Talk:Flatwoods monster

Untitled

According to the CSICOP article, it wasn't the sheriff who said they saw an owl, it was two Air Force Investigators who said that. (3rd paragraph under The Creature section in the CSICOP article).

I've completely re-written this page and expanded all aspects of it. I've also restored the trivia item linking Amagon to the Flatwoods monster. Check out the picture half way down [[1]] page and compare it to the game screen shot. The two images are almost identical, right down to the position of the arms. The game is almost certainly a ripoff of the Flatwoods monster.

perfectblue 12:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Majora's Mask

Isn't the ghost/aliens in The Legend of Zelda Majora's Mask, based off the flat woods monster, baring striking features of the monster(glowing eyes, clawlike hands,etc)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.229.47.92 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Maybe it is, maybe is isn't. But it's largely irrelevant. There is already one video game mentioned, which is EXACTLY like an artists rendering of the monster (not just a little like, it is an exact match), and we don't really need any more examples. perfectblue 09:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure the creatures from said game match this discription very well. They even include the red ball of light that is apperantly their ship. Not only do they have the glowing eyes and claw like hands but they seem to have the dark pleated skirt too and are around 8-10 feet tall Cillian flood (talk)

NEW APPARITION

I remember some that some years ago in Mexico a similar case was widely commented and it also was shown in serious TV news and newspaper. It happened near Monterrey, Mexico, when a police agent was attacked by the Flatwoods monster (aka "La bruja", the witch), he was interviewed on TV and there are also images and a video. There is more information in the spanish link of this article. Can someone put it on the English article? I could translate from Spanish but I do not know how to give to it Wiki format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.159.4.69 (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flatwoods monster newspaper1.png

Image:Flatwoods monster newspaper1.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What was seen is something very similar to a creature I saw in a dream of mine which I believed to be the Devil. Vacreep3r88 (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Picture

Someone needs to upload a picture of the monster. I have tried already, but I don’t have much luck in uploading pictures that are under the wikipedia upload files rules. This article is practically asking for one. - ReddFighter (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Where's the picture? It was up not too long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.243.126.7 (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Flatwoods.png was deleted in March 2013 for being a copyright violation ("created in 1952 so not life+70") - presumably it was one of the contemporary press images used at the time. File:Flatwoods_monster.svg was added more recently, being a sketch by a Wikipedia editor, but it was removed by an IP who felt it was "not even close to how it looks", and I'd agree - this image is of a bulky figure with heavy arms wearing what looks like a pointed hood, where the contemporary sketches show it as slimmer creature with thin arms and a round "head" surrounded by a dark shape. --McGeddon (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The image currently being added is pretty similar to the "artist's impression" endorsed by Kathleen May in 1952 (down to the arm positions), but the "face" is far less visible, the "ace of spades" has a fringe pattern added, the bottom half has been rendered as overly mechanical, plus there's an added mouth and additional texture details - the original artist's impression was a representation of "a bright red face, bright green clothing, a head which resembled the ace of spaces and its clothing from the waist down hung in great folds." --tronvillain (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC); edited 16:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is just an image created and uploaded by an editor. There's no evidence it is a commonly accepted artist's rendering. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User generated content isn't necessarily a problem for Wikipedia, but it differs from the original "artist's impression" pretty significantly. It also adds detail that isn't in any of the original reports and omits features universal to common portrayals (the "bright red face"). --tronvillain (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

And there is the fact that Wikipedia is not the Fortean Times. We have a perfectly good photograph of the "monster" in the article already... Guy (Help!) 13:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, though if the original artist's impression (or a sufficiently similar version) was public domain I don't know that Wikipedia not being the Fortean Times would be a great argument against not having it in the article, especially since most popular portrayals since appear to be largely based on it. --tronvillain (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Openlydialectic, did you miss this discussion? Staring a new one about suitability of images seemed unnecessary. Anyway, what would appear to apply here is WP:OI: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." There are various mentions of small claw-like hands, a round red face, glowing eyes, an "ace of spades" shaped hood/head, eight to twelve foot height, and so on, but this image has features not mentioned anywhere in the original reports or portrayals: the mechanical tubed waist, the spherical shoulders, the fringed hood, the mouth, the head texture, the more humanoid head transitioning smoothly into the hood, and so on. --tronvillain (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Unlike many legendary creatures, there's no agreement (even within fringe sources) on what this alleged monster looks like, so without a tediously long caption explaining and disclaiming, the artist impression at "Flatwoods monster.png" is too problematic to be useful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Very Dubious Sourcing: Article Needs to be Rewritten

This article needs to be rewritten with reliable secondary sources. Right now it looks more like the transcript of some sensationalist television show than an entry on an entity in West Virginia folklore. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on the TV style of the "Chronology" section - it needs reframing as a series of reported events, instead of flatly telling us that a dog ran ahead and that Lemon "revealed the creature". It's unclear who a lot of this should be attributed to - did Kathleen May tell the entire story? The sources seem as good as you're likely to get for this sort of article, though. Unless there were later interviews, it's just going to be from the original 1950s newspaper clippings. --McGeddon (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Ideally we'd get some commentary from folklorists here. I'll dig around and see what I can find as time permits. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is atrociously inaccurate

On internet Archive, under recordings 8 and 9 on the page linked below are audio recordings of Gray Barker and Ivan T. Sanderson relating their first-hand investigations of this incident. The article bears no resemblance whatsoever to what witnesses describe! Someone with more patience than myself is needed to rewrite this page. Can we shove video games and pop culture aside for the briefest of moments in order to get our facts straight people?!

https://archive.org/details/HighStrangenessGuide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:c00:cc0e:eb24:79b3:178b (talk) 21:45, October 27, 2017

Agree the article needs a rewrite, but not for the reasons you state. We should not be giving Barker and Sanderson's claims any credibility or WP:UNDUE weight. Per WP:FRINGE, they, and other sensational sources such as "The Cover-Up of the Flatwoods Monster Revealed", "Unexplained", and "Civilian Saucer Investigation" are not independent reliable sources of fact. WP:MAINSTREAM and all that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. They were the only ones to actually go out there, interview every single witness multiple times and properly investigate. If you listen to the above sound archive before making snap judgements you'll find that they are giving the subject coverage which is vastly more impartial than the contemporary newspaper accounts which simply referred to the monster as "Frankenstein". Your assumption that their sober interviews should be regarded as "fringe claims" when they are quoting direct firsthand witnesses is logically flawed to say the least. To follow this line of reasoning to its natural conclusion would result in the deletion of the entire page!

For an example of how to do it correctly, have a look at a translation of the Japanese article on the Flatwoods Monster. It totally puts this one to shame. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%83%A9%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E3%82%A6%E3%83%83%E3%82%BA%E3%83%BB%E3%83%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B9%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6582:8580:c00:cca3:936b:c62f:e6a2 (talk) 09:17, October 31, 2017

By reading a rather poor translation of the Japanese article, I am unable to understand what exactly it is you feel should be included in this article. But if you wish to have any meaningful discussion here, you need to sign your comments, review our policies on reliable sources and how the encyclopedia treats fringe subjects. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

May 2018

Did a long-needed cleanup of the article, removed non-WP:RS sources and copyedited the credulous descriptions to be more encyclopedic and less sensational. Added some of the material from the local tourism site and changed te section header to "local culture". I've left mention of Gray Barker in the text, since Nickell cites Barker's Fate magazine story as influencing the spread of the legend (so we are actually referencing Nickell, not Barker). Nickell also mentions the influence of Ivan T. Sanderson on the legend, but someone else can add that if needed. As mentioned here, the legend is apparently covered in various folklore journals. Those with access to them (I don't have any) may wish to expand the article with material gleaned from these sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sanderson clearly arrived on the nineteenth and did interviews, and his fringe view that it was "some sort of machine like a diving bell" made it into some pretty major newspapers on 25 September via the North American Newspaper Alliance.--tronvillain (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

And arguably the newspapers were mentioning UFOs before Sanderson and Barker ever showed up.--tronvillain (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There should be mention that the story was picked up (maybe by AP or UPI) and publicized at the time. However I'd prefer not to cite 1952-era news articles for anything except the fact that the story made news, since WP:AGE MATTERS, and secondary sources with some objectivity are best for these types of subjects. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

From WP:AGE MATTERS, With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. What the initial reports and descriptions were is relevant, which is almost entirely a 10-foot tall monster with "blood-red face and a green body that seemed to glow", the ace of spades thing, and a pleated metallic skirt. It's all consistent with being surprised by a barn owl in the dark after a meteor shower during a era where talk of UFOs was rampant. You might argue that the initial reports were "too close", but other than the interviews by Sanserson and Barker, they're most of what exists as far as I can tell. --tronvillain (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There's some discussion of news reports being primary sources if they just report and not analyze. In that sense, it would feel a little WP:OR-ish to pick details from primary sources (1952 news articles) based on how they may conflict or agree with secondary analysis (such as from Nickell). But I haven't been able to access any of the original news stories, so the question may be moot. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait, I just saw this. It's a PDF folder download from Braxtonwv.org containing the original news stories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that this afternoon. Neat. -- tronvillain (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead summary

Over 50 years later, some investigators have stated that they believe the light was a meteor and the creature was a barn owl perched in a tree with shadows making it appear to be a large humanoid.

The above version ("some investigators have stated that they believe") needlessly gives equal validity to the fringe view and the mainstream view. UFOlogist "investigators" may have concluded it was an alien, but we need not give these equal weight to independent investigators. Accordingly, I've revised:

Over 50 years later, investigators suggest the light was a meteor and the creature was a barn owl perched in a tree with shadows making it appear to be a large humanoid.

- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Additional legacy content - song

Recently (May 3rd 2024) a song by a Japanese pop artist Eve was released titled: "Like the Flatwoods Monster" (Japanese: フラットウッズのモンスターみたいに). The lyrics themselves only slightly resemble the history of the Flatwoods monster, they don't talk about it directly only hint towards the same flow of thoughts that happened with the Flatwoods monster history. But the music video is definitely strongly resembling the said monster(not visually as in the looks of the monster but in the story itself). More specifically the monster, here a dark horse with red eyes like those of the Flatwoods monster, is a live prop for a local theater. In the end a young boy who works there helps the monster escape only for it to transform into a white "pegasus" without wings (similarly Flatwoods monster in the end was probably a barn owl, also white). I was wondering how much of this to add, only one sentence or so to at least say that this song exists without explaining it? Or make a somewhat longer addition above one sentence? Also should it be right next to Argyle Goolsby who is a local legacy, or along the games and TV shows? Lottaferoce (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

We need some reliable sources to show that the song is notable, not just that it exists. I'm actually removing the Goolsby entry, because it's just linked to blog of no significance, as well as a few unsourced entries. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Link to YouTube if that matters idk (https://youtube.com/@ooo0eve0ooo?) 71.201.186.141 (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Episode 2 of DANDADAN just released and heavily references this as well. For some reason it looks like it's popular in japanese culture.

DANDADAN is an anime that is featured in netflix, probably the biggest anime to have a first season this year Zeeh34 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

As noted by the previous editor, the fact that such an episode exists is in and of itself not notable enough to include in the article. According to MOS:POPCULT, "Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources (e.g., a dictionary or encyclopedia). A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, video game, television show, or other cultural item." —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)