Talk:Mothman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Indrid Cold

Indrid Cold seems to be strongly tied in to the Mothman legend, particularly in the context of John Keel's book. Searching Wikipedia for Cold leads here - but the article doesn't seem to mention him/her/it/whatever. Does anyone else think it might be worth putting a short section in? I'm no expert but I'm willing to have a shot if no-one better informed feels like it... - Skadus (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The only place where Indrid Cold is connected to Mothman in any way is in The Mothman Prophecies. There really should be a seperate article on Indrid Cold, since there is really a lot of interesting stuff about him that has nothing to do with the Mothman[1] 206.116.57.126 (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start out by giving him a section in this entry, and then perhaps moving him to his own article in the near future. He is definitely one of the most fascinating and mysterious figures in Keel's book, if not in all UFO/cryptid/contemporary paranormal lore, and since his name redirects here it only makes sense... Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I say we make a seperate article for Indrid Cold. While Keel does discuss him in The Mothman Prophesies, the Cold incidents are noteworthy in and of themselves. Flag-Waving American Patriot (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On Vyzygoth's Beyond the Grassy Knoll radio show, Andy Colvin and Allen Greenfield discussed how they had found Indrid Cold's actual home in Midway, WV, which was on land once owned by George Washington. It was also the same area from which the soldiers who killed Chief Cornstalk had planned their raid, which effectively instigated the "Mothman Curse." There is mention of it in Colvin's third book, The Mothman's Photographer III (see Amazon). You might want to add that to the book list, as well as Gray Barker's "Silver Bridge" and Jeff Wamsley's "Mothman: Behind the Red Eyes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.161.219 (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Indrid Cold should probably redirect to the Grinning Man article instead of this, since that article actually discusses him. Either that, or he should be added to this article.J'onn J'onzz (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello. There's a paragraph that either has a mistake or requires a little additional information. [Before I continue, let me say I'm relatively new to having a Wikipedia account. I've successfully made a small (but necessary & helpful) grammatical edit to an article, but this is my first foray into Editing Talk. If I do anything out of order I'd actually appreciate having it brought to my attention here. If so, as the Talk Editing guidelines caution, "Please do not bite the newcomers" & "assume it was an unwitting mistake." :)] Under the 'November 16' heading, the narrative jumps from being 'en route in their car' to 'heading back to their car' without explanation. It's either a mistake or requires a little additional information (or something). Thanks. Missy2468 (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Typo-fix.

Replace: Cryptoozology

With: Cryptozoology —Preceding unsigned comment added byMaalobs (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 September 2008

Y Done haz (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Feet

You might think this is something unimportant, but I'd like to note here that no one has ever said they saw it (Mothman's) feet. Anyone know how to incorporate this into the article? 76.173.217.110 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One explanation for the sitings of 'Mothman' having no feet is that possibly many of the sightings of 'Mothman' were in fact sightings of U.S. Military Personnel looking for Mothman. The descriptions of some Mothman sightings bear heavy resemblance to American Infantry Soldiers in heavy camouflage clothing. Even the 'Beady Red Eyes' which Mothman was said to have sound like American Infantry Infra Red Night vision equipment of the time.Johnwrd (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ref needed/original research?

This... "a simple analysis of Keel's earliest Mothman book, Strange Mutants: Demon Dogs and Phantom Cats (1970) shows almost no difference with what Keel wrote in The Mothman Prophecies five years later." ...seems like it requires a source.213.114.237.123 (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandhill Crane

Wiki page says that an explanation for the mothman was that they were actually sandhill cranes as they can grow to 6 feet and have a wingspan of 10 feet, however, on the wiki sandhill crane page their wingspan is listed as only 6 (and a half?) feet and other websites say it can only grow to about 4 1/2 feet. conspiracy?! hehe. wouldve changed it but its locked. anyone help me out? 78.150.9.181 (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandhill Crane Dimensions Changed

The information on Sandhill Cranes was completely inaccurate and biased towards a skeptic's position. The wiki page indicates no maximum wingspan or height, but does state the average wingspan of 5.3 feet and 39 inches in length. According to research outside of wiki, no figure exists of 10 feet wingspans or 6.5 feet in height. The Sandhill Crane is on average only 6 to 12lbs, yet the information on this page was misleading to the point of suggesting an animal of the proportions of an ostrich or other large bird. As such, I have altered this information to reflect the Sandhill Crane's wiki page. Gypsyjazzbo (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the article is going to state sizes it needs a source. If the skeptic books claim sizes we can cite them as saying a certain size.DreamGuy (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mothman/Indrid Cold

Paranormal research labs in private firms conducted research in these cases. To my knowledge, there are connections to mothman concerning e.v.p., Serpent and the Rainbow, e.s.p., and displaced energies. hauntings, disc.: no lie. paradoxic tempest. see you in time *****75.200.252.164 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You were just blocked for this. Wikipedia is not for your personal beliefs or opinions. Unless you have reliable sourcesto back up your claims, you should probably take them elsewhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Books That Should Be Included

I put three totally verifiable Mothman books into the book section on April 18th (Barker's "Silver Bridge," Colvin's "Mothman's Photographer III," and Wamsley's "Mothman: Behind the Red Eyes" but they were removed by someone with no explanation. I am putting them back in if it is OK. I don't know much about the ins and outs of Wikipedia, but I do no know that these are real Mothman books and should be included in the bibliography. If whoever took them out would like to discuss it, please do. Also, Woody Derenberger's Visitors From Lanulos should be included as well fyi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by97.113.161.219 (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoax similarities to Springheel Jack.

While not wanting to sound too cynical, the Hoax explination seems most likely for Mothman. Springheel Jack was without doubt a character played by a number of pranksters over a period of time. Mothman seems to be a character played by a number of pranksters. The real mystery is how they evaded detection for so long.Johnwrd (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

this is not a forum for discussing our personal theories. Sorry. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

9/11 Sightings

I heard the Mothman was claimed to have been spotted before and during the 9/11 attacks —Precedingunsigned comment added by Murdock129 (talk •contribs) 02:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mothman seen in Serbia

Please translate text from this page and add it to this article. It says that there are hundreds of whitnesses who have seen Mothman in Serbia at 2005. Some old woman also describes him at 1995. There is also 2008. picture of Mothman in Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.20.27 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mothman statue 2005.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mothman statue 2005.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Folklore is "Skeptical"?

It is strange that academic Jan Harold Brunvand's observations about Mothman folklore is being identified as "skeptical" by being relegated to the Skeptical section. In the case of legendary creatures, the idea that the creature is real should not be given equal validity. I suggest moving it to a "folklore" section in the very least. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

To anyone familiar with Brunvand's work, there is nothing strange about his views being labeled skeptical. He specializes in the folklore of "urban legends," modern tales that some people believe to be true but are either untrue or cannot be confirmed. By identfying folkloric elements in the Mothman tales, he is not supporting the thesis that the creature is real; quite the opposite. Let's leave Brundvand's views where they are. Plazak (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheriff George Johnson and biologist Dr. Robert L. Smith are not supporting the thesis that the creature is real. Quite the opposite. I sure hope they don't get dumped into the "skeptical" section! In all seriousness, the thesis that "mothman, a flying man-sized creature unknown to biology is real" is a definite minority fringe view. I can understand professional debunker Joe Nickell's views being put in a section marked "skeptical", but Brunvand shouldn't be split off into a Skeptic section just because he reflects the majority academic view (i.e., existence of flying man sized creatures unknown to biology is not accepted by science.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The majority (non-fringe) view is skeptical. Plazak (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mothman

I may not know how to navigate Wikipedia, but I know a lot about Mothman. So, please don't call my attempt to fix an obvious misstatement about Mothman as vandalism. I will gladly send you links to the appropriate sources, so that you can post yourself. This will show that you have a genuine interest in correctly describing the Mothman situation. I have applied for a user account on Wikipedia and look forward to working with you to make the Mothman page something that accurately reflects the case. 71.217.12.203 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but the manipulation of Mothman on Wikipedia has long been the subject of controversy on the Mothmanlives discussion list (now not very active, due to its being on Yahoo) and on Mothy Talk on Facebook. A lot of people are watching to see if some of the previous citations and researchers that WERE on the page get resinstated, rather than the host of skeptics now listed there. It is really is tragedy, what has been done to this page. So much work tossed out, and for what?71.217.12.203 (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and I hope you take some time to familiarize yourself with the encyclopedia's policies. You may be referring to material recently removed from the article that placed equal or undue weight on fringe views, or material that was not supported by reliable sources. Coast-To-Coast AM and forums such as Mothy Talk are not considered reliable or independent sources, and so are not suitable for use here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please describe what you consider a credible source. Western Fortean (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

How can you have a source, reliable or otherwise, for something that isn't real to begin with, it's like haveing a reliable source for Father Christmas or The Tooth Fairy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.214.245 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It would not seem to really matter whether or not further reports after 1967 can be "proven" or not, since the original ones weren't proven either, other than someone having reported them. There are several other reports out there since 1967, which were reported in the same manner as the original ones. Also, the experts that are now being cited on the page are not independent, each having a vested interest in a particular (entirely skeptical or debunking) point of view. Western Fortean (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edits of Aug. 21st are particular disturbing. Would you happen to be Loren Coleman? Western Fortean (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Cryptozoology, Ufology, and Other Pseudoscience versus Folkloristics

Folks, this article has long had a problem with not identifying academic studies versus pseudoscientific nonsense. We need to be a lot more careful with this going forward here. I've made some adjustments where necessary to identify pseudoscience versus academia. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Snowy Owl

You can't say that because something is rare it's unlikely to happen, and then go on to say that something is likely even though it's unlikely. that's just not how consistency works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:8402:ABB0:B5FD:6A0A:88E5:1275 (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Economics, Sociology, and Psychology are technically pseudosciences, and those comments aren't tagged with pseudoscience, so cryptozoology shouldn't be either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:8402:ABB0:B5FD:6A0A:88E5:1275 (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No, pseudoscience should be labelled wherever it is found. What kind of encyclopedia do you think we're running here? The 'hide the truth' handbook? BrianPansky (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Polish translation tag

Somebody inserted a tag at the top of the article requesting it be expanded using the Polish article as a source. After reviewing the Polish article I can’t agree. It’s full of fringe crypto zoology sources and unreliable personal websites. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Here's some sources--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC):

• https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2017/08/09/theres-been-a-record-number-of-flying-humanoid-sightings-over-chicago-this-year

• https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/apparently-the-mysterious-mothman-has-been-spotted-flying-over-chicago-mnultiple-times/

• Christopher R. Fee; Jeffrey B. Webb (29 August 2016). American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore [3 volumes]: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore (3 Volumes). ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-61069-568-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Mothman sighting in Moscow

My recent edit has been removed. I can see the point, and I apologize for not having done sufficient research prior to editing the Wikipedia.

That said, there's more than just an English blog to back up my contribution. The story has originally appeared in 2002, in a Russian-language Georgian newspaper "Свободная Грузия". There's a Russian Wikipedia entry for that newspaper and it has a website.

Currently the access to that specific article is paywalled, but its content has been shared by other resources, as well. I have verified that the paywalled source does indeed contain the story which was posted in the second link. If you want to prove that, you could either spend 19$, go to a library, or send me an email and I will send you the full text of the paywalled source. Long story short, it contains multiple entries including the one of interest.

So, if the reliability of the source was the only reason to undo my edit, I guess, the information can be now put back into the article. Document hippo (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

According to the translated text, the story is quoting the breathless claims of a Russian UFOlogist that Mothman was sighted before a local tragedy. Given the WP:FRINGE and WP:SENSATIONAL aspects, it deserves only a brief mention — if at all. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Precisely! Also, providing the link to Google translation has been a good idea. Apologies -- the story is so hilarious that I was tempted to explore it just a bit more than it deserved.

Another idea I was trying to convey was that UFOlogists have been quite common in Russia in 1990s. Not sure whether they are significantly less common now, but in 1990s they were significantly more apparent.

Here's a typical Russia's 1990s story.

Your edit is brilliant in regards of conveying that particular idea. Document hippo (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate "See Also" link?

I would have to question the "See Also" link, leading to the wikipedia page for "Mothra" ([[2]]). Neither page contains a mention of the other (and, to my knowledge, there is nothing related between the two other than the "moth" in their names), aside from the "See Also" links.

This would also question the corresponding "See Also" link on the "Mothra" page.

Ballpark frank (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Today's Mothman

Have there been any semi-recent Mothman sightings, like in the past few years, or even decade? Kakashilover7 (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Fallout 76?

So, on the popular culture side, the online game Fallout 76 takes place in West Virginia, and has the Mothman museum, Mothman themed power armor, Mothman statues, and more. I'm not comfortable with adding it myself as I am not sure of the whole Wikipedia guidelines on popular culture additions on pages like this, so what do others think? Also, for full reference of how Mothman is presented in Fallout 76 (for citing purposes, most of this is sourced directly from the game itself, you can check out https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Mothman AbsolutGrndZer0 (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Image

Is it a good idea to add this image to the article?

Artist's rendition of the mothman

Triangulum (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A professional illustration would be more acceptable IMO. DarkKnight2149 05:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you think is more professional? We must not forget that this creature nost likely doesn't exist. What kind of image would be better? Triangulum (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What I mean by "professional" is an image created by a professional illustrator and published (for example, in a newspaper or encyclopedia). Your illustration of Mothman is impressive but it was created by yourself. DarkKnight2149 17:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, like that. Thank you. I understand. Triangulum (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

If i may resurrect this discussion — while I understand the argument for a professional picture, I believe Triangulum's image would be a better fit than the current image (a photograph of the statue of Mothman). Triangulum's work correctly reflects the folkloristic and/or cryptozoological view of the Mothman, in accordance with the early testimonies — dark stocky shape, glowing red eyes — in contrast with the statue, which, while a fine work of art, was greatly altered into a detailed insectoid monster completely unlike the original creature. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind there is no "official" description because there is no "authority" regarding Mothman, it is a thing composed entirely of hearsay and rumor. So WP can't put undue weight on one artist's unique interpretation by making it the lead article image. The statue at least can be verified by secondary sources as Point Pleasant's commemoration of the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The use of an image to represent a creature that no one has even seen (because it probably doesn't exist) is trivial. Whether or not it's an accurate representation of the creature shouldn't really matter, because who's to say it's correct or not? Kakashilover7 (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I do think an image like this would be more beneficial than the picture of the statue. I think the illustration contributes to Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality. The illustration supports viewers ability to see both the skeptic and folklore interpretations. There is a rudimentary illustrations that was used in the newspaper as part of the article "In Fear of the UFO Bird." Something like this may fulfill the requirement of being a professional verifiable source while also depicting the different perceptions. PaulOnionsAuntie (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Festivals, Museums & Statue

The header for the “festival and statue” section of this page isn't quite accurate. The Mothman Museum and Research Center is also mentioned in this section which isn’t reflected in the heading. In my opinion, it would be worthwhile to change the header include the museum. Another viable option would be to change the header to something more comprehensive such as "Arts and Culture" or "Attractions." A characteristic of the statue that would be worth mentioning is that it boasts a live 24-hour "Mothcam" enabling people to visit from anywhere at any time. I think these minor changes would provide a more complete view of the impact of the Mothman legend in the community of Point Pleasant West Virginia. PaulOnionsAuntie (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"Local culture" or "Arts and culture" might be a good heading for that section. As for the Mothcam, et al, it would have to be sourced and footnoted. On Wikipedia, we cite sources to ensure verifiable content. WP:VERIFY is a good guideline to review if you intend on adding content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wamsley book

I removed material added and cited to a self published book by Mothman Press and Museum operator Jeff Wamsley that promotes a credulous and sensationalized narrative [3]. Not a WP:FRIND source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Killer Moth

@LuckyLouie: As a non-native English speaker, I am always glad when my grammar is improved. However, your edit does not make me totally lucky, for the following reasons: The name Mothman was used in the local media quite from the very beginning, see for example here and here in The Herald-Dispatch. So, when there is a source claiming "As the story spread beyond West Virginia, other newspapers coined new names... One Midwest editor apparently decided to name it after one of the villains - "Killer Moth" - from the then popular Batman TV show", we know from the facts that this is not to be taken at face value. Further, it remains a fact that also Batman himself is credited as an influence. Overall, I think it is legit to tell the readers of the many names used for the creature in an explicit way. So, I would like to restore the section, with some adaptions, but in principle as it was. --KnightMove (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a Talk page discussion. Since the newspaper clipping from November 17 uses the name “mothman”, I’m OK with saying something like “newspapers soon coined the term “Mothman”...” and referencing the fictional enemy of Batman. The text you had previously inserted mistakenly gave the impression that the name was coined by the first claimants (Roger and Linda Carberry) on the day of the first report, which is simply not the case. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I've copyedited the text to reflect that the name was coined by newspapers soon after the first reports. "Further, it remains a fact that also Batman himself is credited as an influence". The book The Encyclopedia of Vampires, Werewolves, and Other Monsters does say it was named after Batman, however this is likely a truncated summary of the Batman enemy Killer Moth, and is conflicted by other, more reliable sources. Note that author Rosemary Ellen Guiley is a well known WP:FRINGE proponent and not considered an authoritative source by Wikipedia. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive answer, I have let it sink in. My opinion about the situation the following:

1. If Rosemary Ellen Guiley is not a citable source, well then, Cassandra Eason certainly is even less and also to be taken out. You have added Richard Moreno as a source for Killer Moth, who is certainly a much more serious author. But then, he only says that apparently one editor decided to name it after Killer Moth and is not sure about it.
2. Much more important: The report of Ralph Turner from 19 November 1966 clearly states "Since Tuesday more than 10 people have spotted what they described as a "birdman" or "mothman"..." - Roger and Linda Carberry may have been the first, but not the only ones. We have a source stating that the term was used by eye-witnesses, and thus, the claim of later coinage by the newspapers contradicts the evidence.
3. There are many more, and more serious, sources only mentioning Batman resp. the popularity of the Batman series, without mentioning Killer Moth (example); and then, there is quite a distance between Killer Moth and Mothman, isn't there? A loose inspiration by Batman and Killer Moth is more plausible than a direct takeover from the latter. And not forgetting... Killer Moth did not even screen in that cited, popular televison series!

As a summary, I think my former section was - apart from necessary improvements in language and formatting - the most accurate way possible to summarize the connetion: Mothman was one of many terms used by the eye-witnesses and prevailed as the only name still in use. Sources cite an influence of the Batman franchise, some explicitly of Killer Moth. But as the claim of those sources of an only-later coinage of the term is proven wrong, it is not to be taken over - and the Batman/Mothman/Killer Moth connection only to be added with care in this regard. --KnightMove (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding #2, especially for a WP:FRINGE topic, we prefer the arms-length analysis of reliable secondary sources over contemporaneous news reports that are indulging in WP:SENSATIONAL, often tongue-in-cheek reporting. A WP editor combing through old news reports to select details that are at odds with secondary sources in order to create a unique narrative section about the mothman name is doing WP:OR, and we should avoid that.

As for the mothman name being influenced by Batman, I’d have to take a closer look at the sourcing, but perhaps we could include both Batman and Killer Moth as possible influences, rather than definitively declare it was either one or the other. In any case, it would be helpful to hear opinions from other editors, since there is WP:NODEADLINE. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"perhaps we could include both Batman and Killer Moth as possible influences, rather than definitively declare it was either one or the other" - this is exactly what I had done in the previous section.

As of WP:SENSATIONAL, well, even reporting the incident could be valued as such (some quality newspapers probably would have rejected that) - but I don't see a logic to disregard the journalist's wording "... what they described as a "birdman" or "mothman" as possibly non-truthful due to sensationalism. Without those reports, Mothman would not be a topic for a Wikipedia article. Any the term was used in the early reports across the newspapers, here in the Huntington Advertiser.

About WP:OR, I think it is a misuse of the rules to blindly follow secondary sources, if their claims are incompatbile with facts proven by primary sources. When a secondary source says "As the stories spread beyond West Virginia, other newspapers coined new names... Thus "Mothman" was born", although the name was evidentially and extensively used already in the very first reports in local newspapers, the claim is proven wrong and can't be taken over. Are we interested in facts or formalized rules (like trusting secondary sources) as a fetish? --KnightMove (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Batman/Mothman connection?

For the benefit of anyone who wants to edit this article (I won't be signing on as an editor myself because the behaviour of some of your more obsessive and less pleasant long-time editors makes trying to edit articles on topics like this a pointless waste of time for anyone who isn't truly passionate about the subject, and/or at least borderline autistic), the connection between Batman and Mothman seems to be this.

Batman's comic-book adversary Killer Moth has been around under various aliases since 1951, but he was always one of the many obscure Batman baddies most people have never heard of, and his only connection with the sixties TV series was to appear in a 15-minute pilot shot as test footage for new character Batgirl that was never aired. His costume does include wings, but otherwise its bright colours are a very poor fit with the reported appearance of the dark, shadowy Point Pleasant bogeyman. And he was never actually called Mothman, so he isn't very likely to have been the direct inspiration for the nickname.

On the other hand, here's a quote from Chapter 12 of Gray Barker's 1970 book "The Silver Bridge", which, though far less well-known than John Keel's "The Mothman Prophecies", predates it by 5 years and was the first book-length treatment of these events. Although marketed as non-fiction, it includes numerous passages that are clearly very fictional indeed, so it's hardly the most reliable of sources. But I think it's reasonable to assume he's telling the truth about not particularly fantastical details such as this:

"The phone rang. It was Channel 13, Huntington, whose news editor had already seen the brief AP item, and was trying to get the whole story. They carried the “Batman” TV show, and had coined a name for the bird-like creature, as a promo for the series. They thought “Mothman” might be a good appellation."

So there you go: it was a catchy nickname directly inspired by the Batman TV show, and not at all by the D-list Batman supporting character Killer Moth, whose vague similarity to Mothman appears to be purely coincidental. I hope this will be helpful to anyone who fancies having an edit-war with those nasty little boys who have successfully dissuaded people like me from wasting our time trying to improve Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.29.155 (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)