles, particularly those that, whether intentionally or not, violate WP:PROFRINGE. As another editor recently noted, the article needs to be checked for sensationalism and source misrepresentation. Additionally, secondary sources from folklorists or other relevant academics should be in the foreground, not hidden behind the label of 'Rejection of the yowie' (of course, pushed behind 'prominent yowie hunters'!). :bloodofox: ( talk) 23:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to add to the section on reports and sightings by referencing a YouTube channel ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJc4xuqi8BHCOm_PxIhP66Q). The channel has over 150 independent interviews of witnesses who have had sightings of the Yowie. The interviews are based on a series of unsensational, rational, standard questions and the interviewees are not endorsed or paid for their contributions. What do others think? Polymath uk ( talk) 16:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)