Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Other options[edit]

Someone dressing up in a whole fur - to keep warm, for some shamanic purpose or other good reason. Anna Livia (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Quite possible, especially in the case of (obscure factoid alert!) the chuchunaaWikipedia, a Siberian version of the yeti sometimes said to wear pelts as clothes. WilderBicycle 20:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
So would a combination of 'unfamiliar types of bears/other furry creatures (size possibly misread at a distance)', and persons wearing animal pelts (for warmth, hunters, shamans in their 'other' persona and 'tales being improved in the retelling' be the likely backstories for many 'sightings'? Anna Livia (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh definitely, and in fact any half-decent book on the subject will accept all these explanations. John Napier's Bigfoot (1972) [It's about ape-people from all over the world, not just North America's Bigfoot] Has a photo of a Nepalese mystic barefoot in the snow, with the caption "A SadhuWikipedia demonstrating his immunity to cold at 18,000 feet. The footprints of these ascetics may have contributed to the myth of the Himalayan Bigfoot." WilderBicycle 19:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There will always be 'things existing just on the edge of the firelight/round the corner' and to some extent it is 'the exploring ' rather than the end discovery which is the most interesting part of the whole. — Unsigned, by: Anna Livia / talk / contribs 15:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Would the Josh Gates/Expedition Unknown episodes on the yeti be suitable links? (The EU episodes are watchable 'this is what the situation is and here are some of the people involved' type programs.) Anna Livia (talk)

I've never seen them so I can't really say. However, if they're not sensationalist crap then it's probably ok. WilderBicycle 20:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
This chap and the series. Anna Livia (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


@GrammarCommie @EyeSky I thought EyeSky's revisions were not unreasonable. Is it because they removed the phrase "that still doesn't prove that the Yeti exists"? I thought this sentence was clunky anyway - maybe if they revised it to retain that meaning, his other revisions would be acceptable. What do you think? Kauri0.o (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought the bit at the end of the sentence about needing substantial evidence got that point across well enough, but maybe that's a bit too much to just infer. In any case, it probably would have been better to do as a separate edit, since it was a bit more substantial than the rest of what I did.EyeSky (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree, I also thought it was pretty self-evident that we aren't entertaining the idea the Yeti might be real. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kauri0.o @EyeSky The newer version seemed less clear to me. If you want to overrule me feel to do so. I should have given an edit summery for that reversion, sorry. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Rather than revert again, I split the edit into two pieces, one to do relatively minor grammatical stuff, and a second to rework the sentence. This time, I reworked the sentence more extensively. If you think that this is not an improvement, I won't resist you reverting it, and it won't affect the rest of the article.EyeSky (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)