Jump to content

Talk:Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

How about adding some sources for this legend? Quale 00:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for the reports (though I can't vouch for the existence of the Lizard Man), have read of them in numerous books & magazines, and even remember it mentioned on some websites. Alexander 007 02:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=24 This is the only proof that I can find that there was actually a newspaper article written. All information I've read repeatedly mentions AP reports on the subject, but I have yet to actually see one. Due to the lower profile nature of this particular story, sources would be few and far between. I believe the AP article would be the best and more than likely only legitimate source. Drago 07:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Picture

[edit]

I think the time has come to say no never delete this story. 2nd, the main area of concern no one seems to mention is that the witnesses and police who located tracks of the creature did not mention the likelihood of the tracks being faked.It is difficult to fake tracks in a wet terrain of mud or loose tall grass...the hoaxers would show they were disturbing the area around the tracks of their own weight and bootprints...hard to conceal wouldnt you think ? The event was important to ufo research since any odd creature appearance never before noticed, if large,bi-pedal and violent, is likely from somewhere else...The key to this mystery : no news media or police ever disputed or challenged the original tracks that were found as being easily seen as a hoaxed event. - BlondeIgnore Blondeignore (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a picture of some sort. Matau 01:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

How about a "rumored humanoid creature"?--Landrumkelly 01:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC) --> This reads too much like fact for me.[reply]

Er? There are no zoological claims on this page, only factual descriptions of what people claim to have seen. Are you disputing that people said that they saw something? - perfectblue 17:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When they're not ploting our enslavement or running our banks...they enjoy sabaticals in the swamps. Maybe we're not so different after all.

one of the more silly myths in this wiki

[edit]

And a constant embarrassment to most of us S. Carolinians. The article is very poorly "sourced" and should be shortened extremely, considering the dearth of sources and the total irrelevance of this myth. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)HammerFilmFan[reply]

"abandoned subways"?

[edit]

Does anyone know to what this passage in the lede is referring? Is it perhaps the non-US usage that designates any form of underpass? I'm fairly certain there have never been any underground rail systems in the vicinity of the Scape Ore Swamp.  Cjmclark (Contact) 22:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose someone will have to contact the Washington Post writer to find out what he is talking about. If there is an abandoned subway in S.C. I'd like to explore it!  :) In reality, I think the writer probably never has been in S.C. and simply printed something he conjured from his imagination. Stan Brewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.102.93 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media

[edit]

Hi all. This is my first time doing a significant edit. I added a new section because Blackburn's book on this subject was an important contribution. Please advise if I did it correctly. Idoubtit00 (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added a section about a non- notable book by an author espousing fringe views. Please review WP:FRIND and WP:RS, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the references. I included this book because it references factual items (police reports, newspaper articles and original investigation by the author) and has a generally solid, journalistic approach without invoking fringe theories (except the idea that witnesses were conflating a lizard man with a bigfoot-type creature). I tried to frame this neutrally. Idoubtit00 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bigfoot’s existence is not a fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not stated as a fact; Bigfoot is obviously a culturally relevant idea. I see no line-crossing here. Idoubtit00 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The author is a cryptozoologist, a pursuit that is a pseudoscience. WP:FRINGE issues aside, we would need third party independent WP:SECONDARY sources to take notice of the book in order to justify the author and the book having such prominent mention in the article. As it is, it’s WP:UNDUE and runs afoul of WP:NOTPROMOTION. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The author is a cryptozoologist, a pursuit that is a pseudoscience" Both of those statements are arguable in many different ways. If you want to go that route, you'd have a lot more "running afoul" to cite on many other pages. Blackburn's book, as I note, is a journalistically-framed account using first-hand documents. It is a suitable source to reference this cultural/folklore topic; and in no way am I condoning any opinions about the myth with the reference. Idoubtit00 (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie deleted my entire edit? Based on the discussion above, this was uncalled for. Idoubtit00 (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't delete your edits. You can look in the article's "history" tab to see a record of past and current changes. BTW, if your sole aim is to insert things about "Lyle Blackburn, Cryptid Hunter" into the encyclopedia, you are going to have a difficult time here. I urge you to read the editorial guidelines and policies I referred you to above, and familiarize yourself with how the encyclopedia works and what its goals are. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Sinclair (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)I have added citations from Smithsonian magazine showing that among the many books referencing the case, Blackburns'is considered the most reliable. It takes a journalistic approach. I also added a few (I could add MANY, MANY more) references to books that talk about the case. But most of these are fairly simple retellings of the story as written about in hundreds of newspaper articles. I looked up on Newspapers.com and found 222 entries - but there appeared to be more than 100 contemporaneous to the story. I didn't include any of the "new" obvious hoax sightings.[reply]

Furthermore, I concur with Idoubtit that we don't need to believe in the monsters being real for them to be notable and worth giving a proper Wikipedia write up. If we're going to start removing articles that talk about things that aren't real we're going to lose a lot of content because vast swaths of content on this site is devoted to social constructs.

It feels like LuckyLouie is being very harsh to someone who admits from the start that they want to help contribute to the article and are new to Wikipedia.

Trevor Sinclair (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Look - I understand the interest in preventing pseudoscience on this page. However, nobody is saying the Lizard Man is a real animal. What this article is about is an actual media flap that occurred in 1988 around the sighting of something people called a "Lizard Man." This is an important distinction. I'm about as skeptical of the reality of this creature as you will find but if you don't give people access to legitimate information (especially well researched, critical analysis) then they will go to the crappy echo-chamber of the Internet instead of Wikipedia. That isn't making Wikipedia better and it CERTAINLY is not making the Internet or culture better.[reply]

The problem is, @Trevor Sinclair:, that Wikipedia isn't really set-up to provide accurate information in cases where secondary sources do not describe things carefully and reliably. We are only as good as the sources which are out there. The Smithsonian magazine piece is a good find, but we should use it to describe the extant phenomenon (the pilgrimages) rather than as as advert for Lyle Blackburn's book. jps (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think Blackburn's book might have some decent content for which it might be considered reliable (his research rather than his speculations), but it should probably be as a source rather than as a feature. --tronvillain (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should be engaged in picking out the "research" from the WP:SENSATIONal [1] narrative. We have much better sources that are not so deeply pushing hype. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True. There's a good Ben Radford article which does the job of extracting the relevant info for us. --tronvillain (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have Radford’s Fortean Times article and it is perfect, just read it. Give me a couple hours and I’ll add it. I’m at a apt now and then lunch. Lizard man can wait a bit . Sgerbic (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone can explain why Lyle's book, a solid reference on the legend, is rejected while Linda Godfrey's book is cited. I seriously do not understand and it appears arbitrary to me. Idoubtit00 (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IDK maybe because the editor who added it isn't using it to make a claim of some kind, it just says that the book contains a chapter on the legend. I'm fine removing it. Sgerbic (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Idoubtit00 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC) I hope this version is better. I built on what was already there. Thanks to those who made helpful suggestions.[reply]

Well done Idoubtit00. Sgerbic (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I see "Lyle Blackburn, Cryptid Hunter" got in as a reference, so he must be happy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1986

[edit]

The Lizard Man was talked about by people in Bishopville in 1986. 170.103.116.191 (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lizard_Man_of_Scape_Ore_Swamp&oldid=1207158591"