Talk:Almas (folklore)

Almas are a species of ...?

I'm very surprised by the text of this article. It is written as if almas have a confirmed existence and speculation is only whether they are hominids and from which origin. If we have no tissue, no bones, no teeths, no film, ..., only sightings that seem to not be easily reproducible, then I don't see why almas are more real than bigfoots, yetis, fairies, and ghosts.

Can the authors of the article provide more solid evidence? Otherwise the text of the article is not NPOV and should be tuned down by inserting some clear indication that we are dealing with unsubstantiated hypothesis PhS 13:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC).

I toned down the article and added a lot of citation requests. The Singing Badger 17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

...a species of proto-Ainu Paleoliths? The physical descriptions of Almas sound rather like they are trying to indicate some people who resembled Ainu. The Koreans also tell stories about a kind of human or humanoid creature, called misari, whose body is covered with dense hair and who dwells in the forested mountains foraging for herbs, roots, and berries. Of course, Ainu people also belong to the same species as the rest of extant humanity, Homo sapiens sapiens, and they are perfectly capable of producing fertile offspring with individuals of any other modern ethnic group. Ebizur 19:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Almas are the species of Miss Denisova, clearly :p Idontcareanymore (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Red Hair

Some scientist claim red hair originates from the Almaslar. Is this true? 81.102.35.179 20:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been speculated that red hair originated with the Neanderthals, though the evidence is pretty sketchy. If the Almaslar are real, then it's quite likely that they're survivals of the Neanderthals. Some Almas sightings (including Zana herself) mention reddish hair, which would give more credence to the idea that some Neanderthals had red hair. Afalbrig 23:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

I have tagged this for cleanup for a number of reasons. it needs tightening up, proper sourcing, fixing some unwieldy statements and a clearer division between the Cryptozzological aspects and the legendary aspects.LiPollis 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

circular reference

section "Captives";

"A wildwoman named Zana"

zana is a link to disambiguation page, where the corresponding entry redirects back to this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richlv (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Plural of Almas

Mongolian is not a Turkic language, nor does it use the suffix -lar to form plurals. I'm going to fix this error. Straughn 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, why would you explain the plural usage and then go on to ignore it completely? I was going to fix that, but I'm not really sure what's going on, lolDevahn58 (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd think because of the -s which may get confused for an English plural. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sooo, what happened with this? It's nine years later. Mongolian is indeed not a Turkic language (not is English), so why do we list the plural as -lar?Friendly Cave (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"captives" section

This section consists of an unreferenced and truly fantastic story. I am highly skeptical of it and can't imagine where to even begin to look to find any reliable source supporting it. If someone can find such a source, it could possibly be re-added. I'll point out that it is not possible for a human to breed with any form of known primate, and unless the evolutionary split were very recent it would not be expected to be possible for interbreeding to occur, so the story seems exceedingly dubious.

A wildwoman named Zana is said to have lived in the isolated mountain village of T'khina fifty miles from Sukhumi in Abkhazia in the Caucasus; some have speculated she may have been an Almas, but hard evidence is lacking.

Captured in the mountains in 1850, she was at first violent towards her captors but soon became domesticated and, indeed, was able to assist with simple household chores. Zana is said to have had sexual relations with a man of the village named Edgi Genaba, and gave birth to a number of children of apparently normal human appearance. Several of these children, however, died in infancy. Some commentators have attributed these early deaths to Zana's genetic incompatibility (as an Almas) with humans.

The father, meanwhile, gave away four of the surviving children to local families. The two boys, Dzhanda and Khwit Sabekia (born 1878 and 1884), and the two girls, Kodzhanar and Gamasa Sabekia (born 1880 and 1882), were assimilated into normal society, married, and had families of their own. Zana herself died in 1890. The skull of Khwit (also spelled Kvit) is still extant, and was examined by Dr. Grover Krantz in the early 1990s. He pronounced it to be entirely modern, with no Neanderthal features at all. Khwit's tooth was examined in 2008 as part of the Monster Quest tv show. Genetics tests were unable to definitely show Khwit's parentage, but tests will continue.

Another case is said to date from around 1941, shortly after the German invasion of the USSR. A "wild man" was captured somewhere in the Caucasus by a detachment of the Red Army under Lt. Col. Vargen Karapetyan. He appeared human, but was covered in fine, dark hair. Interrogation revealed his apparent inability (or unwillingness) to speak, and he is said to have been shot as a German spy. There are various versions of this legend in the cryptozoological literature, and, as with other Almas reports, hard proof is absent.

Locke9k (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've read the Zana story in this book[1], and it features a modern picture of a Soviet scientist holding the skull of one of the alleged hybrid children of Zana. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Zana story crops up in 'A Wizard's Bestiary' by Oberon Zell as well - which, despite the name and its author, debunks and offers rational explanations for a fair few mythical beasties and cryptids. I won't add it back in myself, but I'll throw it out there and see if anyone wants to check its cited sources for validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.232.77 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Apples?

Alma is the word for apple in a number of Turkic languages. Alma=Almas? Almaty is the largest city in Kazakhstan. Kazakh is a Turkic language. Almaty=Almasty? These stories tend to come from Turkic speaking areas or very close to Turkic speaking areas. "Covered in red hair." Apples are red.

Think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.97.86 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

DNA Evidence

There should be a study which attempts to extract DNA from Zana's sons skull or tooth.

Given the cryptozoology community has been basted with fund increases lately (do to sensationalism television) if they have any shred of credibility remaining they will attempt to do this. Maybe it can be even be done by New York's befamed Todd Disotell?

The skull should show DNA that is incongruent with most humans in the area, or at least should be significantly more divergent. Given that Zana is his mother his mtDNA would be highly abberant and as-predicted by cryptozoologists non-human or non Modern Human. This would inform whether the alma story is in fact part of larger story of hominid survival in the Middle-East.

67.142.130.35 (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeti or not Yeti?

This article is contradictory. In the Description section, it reads, "the Almas is generally considered to be more akin to 'wild people' in appearance and habits than to apes (in contrast to the Yeti of the Himalayas)." Then in the Explanations section, it claims that "descriptions of Almases are similar to that of the Yeti of the Himalayas." Neither of these statements is sourced. Which is accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.220.29 (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Yeti refers to a specific type of humanoid ape-men of the Himalayas, whereas the Almasti refer to the humanoid ape-men of the Caucasus Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

People vs. Creatures

Right now the article refers to Almaslar as creatures, but the descriptions in it, and the speculations about connections with other branches of genus Homo, make it seem safer to refer to Almaslar as people. In this case, a move to Almaslar, on the analogy of other articles referring to groups of people, might also be appropriate. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There is not a shred of convincing evidence concerning the existence of the Alma. Therefore it isn't necessary to pay attention to such formalities. After all, "creature" isn't really an evaluating term. Its neutral and (in my opinion) appropriate to use --Benzin-Papst-21 (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

"British anthropologist Myra Shackley in Still Living? describes Ivan Ivlov's 1963 observation of a family group of Almas. Ivlov, a pediatrician, decided to interview some of the Mongolian children who were his patients, and discovered that many of them had also said that they had seen Almases and that neither the Mongol children nor the young Almas were afraid of each other. Ivlov's driver also claimed to have seen them (Shackley, 91)."

This extract is an exact copy of a text-section found on: http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com/the_almasty.htm It should be edited or must be vanished --Benzin-Papst-21 (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

What indicates it was not taken from Wikipedia in the first place? FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FunkMonk. The article on cryptozoo has a copyright date of 2011 and the information in wikipedia was added in 2004. Iainstein (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if that is true, where is the actual citation information? The text doesn't exactly make it clear. Rppo (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Herodotus' Treatise on the Ancient Colchians

Doesn't Herodotus 2.104 mention the ancient Colchians as a dark people, akin to the Aethiopians. Wouldn't the Almas, especially regarding Zana's DNA, regard them to be continuous with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4105:D65:5437:1E38:37DB:EA1C (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Almas (cryptozoology). 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:

• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090715024948/http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/living8.html to http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/living8.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100129061319/http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/bfhunting.html to http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/news/bfhunting.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

This appears to be yet another folklore topic that has drawn the attention of pseudoscience proponents over the years. Please be extra wary about the sources introduced to the article. Let's keep it reliable. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed some obvious fringe material. It probably needs a lot more surgery. And the "skin of an Almas" bit does not appear in the cited source, so I've tagged it "failed verification." --tronvillain (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and just reverted it to the revision I made before the fringe version. I don't think we can work with any of those sources, and I am not finding much discussion of the topic, unfortunately. I am seeing a little bit about the topic outside of the 'hey, it's bigfoot!' stuff on JSTOR, but not much. I am sure there's a notable body of scholarship out there somewhere, though. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I changed the notes to citations. The comment about the poor explanations of the name should probably be covered in the main text. I am not certain of the description of the Caucasus as located in Central Asia. It is partially located in Europe, and partly in Western Asia. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Almas arbitrarily included in Folklore category

This entry was in crypozoology. Arbitrarily it is being included in folklore category, without any citation. It needs revising.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AranyaPathak (talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of an ongoing edit of page Alamas

As I have already remarked, it not a question of Science or pseudoscience. There is an academic consensus that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. One can not justify the act of content deletion by using this well known fact. There is a dearth of content in this category which made me compelled to contribute in this segment. I noticed there is a category change that took place from cryptozoology to folklore, without citing enough materials from the domain of folklore and cultural anthropology as per WP:NPOVS. I believe this not to be a political forum rather an encyclopedia where value judgement should be avoided and there should not be any place of partisanship (violation of WP:NPOV). It is also unfathomable how few people are abusing their rights based exclusively on their taste, preference and opinion without providing adequate reference, source and citation.

Unfortunately, the concerned users are deleting the contributions being made by me, all of which are supported by valid sources. Following list of books have been cited due to their relevance in this article -

Jean-Paul Debenat (2015). Asian Wild Man: The Yeti, Yeren & Almasty: Cultural Aspects & Evidence of Reality. Translated by Paul Leblond. Hancock House. ISBN 978-0888397-195. Brian Regal (2013) [2008]. Searching for Sasquatch: Crackpots, Eggheads, and Cryptozoology. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1137349439. Hans Schiltberger's manuscript, Munich municipal library, Sign. 1603 Odette Tchernine (1961). The Snowman and Company. Robert Hale Ltd. Odette Tchernine (1971). In Pursuit of the Abominable Snowman. Taplinger Publishing. ISBN 0-8008-4187-5. Rinchen, “Almas Still Exists in Mongolia,” Genus 20 (1964); [Michael Heaney, “The Mongolian Almas: A Historical Reevaluation of the Sighting by Baradin,” Cryptozoology 2 (1983);

It is completely unfathomable, that while my edit involved seven citations to seven reliable resources, one of the users have claimed a single reference as fringe source (without justifying his/her claim though, seemed to be based on his/her preference and taste solely) and he did not feel it to be necessary to elaborate how that single purported claim refutes the rest six references.

Also, though I have been making it very clear from the beginning that Cryptozoology is pseudoscience, I am subjected to insult by one user here by accusing me as proponent of pseudoscience. I wish the administrators will kindly observe their valuable feedback regarding violation of WP:PA.

It is a question to the users who are vandalizing (violation WP:VD) my contributions (for seemingly very obvious reason of personal bias, agenda and preferences). Further, no one has taken the pain to substantiate the charge of the references being fringe content 'Wikipedia goes by reliable sources.

All the incidents that are happening here can be concluded to the fact that a new honest user (me) is being discouraged from editing (WP:BITE) and contributing to this encyclopedia, especially under the circumstances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies.

Please refer the following pages: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Almas_(folklore) 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Almas_(folklore)&action=history) 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuchuna&action=history.

AranyaPathak (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't have seven reliable sources there: Cryptozoology clearly isn't a reliable source, In Pursuit of the Abominable Snowman, Snowman and Company, and Asian Wild Man: The Yeti, Yeren & Almasty look unlikely to be reliable sources; Searching for Sasquatch: Crackpots, Eggheads, and Cryptozoology does seem to be reliable; the translation of Hans Schiltberger's manuscript is interesting, but seems to require original research to tie it in unless it's actually mentioned by a reliable source; and Almas Still Exists in Mongolia is interesting (mentioned by Regal). So what is that, maybe two reliable sources? --tronvillain (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I provided various references while editing this page "Rinchen, “Almas Still Exists in Mongolia,” Genus 20 (1964)" was one them. Which is also a cryptozoological text. All my contents were deleted by crying out "psuedo-science" and "fringe-source". What can I say, this sorry situation is in a dire need of rectification for the sake of standard and quality of Wikipedia entries. --AranyaPathak (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The Genus article makes zero mentions of cryptozoology and is available on JSTOR. However, it is worth checking into it further, because it does seem to go pretty hard into the notion of an 'ape-man', which raises some red flags. This could, however, we apart from the subculture, as this was all the rage in certain circles at the time (including exterior to cryptozoology). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"Kaptar" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kaptar. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 8#Kaptar until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Y'all fucked up the Mongolian transliteration

As a Mongolist, the transliteration used in this article is horrifying. If you're not able to transliterate correctly, please do not try. I might come back and fix this, but I've got a dissertation to write.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.88.93 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)