Talk:Orang Pendek

Image

I'm removing the image because:

• Encyclopedia articles generally don't include "artist's rendering" of any topic if there are photographs available, unless it is in the form of a diagram.
• Our job as an encyclopedia is to summarize the views of those who are considered knowledgeable in various subject areas. Therefore, images of Orang Pendek should only be used if they illustrate some encyclopedic interpretation of Orang Pendek's appearance.
• As a freely editable encyclopedia, we must be careful not to set a precedent whereby there is a link on an article which takes the user to a page where somebody has placed a sketch of the subject. That is the purpose of other web pages where amateur artists display their work; it is not the purpose of Wikipedia.
• Since there is no agreed-upon description of exactly what Orang Pendek looks like beyond some vague generalities, the sketch illustrates the view of a single Wikipedian about what Orang Pendek looks like. This constitutes original research.

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

Heuvelmans

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) .

Capitals

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 and others have already explained the use of capitalization quite well. Reverting again. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 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)

Note that those two articles used a mix of upper and lower throughout the article, but that the title was capitalized. I've fixed those articles to use capitals, and restore the capitals in this article, making everything consistent. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Paranormal"

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)

Yeah. The orang-pendek is an ape, which I wouldn't really consider as to being paranormal. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2022 (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)

If no one has objections, I am going to remove the paranormal box at the top of this page. Schlegel 01:55, 7 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 a very clear label being applied here. By adding this article to Wikipedia's "Paranormal" project and featuring a silly "The P Files" graphic at the top of the Talk Page, we are making it very clear to the reader who browses the WikiProject or reads the Talk Page that Orang Pendek is paranormal and more a subject of entertainment than of science. It seems ludicrous to me to argue that plastering a label on an article doesn't necessarily imply that the label applies to the article's subject.

Wikipedia's article on the Paranormal astutely points out that the word applies to "some creatures that fall under the scope of cryptozoology" (emphasis added). Being a cryptid doesn't in and of itself make something paranormal. A cryptid should only be labeled paranormal if it fits the definition of the word, i.e. that it contradicts our current scientific understanding or that it is scientifically unexplainable. What is it about Orang Pendek that is paranormal? Locals occasionally report that it has magical properties like shape-shifting, but no more than they report that tigers are magical. Does that make tigers paranormal? A few people have wildly speculated that Orang Pendek could be a surviving population of some human ancestor. These people really have no authority to say one way or the other. Should we pander to this kind of baseless speculation? There are people who say the Holocaust never occurred. Does that mean Wikipedia's Holocaust article should be added to WikiProject Conspiracy? No, it would be irresponsible. Wikipedia is based on authoritative sources. And the authoritative sources on Orang Pendek consist of the scientific investigations over the last 15 years that are young, inconclusive, in progress, but pointing toward Orang Pendek being a bipedal great ape. There's nothing paranormal about that.

There are paranormal attributions to many subjects that do not warrant being labeled paranormal themselves, just like the Holocaust isn't a conspiracy even though some people call it one. And regardless of your intentions, labeling this article "paranormal" does just that to the subject, both logically and actually for the people who read the article. I would not argue against applying the label paranormal to UFO phenomena, regardless of how much it hurts serious scientific investigation of the subject, because the dominant story of UFOs is a paranormal one. That's not the case with Orang Pendek, though. There is little that could hurt Orang Pendek's chances of getting the scientific investigation it deserves more than it becoming a "Littlefoot".

I will leave the WikiProject Paranormal box there for now because I don't want to get into a revert war. But I would appreciate other people weighing in on the issue.

Schlegel 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, know that it is VERY clear policy that a talk page is not considered part of an article; anything that happens here cannot be considered to have any impact on the reader of the article. Second of all, noone is calling the Orang Pendak Paranormal, nor will they, and you're going to have to accept that if we can continue to discuss that. Nor is Cryptozoology a paranormal topic; our project simply has a broad scope, and this is the best name we could think up for it. Thirdly, keep your tone civil. Just because you may not like our wikiproject does not mean you are permitted to mock or belittle it or its members. Fourthly, we do not cover topics of 'entertainment'; fiction is NOT under our scope. Fifthly, our project logo isn't neccisarily supposed to be serious; it won't be seen by readers anyway, and is generic enough to serve its purpose. Finally, Wikipedia does not act in the interest of forwarding the agendas of anyone in the academic community; we're just here to provide the facts, which our project can help with. --InShaneee 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a paranormal project should stick to paranormal phenomena. If the paranormal project wants to take a broader scope it should change its name. For reasons I have given above, the Orang Pendak while crypozoological, is not paranormal. I think that the WikiProject Paranormal Box should be removed. Nicolharper 19:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Orang Pendek as "Paranormal"

There is dispute about whether Orang Pendek should be included in WikiProject Paranormal. 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

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:

1. The scope of a WikiProject should be limited to what it says it is about. Having a project that consists of a hodgepodge of topics unrelated to its title weakens the project and weakens Wikipedia, since a reader won't know what to expect as they browse the project. I see that there is also a WikiProject Cryptozoology and would suggest that the Paranormalists leave cryptozoology to the Cryptozoologists, or at most provide a link from within their project to WikiProject Cryptozoology to avoid duplicating that project's work. At the very least it is my responsibility as an editor of this article to make sure the weakness of WikiProject Paranormal doesn't also weaken this article.
2. I really don't understand how someone can argue that adding the label "paranormal" to a topic doesn't imply that the topic is a paranormal one. Placing something within a category is identical to implying that the thing belongs within that category.

- Schlegel 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Shouldn't the titles below ask whether the Orang Pendak page should be included in Wikiproject Paranormal or not, rather than whether Orang Pendak is pseudoscience. I have changed the headings accordingly.82.35.32.152 19:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Include in Wikiproject Paranormal. The Oran Pendek is pseudoscience. If the Lock Ness Monster, the Shroud of Turin, Bigfoot and the like are all considered cryptids and looking into them as pseudoscience, then this thing is surely pseudoscience. Eventually, the attempts to make Homo floresiensis a new species will be considered pseudoscience. [anon editor]

Please sign your additions to this talk page. And please limit your edits to topics about which you can speak reasonably intelligently (i.e. don't advance arguments that are unsupported or based on being guilty by association). Schlegel 01:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Do not include in Wikiproject Paranormal. The existence of this animal would not be in contradiction to the laws of biology. It has merely not been adequately verified. As such, it fits into cryptozoology perfectly well, along with Bigfoot and other possible anthropomorphs. Exactly where it would fit into primate evolution is of course not a reasonable topic to discuss in the absence of the animal, for it would depend on its nature. (I do not consider Bigfoot part of the paranormal world either, except to the extent its hypothetical habitat might not be capable of supporting a population--the suggested habit of this animal probably would be capable.)

The survival of the Lock Ness monster would however, be in apparent opposition to the known principles of marine ecology, for there would be no obvious way such a species could have remained unknown in that location. If it ever is found, then we biologists will have to rethink things a little. so as I see it this particular animal is not pseudoscience. It is in contradiction to the laws of common sense, and I would be extremely surprised if it or its like are ever found anywhere as living species, but that is not the same thing.

The existence of additional presently unknown fossil species is on the other hand perfectly rational, and they are even to be expected. I haven't any idea what H. floresiensis will prove to be, and its identification may have ben a serious error--or not. I would not have expected additional species to be so recent. I was a student of Alan Wilson--who was quite eclectically prepared to do molecular immunology studies and dating on any of these possibilities. He would have loved H. floresiensis. DGG 01:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Do not include in Wikiproject Paranormal. Are we arguing as to whether the Orange Pendak is pseudoscience or whether it should be included in the paranormal project? We should be clear on this.

The Orang Pendak, while being unlikely, does not go against any standard scientific laws and should not be included in the paranormal project. The paranormal banner should be removed.82.35.32.152 03:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I intended to say. Apologies for the essay. DGG 06:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologise, the essay was good. It was the titles that were confusing. I have changed them. 82.35.32.152 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Do not include in Wikiproject Paranormal. Given that this article is part of WikiProject Cryptozoology, I see no reason for it to be a part of WikiProject Paranormal as well. If the Paranormal project is adopting all Cryptozoology articles for themselves, then why have the more specific project? Secondly, the Orang Pendak might exist, without breaking any physical or biological laws, so I see no reason for it to be part of the Paranormal. Bluap 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Include in Wikiproject Paranormal for the following reason - the WikiProject Cryptozoology has been absorbed into WikiProject paranormal and is now a subproject under the Paranormal project. in time, the WikiProject Cryptozoology description will be suitably ammended and a corrected banner will be created noting this. Until that time, both banners should stay. Over in the paranormal project, a wonderful suggestion has been made about creating a banner that acknowle4dges any given artticle to be under the guidance of multiplke projects. It will be helpful once we get that new banner up and running. Please be patient. The parnormal project does not argue for or against a particular viewpoint and thefore the presence of the project tag should not be misread to be a stamp of paranormality.Lisapollison 18:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Nicolharper , I know you feel very strongly about this, but it is innapropriate for you to edit another members remark. You edited Bluap's comment to add a vote against including this article in the paranormal project. You cannot know that Bluap intended that. Sometimes people comment without voting. I see how you could infer a vote from the comment but if the User doesn't vote, it's not your job to insert a vote in there to bolster your cause. I will leave your inserted vote on his/her behalf where it is for now but suggest you revert your own edit, leave a comment on Bluap's page suggesting that if it were his/her intent to vote, then he/she should come back and add the vote as their own edit. It is very bad wikipedia ettiquette to edit other people's comments. I believe now I need to go back and see if the other people commenting actually voted themselves or if you added the vote for them. Please don't do something like this again. It gives the wrong impression.Lisapollison 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I don't feel very strongly about this. I was simply trying to neaten things up as it was messy and hard to understand what was going on. I did not edit peoples comments, and object to the suggestion that I did. All I did was to put the heading that each comment was previously under in front of each individuals comment. This was in order to be consistent with the way you had done your post, where rather than post under one of the two headings you tacked your comment into the Do not Include List. I am happy to remove the heading before Bluaps comment if you object so much, although this means that Bluaps comment is no longer under the heading he/she posted under. Revert back to the original two list format if you prefer, but then please change your post to be in the correct list. I also object to your bossy and condescending tone, a little good will doesn't hurt. Nicolharper 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Lisapollison, this section isn't meant to be a vote. Instead, it is a chance for people's views to be shared and discussed. If it were a vote, the first comment arguing that Orang Pendek is pseudoscience would have to be removed since it was made before this section was created. I think Nicolharper's earlier cleanups did a good job of making this discussion clearer and am re-adding them. Schlegel 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Lisapollison, you are making a similar argument to InShaneee's above and I don't think either of you have adequately argued your position. Please explain this statement: "The parnormal project does not argue for or against a particular viewpoint and thefore the presence of the project tag should not be misread to be a stamp of paranormality." The "particular viewpoint" here is whether or not Orang Pendek is a paranormal phenomenon. So what you are arguing is that WikiProject Paranormal is not arguing for or against Orang Pendek being paranormal by including it in the project. What?? I feel like either this argument is crazy or I am for missing something. That's like saying, "I am going to put apples into the category 'fruit', but I'm not saying anything about whether or not they are fruits." Please explain the reason for adding Orang Pendek to WikiProject Paranormal if not for the express purpose of implying that it is a paranormal phenomenon. Schlegel 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Schlegel , you state:

I feel like either this argument is crazy or I am for missing something.

Answer - you are missing something. This entire argument and subarguments that are going back and forth on this talk page do nothing to enhance the quality of the article or have much to do with the subject of the article at all. For your information, I am an Anthropologist. I joined the Parnormal project as a rational skeptic and I'm in good company there. The project has been instrumental in protecting dozens of articles similar to this one from vandalism and attempts to sway the article in one direction or another. I do wish that the Cryptozoology project had not fallen inactive and thus get absorbed into the paranormal project but it did and it has and so members of the paranormal project are now charged with shepherding the articles the Cryptozoology Project once looked after. I don't have the time or inclination to get sucked into reductio ad absurdum debates and debates about debates. I prefer to add sourced content to article, edit exisiting articles, create new articles and so on. if you want to go on the way you have here, that's your business. I simply suggest that your energies might be put to better use within the article itself and/or any number of the other proposed homid articles that could use more input. As for reverts - I don't know what edits you thought were mine and then reverted, but I made none except add my comment that editing someone else's comment to put in a vote on the side of your own argument (a vote that person didn't make} is dishonest and bad ettiqutte. I left the added vote in. I see that vote is back in now. All that means is that we cannot trust the count because unless we look at each and every edit since the request for comment was made, we cannot know who put those votes in. I assure you that my vote to include is my own. If it should dissapear or change, it is not by my doing. Lisapollison 00:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Dear Lisapollison. Please note, they are not votes they are comments. There were two lists of comments originally with headings something like 'Not Pseudoscience' and 'Pseudoscience', however as this wasn't really the point of this section they were changed to 'Do not include in Wikiproject paranormal' and 'include in Wikiproject paranormal'. Under one or other of these headings people listed their comments depending on which side they fell. Then when you added your comment you did not stick with this pattern and put your comment in the 'do not include in Wikiproject paranormal' section and gave your comment its own heading. As this appears to be the more standard wikipedia way to do things, and to be consistent with the way you posted, I gave each comment its own heading, that heading being the heading of the list it was posted in. I did not edit anyones comments and I don't think the new headings method alters the bias towards either side. I assure you that this was not done to cause bias, and I don't think it did cause bias, it was just an attempt to neaten things up as the posting method to the discussion had become rather tangled and unclear. If you object to the new headings method feel free to change it back to the old two lists system, but don't call me dishonest. I object strongly to being called dishonest when I acted in good faith and was simply trying to be helpful to everyone. Nicolharper 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Include in Wikiproject Paranormal. My understanding is that wikiprojects have a fair degree of discretion on which articles they choose to adopt. This is not a statement on the article claiming that Orang Pendek is paranomal. This is a statement on the talk page that the members of the Paranormal Wikiproject have taken an interest in this article. If anyone is aware of a policy or guideline that contradicts this viewpoint (that wikiprojects get to decide what pages they include) please cite it. I don't think such a policy exists. --Selket ^Talk 08:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

External link request

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

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)

Block request

I have submitted a request to block Doctor3uk from editing the article here. -Schlegel 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for a week. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

image request

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)

Removing "Latest News", a press release from Adam Davies

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)

Move to shorten this article to a brief paragraph

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)

Remove reference to "Dr. Hans Brunner"

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)

(The preceeding comment is incorrect, whilst Hans Brunner is not a Dr. he is a qualified biologist that was involved as a key witness Lindy Chamberlain's exoneration as a forensic scientist tasked with identifying dingo hairs on Azaria's jumpsuit. He inspected the clothing and hairs in the basement of the High Court in September 1984. This fact was confirmed by Brunner and many other people and included in Norman Young's 1989 book 'Innocence regained: The fight to free Lindy Chamberlain'. (Eve Kelly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:d008:b400:9584:6e:5397:9fa (talk • contribs) 09:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Undid revision 417798598 by 94.169.196.96 (Original Research)

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

1. Wikipedia is not the place to present original research (see Wikipedia:No_original_research)
2. The claims made in the content are not attributed to any source
3. Self-authored content about yourself (Wikipedia:Autobiography) or your institution (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) are discouraged and generally do not belong on Wikipedia.

See also above discussion with Doctor3uk

Tim Mowrer (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Cryptid?

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)

Hmm. When I think of "legendary creature", first one that comes to my mind is dragon. I doubt "it's been seen for centuries by locals" applies to a legendary creature. 85.217.34.67 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

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)

I would support deletion now. It's rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll dig around a little more—I'm seeing some breadcrumbs now. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

So, I found a solid source on this topic: Anthropologist Gregory Forth's Images of the Wildman in Southeast Asia: An Anthropological Perspective (2008, Taylor & Francis). It contains a section on the creature and its attestations. It confirms that there is a folk belief complex surrounding the entity, and so it is not an invention or whatever. I've swapped out the projects above accordingly.

In fact, I started rewriting the page around it but then I accidently closed the tab, so I'll have to return to it. Of course, I invite anyone to approach a rewrite before me, and I appreciate you looking the article over, HiLo. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:11, 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)

• Forth, Gregory (2014). "Gugu: Evidence from Folk Zoological Nomenclature and Classification for a Mystery Primate in Southern Sumatra". Anthropos. 109 (1): 149–160. JSTOR 43861690.