Talk:Drop bear/Archive 1

It is not a myth

My name is John, and I grew up in Latrobe Valley, in the Australian Bush, where there ARE dropbears. There has been a coverup by our council for as long as I have been born. They are common knowledge in that particular area of bush. I can really say that I have seen them myself. I have been trying to find some accurate information on the bear on the Internet and I am appauled with the jokes and articles calling it folklore. As soon as I venture out into this small conceded area of bushland I will return with photos so you can all have the chance to see the amazing dropbear. And yes, they can be very deadly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintaro (usurped) (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 March 2006‎

who's copying here?

I stumbled over this one: www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Drop-Bear - and it's a precise copy of the wikipedia text. is that actually permitted?

Yes this GNU

Methinks that the pictures are scary

Update.

Just a brief update to keep the great Australian conspiracy under wraps. Little do they know of our Steve Irwin cloning plants... Anyhow. Yes, the Jan 17 updates are erroneous, maybe even false (have you ever lost a family member to a drop bear - I haven't. But I might!). But they are temporary in order to achieve a specific effect elsewhere. Replacement with the previous "correct" data will by no means earn my ire or even complaint.

Dont ruin it

The Drop Bear legend is much more fun for us Aussies if Americans dont know about it, I mean they are gullible but if they have read about it here they are not going to believe it... :(

Friend of mine is Aussie, she already filled me in. Sorry. ;-) --Cuervo 21:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The people who would believe in Dropbears aren't normally the kind of people you would find browsing an internet encyclopedia. ;) ~Bongomanrae

I was told a story about during a military exercise in the US, between American and Australian Forces. Australian soldiers told of the Drop Bears, about the horrors where they'd jump down from the trees and ravage your head with their sharp claws and menacing fangs, and that the repellant was to wear Vegemite on the face and on the neck. They explained this was why Vegemite was created. Apparently it travelled so far up, that Australian commanders would tell the same thing to their US counterparts. So during the next exercise to be held in Australia, American commanders warned their men on the dangers of dropbears, and to regularly wear Vegemite when travelling in the bush. I bet that would have been a fantastic silent laugh. :P --takagawa-kun 16:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Theres already plenty of info on drop bears on the internet, they can find out about it at lots of other places [1] -- Astrokey44|talk 03:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO

IMO, the background of this bit of folklore is that eucalypt trees shed branches without warning, so it is unwise to camp beneath them. Yes, people have been killed. One tells one's kids about the drop bears for the same reason that germans dark-age Germans told kids terrifying stories about kids who get lost in the forest. --(From User:203.10.231.229, moved here by Ardonik 02:03, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC))

Be that as it may, a widow maker is not a randomly dropped branch in SA, but rather one which has been weakened by fire and drops sometime after.

Eucalypt trees do not have to be weakened by fire to drop branches. They can be randomly dropped during windy weather. Eucalypts are notorious for dropping branches, and this is well documented in local newspapers and known by most Australians. However, I do not believe there is a link between dropping branches and drop bears. (I am Australian, born and raised) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.2.35 (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

from VfD

On 29 July 2004, this article was nominated for deletion. The consensus reached was to keep the article. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Drop Bear for a record of the discussion. Rossami 00:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

vandalism by 4.43.140.129

The above editor has deleted the article category and external link for no apparent reason, as well as vandalising my user page. --Centauri 03:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well no wonder!! You're giving the game away you deadbeat!! Drop bears are a national treasure, used to protect out forests from the ravishes of roaming American and Japanese tourists.

The ravishes of roaming Americans? Did you mean radishes. --Gene_poole 11:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoop Snake

Lesser known, but still quite fearsome, is the Hoop Snake, which bites its own tail and forms its body into a rigid circle. Having established the 'hoop', the snake rolls silently down a hill towards its victim, using the momentum of its descent to uncoil in a sudden vicious strike.

Keeps tourists and bushwalkers checking nervously over their shoulders as they descend an incline. Captainmax 04:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Very amusing... haven't heard that one before.--Centauri 05:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I've heard of hoop snakes before but half a world away. It was in reference to the Ozark Mountains. Andromeda321 23:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

the hoop snake derives from truck tyre remnants lying beside the highway -- when a big 18-wheeler has a blowout they often leave behind a hoop of tyre rubber (along with lots of other bits of tyre) that looks like a round black snake [biting its tail]. --Stewartjohnson 13:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

we have an article on the Hoop snake. it could use some revision and expansion. anyone? Lisapollison 03:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

Drop bears are humorous, mythical "creatures". There is a slight possibly that they are loosely based on real extinct creatures. They are no more cryptozoological than the jackalope or the pacific midwestern tree octopus - ie not at all. --Gene_poole 03:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"They are no more cryptozoological than the jackalope" - not so fast. The jackalope os probably best explained by a hyperkeratosis disease, but I'd like to see someone get behind the origins of the myth. At present, I can't tell whether it's a fanciful invention by people of European origin (which is possible; it has all the ingredients of a droll tale), or inspired by Aboriginal mythology (and in which case it the possibility of a Thylacoleo link deserves serious research. Not into the drop bear phenomenon of course, but into the underlying Aboriginal tale(s). Dysmorodrepanis 13:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your point. I suspect it's a white Australian invention for which people are now trying to back-engineer other origins - but I can point to no sources to prove that.--Gene_poole 13:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the humour value involved in telling visitng Americans that vicious, carnivorous Koala Bears will descend from the Eucalypts and tear out their jugulars if they aren't careful, the fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a "Drop Bear" and this article really should be edited to reflect that- Commander Zulu

Widow-makers?

I've lived in various parts of Australia and have never heard of eucalypts described as widow-makers. Is there a source for this claim? --Gene_poole 05:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not an uncommon term amongst the loggers and foresters i've worked with. --Beervatar 06:52, 16 Sept 2006

The SA CFS refer to trees whose branches have been weakened by fire and which then fall )either a branch or the whole tree) some time after the fire, when they appear to be safe, as widow makers.

Ever since i first went camping i've heard of them being called widow makers from many different people. eucalypts are widely known to shed limbs unpredictibly and not limited to association with a previous fire.210.23.130.14 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture

Does anyone else think it's a little ridiculous to have a list of pop culture references here that's longer than the actual article? I'm assuming most of the games etc described are fairly inconsequential. Anyone care to do some pruning before I leap in with the secateurs? --Gene_poole 04:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What Goes Up Must Come Down

Hence, this is what a drop bear is. The process has a another name. 'Widow Makers.' Again, Indigenous Lore, that non-Indigenous people don't understand and pick up 1/10th the tale of and go on silly about. Its linked to that bunyip + koala affinity and its the third aspect. However, if yah don't know what a bunyip is, yah canna work it out.

Can we have that in English please? --Gene_poole 14:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rabies

The version of the drop bear myth I have always heard/told involves a sort of Rabies that affects the Koalas. That doesn't seem to be reflected in the page at all. 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Never heard that one before. Care to expand on it? --Gene_poole 04:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture?

I'm an Aussie, and was wondering could someone please upload a picture of a drop bear here? It doesn't matter whether it's photoshopped or not... but just to make the page more appealing? Megan102 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There's now a pic! Thanks to the person who uploaded it!! Megan102 07:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to get that picture removed. Any illustration still has to meet criteria of coming from a reliable serious source. I don't think many drop bear images appear. Possible media include the Bundy ads (which utilise a polar bear, not a koala) and the cover of Killer Koala by Kenneth Cook (My brother had this book, so I know it has a dangerous looking koala on at least that edition)--ZayZayEM 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all... I love that book, Killer Koala!! I haven't read it for ages though. IMO, the picture should be added back up there, but with a caption stating that it's an "artist's impression of a drop bear" or something along the lines of that.Megan102 11:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's a taxobox then for your viewing pleasure, which was removed form the article... First person to guess where the mouth comes from gets... um... immunity from drop bears! Brisvegas 04:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Drop bear
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Infraclass:	Marsupialia
Order:	Diprotodontia
Suborder:	Vombatiformes
Family:	Phascolarctidae
Genus:	Phascolarctos
Species:	P. extremius
Binomial name
Phascolarctos extremius (Australian folklore)

Why does one need a photoshopped picture? Just show the teeth and claws of a real koala :) Mattabat 06:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing facts

Drop bears are not real - I'll admit that much even though I'm an Aussie, but it is based on real life much more closely than is covered in this article. The only basis for this myth mentioned in this article is the dropping branches, and the extinct species. Rabid koalas were mentioned above - a version of the myth I'm not actually familiar with (which is saying something), however it does sound like a misinterpretation of one story I've heard. (I might point out that rabies does not occur in Australia, so it is impossible to find a rabid koala.)

The story I've heard actually basically involves a normal koala dropping out of a tree to land on someone and attack them. The theory was that it was mating season, and the koala was very territorial, hence why it attacked a human. The Wikipedia article on koalas actually states they are quite aggressive towards humans when disturbed, so this does not sound like an unlikely scenario. It's also not unheard of for koalas to fall out of trees. If a human is underneath the koala when it falls, then naturally the koala will land on this person and hang on to them, rather than bounce off, hence perpetrating the drop bear myth. However, it is usually the baby koalas that fall out of trees, and they don't tend to attack. The mother might attack, though, if the person the baby lands on tries to hold onto the baby, but I'm guessing that she'll climb out of the tree, rather than jump.

On a side note, it is absolutely hilarious when a koala lands on someone who has just heard the drop bear myth - imagine mass hysteria. lol :D

Also, Americans are not the main focus of this myth. City-slickers (mostly including Aussies), young children and (stupid? gullible?) foreigners in general tend to be the main victims of this myth. Due to America's unfortunate reputation of stupidity, Americans do tend to end up being victimised by this myth a little more than people from other countries, but they are by no means the major focus of this myth - the amount of seemingly gullible city-slickers in Australia is much higher than the amount of seemingly gullible Americans.

If I don't get any objections, i'll add my contributions to this article. If you don't like them you can always edit or remove them. Bill Killed The Unicorns 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is mere speculation. Can you point us to any documented reports of koalas falling out of trees and landing on top of people? I'd suggest the relative scarcity of both koalas and people in Australia make this an almost incomprehensibly rare likelihood. --Gene_poole 09:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally know two people who have had koalas land on them. Since it very rarely ends in significant injury to the person involved (if any), it doesn't exactly enter the media, so such references will be hard to come by. Koalas falling out of trees are well documented, so there's no debate there. Also, one method of catching koalas involves making them fall out of a tree, so it's not unlikely that a falling koala was a little off-course and ended up falling on one of the people holding the net. See also: http://www.cqkoala.org.au/trakcatch.htm

Since drop bears are a made up story, it's going to be a bit difficult to get a reference on them. There's plenty of sites people have published where they've written their own version of the myth, but I have trouble seeing these as being any more or less reliable than the written testimony of an Aussie wikipedian. Best of luck with your research. Bill Killed The Unicorns

Can we please stop being dicks about this and put it in? Show some Aussie pride and keep up the legacy and fool the world?:: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.254.54 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Phascolarctos involus

Does anyone have any information on this species? I can not find any scientific papers on it or even mentioning it in ScholarGoogle.--Mr Fink 02:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Of all the people that would NOT need to invent a potentially lethal animal to scare tourists...

You'd think Australians would be top of the list. I mean aren't the salties, the whities, the box jellyfish, the taipans, the fear snakes, the funnelwebs, the Tasmanian devils, the dingoes, the flesh-eating ants and the sea snakes enough? And don't they have bunyips already anyway? Serendi^podous 14:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

haha, you aren't serious about the bunyips??? tazzie devils are going out :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.7.247 (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case you'd think then that Americans, what with grizzly bears, bob cats, rattlesnakes, alligators, black widow spiders, tornadoes, California earthquakes, erupting volcanoes, snow storms, freezing overnight temperatures, rabies, California wildfires, would not need a hoop snake myth. But they have one nonetheless - for the same reason probably that this myth exists. (Tasmanian devils don't actually kill people. Dingo is merely a naturalised wild dog from Asia and like domestic dogs, it has been known to occasionally kill a child.) Flesh eating ants? Aren't they endemic to Hollywood, California? Format (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What is this doing here?

Drop bears? Are you serious? Yeah it's funny but this isn't the place. And this article actually seems to be written like it's serious.

Can we leave the drop bears at unencyclopedia and not confuse it with actual folklore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.186.112 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like actual folk lore to me. --124.170.201.226 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

As touched on higher up this talkpage, and per general consensus and precedent on WP, the list of pop culture was extremely lengthy. Trivia lists such as this, if tolerated at all, are there to show that something has appeared in culture, not to show every time something has ever been mentioned. 3 refs is more than sufficient. Deiz talk 06:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Snipes are real

Why is it that a snipe is included in the list of jokes? Just about every American beach I've ever been to has had these birds. On top of that, the link leads to a snipe hunt article. Sure, a snipe hunt is, in itself, a wild-goose chase, it is quite literally just that. Geese are also real, so why isn't a goose listed, and likewise linked? JourneyV (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. Freikorp (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Add getlost.com.au

{{editsemiprotected}} Suggest adding http://dropbears.getlost.com.au/ as a reference.

Not a reliable source. Treats the subject as fact. Josh Parris 06:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Drop bears in "The Third Day, The Frost"

I just recently read the book, and it includes a scene where 2 prisoners doing work spook the foreign soldier watching them by describing the drop bears and what they do, creeping the soldier out and making him nervous. Might be worth putting in the article, seeing as both the book and its author, John Marsden, are quite famous. 144.132.244.116 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That actually used to be mentioned in the article, I'm not sure at what point it got removed. I definitely think it is worthy of inclusion. Freikorp (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 61.69.171.237, 7 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Contributor: Ms Leanne Martin relating from late father's talk on the subject. He was a WW2 Australian Soldier. leanne_martinau@yahoo.com.au

text for insertion as period reference:

The story was said to have been created to humourously put the wind up the American soldiers who were stationed in Australia during World War 2. They were told that if they left the urban areas to enjoy the bush, or went on exercises in the bush, that the 'nasty drop bears' would fall out of the trees onto them and eat them.

61.69.171.237 (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

All you need is a reference, the text or something like that will be added once you have a valid reference backing up that claim. You cannot add something to wikipedia just because it is interesting. Freikorp (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from UpNComing, 20 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The current article states 'Drop-bears' are ficticious, this is not true, just rare and only found in remote area, it's a common misconception among the British that there is no such thing, and this is a form of Koala, where drop-bear is the common name for the clawed marcupial closely related to the Koala, but not identical.

Pleas grant me permission to edit this page.

Thankyou

UpNComing (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide a reliable source to verify that claim. As for your last sentence, it's actually impossible for software reasons. Once you have been editing for a few days without incident, you will then be able to edit this article directly. Note, though, that will not change the fact that you must provide a reliable source in order to verify claims that these animals exist. I recommend reviewing WP:RS, which explains exactly what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Wattoatberneray, 27 May 2011

Please change first line to include scientific name and reference to Australian Museum.

A drop bear {Thylarctos plummetus}

Not done: Cryptids can't have scientific names. We're not going to promote a joke page, even if it was created by a museum. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 132.234.208.204, 12 September 2011

Please remove 'fictious' from the description of drop bear (dropbear).

132.234.208.204 (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Drop bears are fictitious. --McGeddon (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2011

please change "fictious" in the first sentence of the article to "terrifying" - http://www.dropbearaware.com/ http://australianmuseum.net.au/Drop-Bear

58.111.82.223 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Terrifying indeed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The whole point of semi-protection of this article is to keep shit like this out! This is an encyclopedia, not a fairytale mill. Roger (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As the article already observes, the Australian Museum entry is an acknowledged hoax. Manning (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2012

i am jamie ogivie and i have knowledge of drop bears that id like to share thank you Jamieogilvie (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Then share it here first so that we can either approve or deny your request, that's how this works......Freikorp (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 114.77.174.173, 5 June 2012

Remove the fictous and replace it with deadly, my dad died from being attacked by a drop bear, and I think it's really rude that you think that they're not real.

Not done: Upload a copy of the official coroner's report indicating "Death by Drop-bear", and we will consider it. Manning (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please replace the word fictitious with vicious. I saw a drop bear attack my cat. Not a pretty sight.

Not done: See WP:OR. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please add the Penny Arcade comic http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/08/07 to list of Drop Bear in popular culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesvrcek (talk • contribs) 15:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Published research

It's not going to be done and the discussion is going nowhere. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Research published in Australian Geographer Volume 43, Issue 4, 2012 confirms the existence of drop bears. Please remove "fictitious" from the article. 86.157.84.232 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Not done: To repeat what has been said many times, the subject of this article is fiction. The article referenced above is parody. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC) You have no evidence for that. Now two sources confirming existence of drop bears mentioned in this Talk which should satisfy WP:Verifiability. It is only your personal opinion that they do not exist, which in face of growing evidence to the contrary, is starting to look like Black Swan Theory. The article needs acknowledge their existence or provide sources confirming their non-existence, in which case the article should cite both (for and against) in order to maintain WP:NPOV 86.157.84.232 (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Cute. Here's the paper's author saying "I cannot claim that it was peer reviewed" and a mock-surprise "oh no, we’ve been duped" from the journal's editor who goes onto say that the paper was intended to "encourage people to think outside the box, enjoy geography and wonder at the fate of biogeography". --McGeddon (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC) The Register is hardly reliable source of information. We need to maintain WP:NPOV on this one. 86.157.84.232 (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC) The article you cite, aside from being obviously parody, is not peer-reviewed. That's an objective enough assessment to ignore it. The larger issue is that Wikipedia isn't a game just for the purpose of manipulating rules, as you seem to think. The end objective is an encyclopedia, the rules are merely a way to get there. If you could find a way to manipulate the rules to justify including false information, that would mean that the rules need to be fixed, not that the false information needed to be included. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from 203.206.25.239, 29 August 2012

I do hope that self appointed moderators of this page are not leaving themselves, and Wikipedia, open for legal action should some poor victim of a Dropbear attack claim that despite repeated edit requests to fully inform the public of the dangers of Dropbears they were uninformed due to some people calling them fictitious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.25.239 (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Give us a link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper that lists the dangers of drop bears. then we might re-consider. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00049182.2012.731307 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.70.122 (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 November 2012

Please add the following reference to "In popular culture":

Dropbears appear in the webcomic Spacetrawler (page 273): death by dropbear is one of the killing methods that the evil Eebs employ on two of the copies of Dusty the Australian. Link: http://spacetrawler.com/2012/11/04/spacetrawler-273/ 92.155.54.81 (talk) 12:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Adding that from that source would be WP:OR. Sorry. If you can find a valid source from a newspaper, journal, etc. that has this then we can add it. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper Source" "Drop Bear complacency a danger to us all"

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/drop-bear-complacency-a-danger-to-us-all-20120125-1qh6p.html#ixzz2SaH4as1d

I hope Visitors to Australia have adequate travel insurance. I don't see why Australian Tax Payers should pay for the complacency that results from Wikipeida referring to Drop Bears as "fictitious". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.138.207 (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Page Not Found." It would seem to anti-drop bear conspiracy got to your link. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Page is there for me. SF Author John Birmingham, who also has a column in the national newspaper of Australia, exhorts his readers to go to Wikipedia to "fix" the Drop Bears article. I'll send him an email on the subject, but we should be prepared for an unusual number of attempts to modify this article. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, didn't notice the date of the article. January 2012. This is ancient, no reason to expect a horde of edits. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Drop bears also made an appearance in The Last Continent by Terry Pratchett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.178.239 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I enjoyed that segment of the book. Could add something like: In the novel "The Last Continent" by Terry Pratchett, set on a continent loosely inspired by Australia, one of the main characters has an encounter with drop-bears, and when he mentions it to locals afterwards he is mocked as gullible. Pratchett's drop-bears are described as a close relative of the koala with a thick, heavily padded posterior used to knock their prey unconscious when they drop. After doing so several drop-bears would gather around and eat the victim. He states that they are not particularly effective predators should this initial attack fail to render the victim unconscious. Sonzaisuru (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Sonzaisuru

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2013

Australians are outraged that this wikipedia page has been changed. Drop bears are a fun prank that everyone enjoys and was previously so great because it was backed up by wikipedia. There should at least be two pages, one that backs up the prank and one that ruins it like this one!

-From your friends from down under! 31.208.44.188 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. It is not permitted to have two articles on one subject, and Wikipedia is not the place to encourage hoaxes. Freikorp (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

drop bears originality

We were always told as children never to camp or walk near river red gum trees as they have Drop bears living in them, so we always kept clear of them. I found out later the river red gum tree has the ability to fall or drop a limb at anytime without warning, people ,cars and campsites have been crushed due to falling limbs,some fatal.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chainsaw62 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The referenced articles (eg. the Austalian Museum page) has given the scientific classification name "Thylarctos plummetus". I think it can be cited in the first sentence:

A drop bear (or dropbear) (Thylarctos plummetus) is a fictitious Australian marsupial.

In the See also section I've suggest to include Hoop snake too. --Madacs (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's already there. Last sentence of the first paragraph. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The Drop Bear myth originated in the Inverell district of NSW in 1973 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.158.17.106 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Source? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014

Would like to add into the see also section the wiki page for the Yara-ma-yha-who - a creature from aboriginal folklore that shares strong characteristics with drop bears http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yara-ma-yha-who Wazzats (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done There appears to be more overlap than a Yowie - Arjayay (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2014

It is a part of Australian culture to acknowledge dropbears as real - there is no evidence to suggest the existence of God and yet the wikipedia article does not label God as 'fictitious'. Why then should the dropbear be labelled fictitious? The reality of the dropbear is part of our cultural heritage and should not be labelled or dismissed as a story - this is an example of gross cultural insensitivity. 124.188.124.3 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:HOAX. --McGeddon (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2014

The second chapter of the introduction is bullshit - does the author even live in Australia? These are dangerous animals, I have the scars to prove it. They're rare, but they're real and we have enough terrifying creatures to terrorise foreigners with. This article is a joke. 124.188.124.3 (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support any proposed changes. Cannolis (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2014

Drop Bears should not be labelled as fictitious. The Alex Boese, the author of the Museum of Hoaxes, is s self published source who is not an expert in the field of Australian ecology. This is clearly not a reliable source (per WP:SPS). If anything, this news article from the The Sydney Morning Herald, specifically denying this claim, is a more credible source. Besides, what type of ecologist would go so far for the sake of humour to publish a scientific report in a scientific journal about tracking a fictitious animal? 174.88.18.66 (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done. You're lat to the party. April Fools Day was nearly a week ago. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you didn't specify what was wrong with my request. If you find anything wrong with my request, may you please specify. Also, I deliberately waited a week after April 1st so I would be taken seriously and not be brushed aside, apparently to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.18.66 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There exist no verifiable or reliable sources documenting the existence of drop bears. To the contrary, it is well documented that they are a hoax. Reading further up this talk page shows that this request comes up quite frequently, with the same result. See also WP:HOAX. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So are you claiming the Museum of Hoaxes, a self published web page by someone with no expertise in the relevant field (again, per,WP:SPS) to be a verifiable source for drop bears, while a reputable newspaper published in 2012 from Australia is not? Also, are you saying that someone actually published a scientific journal tracking a fictitious animal? Besides the Museum of Hoaxes, what are your other sources asserting it as a hoax?

I realized this article has been a target for vandalism before, which is why I tried to take the necessary precaution so I would not be presumed as another vandal, so thank you for taking this request more seriously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.18.66 (talk • contribs) 02:19, April 7, 2014‎

Asked and answered. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what was answered? The issues labelled in my previous post remain unaddressed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:00, 174.88.18.66 (talk • contribs) April 7, 2014‎

Closing request per WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Sam Sailor ^Sing 06:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to close the request, then so be it, but can you at least try to answer my questions specifically, other than repeating the claim that it is a hoax.

• Is the Museum of Hoaxes a reputable source on Drop Bears?
• Is the article "Indirect Tracking of Drop Bears Using GNSS Technology" based on tracking a fictitious mammal?
• And would it be that much trouble to provide another source that it is a hoax as I already requested?

I've already asked all of these questions, and you've failed to answer any of them. The first two are simple yes no questions, and the other is asking for more sources on a "well documented" claim. If you've already reached the consensus that this is a hoax, then it doesn't seem like I can change that, but you can at least allow discussion instead of ignoring any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.18.66 (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Off topic chat

Queensland subspecies There is no doubt that the southern states of Australia have been plagued by drop bears that are recognizably different from koalas. Environmental factors appear to have caused a reduction in human exposure and subsequently a falling off of reports of drop bear attacks. Sightings of southern drop bears also appear to be becoming rarer, in fact, southern drop bears are hardly ever seen except around their mating season (in early April) when they are presumably more active. The North East coast of Australia is home to a smaller but more insidious subspecies. The Queensland drop bears are almost indistinguishable from koalas and are frequently mistaken for them. It has been reported that the only easy way to differentiate a Queensland drop bear from a koala is whether it traumatically decapitates tourists. Sadly, the Queensland museum has had its funding withdrawn from their drop bear breeding program after an unfortunate incident whereby a live specimen was mistakenly sent to Alma Park Zoo (now closed). Numbers of Queensland drop bears have been historically difficult to calculate. Attempts to quantify the relative proportions of koalas to drop bears have been ethically questionable and generally detrimental to the tourist industry and have been subsequently abandoned. The depiction on the Wikipedia page is obviously of a Queensland drop bear taken as it is launching an attack. There are a number of such photographs in circulation, harvested from mobile phones of missing tourists whose fate would have been still unknown if not for such posthumous evidence. 121.222.245.124 (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC) This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. If you have reliable sources discussing variations of this fictitious animal, feel free to add the material. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture - Halo 4

I'm suggesting an addition to the pop culture section. I came to Wikipedia searching for drop bears because there is an occasional daily challenge in Halo 4 called "Drop Bears!" which can be completed through accomplishing three assassinations on the opposing team during a match (assassinations being when one player sneaks up behind another player and kills them from behind, or drops on them from above and kills them). The achievement name actually makes sense after learning what drop bears are supposed to be and how they attack, and it's another place where drop bears appear in popular culture.

References

75.146.143.37 (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've changed this from an edit request to a discussion. This would have to be closed as a "not done" as semi-protected edit requests must be in the form of "Please change 'X' to 'Y'" such as, Please change "Chris married Bill Smith" to "Chris married Bill Smith, Junior" to avoid confusion (citing a reliable source, of course). Additionally, I think we need a bit of discussion here.

One of the main problems with "In popular culture" sections is the accumulation of random entries. Anyone so inclined could certainly spend several days finding references to drop bears in popular culture (or the rest of their lives finding such references to, for example, Mars or water). This raises the question of why. Would an extensive listing of such occurrences have encyclopedic value? Part of this question would hinge on the selection of the references. A complete list, of course, would swamp the article, not be of any meaningful value and never truly be complete.

The more common approach is the indiscriminate list: entries are added haphazardly by whomever happens by the article, based on any references they can think of. The result is an incoherent jumble of trivial references, heavily skewed toward recent popular culture (current TV shows, films, etc., rather than Mark Twain, I Love Lucy and ancient Greek sculpture).

The preferred approach, as outlined at WP:IPC is a sourced discussion showing the topics impact on popular culture and popular culture's impact on the subject. Gerald Ford details the impact of Chevy Chase's impressions of him on SNL, citing the former president's statements (in a NYT interview) that Chase's skits had a significant impact on his reelection campaign. A counter example would be all of the references to Nixon that are not listed in Richard Nixon: albums (Madman Across the Water), songs ("Ohio"), operas (Nixon in China), disembodied heads (Richard Nixon's head), movies (Dick_), etc. None of them seem to have had significant impact on Nixon and no sourced discussion seems to cover the issue. While all of the articles explain Nixon relates to those subjects, Richard Nixon does not.

It might make sense to add content on this topic to Halo 4, assuming you can find reliable sources discussing various elements (like drop bears) that show up in the game. Anyone interested in what "Drop bears!" refers to can find the answer there, with more info on drop bears merely a click away. That they are referred to in a video game, however, is likely not a significant element of the whole story on drop bears.

If you were looking for information on Nixon: his early political career, presidential campaigns, foreign policy, scandals, early life, education, later life, death, legacy, etc. Would you really hope to read about random jokes in a cartoon? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

TyPBennett (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Snipes are real animals See this-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_snipe

The page doesn't say they aren't real. The link is to the fictional concept of a "snipe hunt". Stickee (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content

The drop bear, also known as Thylarctos plummetus is an endangered carnivorous marsupial often found in densely forested habitats across Australia. They are incredibly dangerous animals who often attack due to their predatory nature and they are likely to be found in areas away from civilization. The drop bear is approximately the size of the leopard and has light grey or mottled patterned fur similar to the koala. They are heavily built animals with strong limbs used to drag their prey up trees, with sharp claws for clutching onto their thick trucks. Weighing around 120kg and around 130cm long. The substantial diet of the drop bear is often medium to large mammals which are much larger than the marsupial itself. Although sometimes they prey on smaller animals such as possums or owls. They are often known for their main hunting technique in which they pounce on their prey from overhead. Drop bears will often wait for hours blending into the trees before jumping on unsuspecting victims from up to 8 meters high. Due to the initial shock, the victim is temporarily shocked before being bitten on the neck due to the drop bears incredibly sharp teeth. If the drop bear's prey is small enough, they will haul it back up the tree to eat away from other predators. Drop bears are solitary animals until the breeding season where the males will make an ear piercing high screeching noise to attract the attention of the females. They will usually have a single offspring per year but as a rarity, they may have two joeys although only one will survive due to their predatory nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.84.102 (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC) This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for tall tales about the fictional animal. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015

I am not too sure about where the story of the mythical drop bears came from, but in the early 90'2 I was helping to guide a group for some winter camping in Canada, there were a few foreign students there (couple from Australia) I was warning the group about drop bears and now I have found this story has come back to me many times. Without further history of this mythical creature, I may be the birth mother to the drop bear. Toomuckingfuch (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Great to hear. Stickee (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't claim that honor, I have a reference to a book: title=The Drop Bear Task Force | publication-date=1914. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Mimarx: As this predates absolutely everything in the article by close to 100 years, that would be a very useful source. Can you give us details? The only thing I can find with that title is a farce on the Internet claiming a government mandate and an extensive history. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Your sandbox page gives Franklin, Betty (1914), The Drop Bear Task Force, Kevin La Motte, ISBN 978-0-646-93018-3

The ISBN is for a self-published children's book that is clearly much more recent.[3] My guess is the 1914 date is simply an error from wherever you found the cite. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

SummerPhD: Yes, it appears to be a y2K-ish problem. I'm still collecting references. Not my top priority but I'm now interested in getting to the origin.˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

So far the earliest firm reference is:

Lily on the Dustbin: Slang of Australian Women and Families, Nancy Keesing, Penguin Books, 1982 ISBN 0140066349, 9780140066340 188 pages. Pg 85. "The 'drop bears' are creatures of a tall story - they were invented during World War II for the benefit of gullible American servicemen. It is alleged that 'drop bears' are a dangerous kind of koala and that they drop out of trees on the heads and shoulders of bush walkers and hug them to death.". Thanks to the Australian National Dictionary Centre, ANU (they have been searching for earlier references for some time).

It points to WWII, where Canadians were also stationed in Australia, presumably how the meme got to Canada, as per Toomuckingfuch's report above.

I'm now with the Australian War Memorial for further references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimarx (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Age?

How old is the tale of the drop bear? I heard about them in the UK in 1982, but they were just described as wombats, not bears. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

There is reference in a 1982 to it being used in WWII to scare US servicemen in Australia. There is a personal account of them referred to by an Australian soldier in Malaysia c. 1955. I'm still perusing a link to Aboriginal culture.
Wombats climb hills not trees ;) ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You've not seen them climbing trees, and of course they don't stay up there long, they drop! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

My edits and UNDO's without proper review.

Initially - part 1 - 9 April. (wont always break on a date). Adding a bit of structure to ease editing feel free to fine tune.

To those, so far two, people who have reflexively undone my edits. You are not doing proper review of my edits.

I have added a number of scolarly references to back my edits. LOOK AT THE REFERENCES. This is a matter of Australian popular culture. I have added references to show how this is part of Australian culture. I restructured the first two paragraphs, in my initial edit WITHOUT ADDING OR DELETING ANYTHING, to support my subsequent references. I then added references to popular culture in academia. I then added two, initially, solid references to mention of Drop Bears in Australian literature. I intend to add further to this artical over time.

STOP interfering.

YOU HAVE vandalized correctly referenced edits.

READ the REFERENCES before YOU want to undo anything.

˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You boldly edited to bury essential, basic facts about the drop bear. You were reverted. THAT is when you should discuss the issue, per WP:BRD. Instead, you undid the revert. Another editor (me) reverted you. This is now a weak WP:CONSENSUS not to "keep the surprise". You undid the revert again. I am reverting you again, maintaining the prior status quo until after discussion decides otherwise.

If you decide to undo this revision again (prior to a discussion determining otherwise), you will be warned for edit warring.

The drop bear is fictional and Australian. These are essential, basic, descriptive facts about the drop bear the should be in the very first sentence of the article. Yes, this kills the "surprise". The surprise is appropriate for cheeky tourist brochures and children's books. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Yes, they appear in a novel. This is a fact. It is, however, not informative about drop bears. It is a trivial mention of an appearance in popular culture. Please see WP:IPC. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, see the example in WP:HOAX about Piltdown man, showing how articles about hoaxes should appear. The changes made appear to be precisely what is warned against. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I had two references to popular culture in the (my edited) second paragraph, independent of the later novel references.

The point of drop bears are that they are a important part of popular culture in Australia, yes it is also of note that they are not actual creatures.

That first sentence (original) is wrong that they are 'fictitious', they do not originate in fiction, they are much more than that, they are an iconic part of Australian culture, they are not simply 'fictitious', even the reference to that claim (hoaxes.org) is not particularly relevant, it does not claim 'fictitious' but 'According to legend', it is also a self published source, see the box at left "Support the Museum of Hoaxes BUY MY BOOK - BUY SOME STUFF", it is not a reliable source. So at best that reference could support "Drop Bears are LEGENDERY Australian marsuipial", but it is still a crap reference.

Your reference to IPC quotes "They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article, provided that the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not." Further, I did not create the 'popular culture' section, I added two referenced novels which referenced Drop Bears in literature. I have no idea whether you are Australian or not,

My references are a. Verifiable (look them up) most are academic. b. Genuine interest to Australian readers. c. details impact on popular culture - I doubt you actually went to the trouble of referring to the references and probably have no idea what the bushells tea references to popular culture actually MEANS in Australia, they are available via inter-library loan should you not have access to the full articles. d. IF YOU DID, you would note that 'the content is properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, such as neutral point of view, no original research' ACADEMIC RESEARCH.

Please provide VERIFIABLE REFERENCES to support your view that the (original) first sentence claim of 'fictitious' as the current reference is not good, worse BAD.

My edits spelled out that they are 'commonly said to be' (the most important aspect of the legend/meme - any I was just re-using the words already there), followed about two lines later, that they are 'fictitious' (again, I was just using the existing terminology), but on reflection, that is the wrong word, I then also used the words 'meme' and 'popular culture' which are more correct.

I did not as you accuse me of "bury essential, basic facts", the essence of the facts were in the first four lines, it is a meme and it is not real.

You seem to have a predilection to make the primary focus on a fictitious animal ( and a hoax), it is not a hoax. It is a significant meme which should be the focus of the first paragraph. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You can always take it to arbitration, see WP:ARB. I don't recommend it, this is a cut-and-dried case. The intro paragraph to a hoax article should specify that it's a hoax (or fictitious, the terms are synonymous in this context), before it describes anything else about the hoax. The article should never pretend to describe anything about the hoax as factual. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm waiting on my query to the National Library of Australia before proceeding. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

and BTW my edit did not describe anything as factual. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Given the recent flurry of edits, I would suggest noting the policy WP:POINT. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Part 2 - 10 April -

They are fictitious: "not real or true, being imaginary or having been fabricated."[4] This is a central feature of the drop bear. Claims to the contrary or attempts to bury this fact in the body of the article are disruptive at best. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Trouble is the citation does not support your assertion. (should have a response from the NLA ~ a week) ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Mimarx, please clarify: Are you challenging the fact that they are fictional? What have you requested of/from the National Library of Australia? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

One aspect is to document the Drop Bear as a significant meme in Australian culture and it's history. My attempts to include valid citation of academic journals in this regard have been reflexively reverted in whole without due consideration of the citations. Even when I was not editing the first section, I am accused of 'berrying facts in the body of the article' and undone. I believe the NLA will be able to provide older and more complete (than my initial research) references to the history and significance of Drop Bears in Australian society & culture, including (as I suspect) Aboriginal connections and possibly relations to Australian megafauna, such as Phascolarctos stirtoni perhaps, or Diprotodon. Reading between the lines, I suspect you are not Australian and have little understanding of this (no offence), and seem to think this is just some guys trying to pull a fast one. Also I think the 'fictitious' citation of extremely low quality & relevance, in my travels I have not seen a decent one. (fixing my sig - if this works?) [User:Mimarx|˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ]] (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps short of arbitration, you might try getting a third opinion - see WP:3O. It's clear you aren't making any headway with the existing editors on this talk page. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW - I 've been looking into the mythology, some reports argue that the early settlers extensive forest clearing was a response to the unknown (to western settlers) animals of the forest, and that the clearing of native forest in Tasmania by the locals is still such a reaction. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Mimarx: Again, are you saying the drop bear is not fictional? Please answer with a direct yes or no. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why spoil the 'surprise'. I haven't made up my mind yet, nice to have an open mind. I m a y be saying the 'simple view' that it is a modern hoax misrepresents the true historical background to the cultural references to Drop Bears, but that is pending my verified sources.

Interesting article Yara-ma-yha-who...(please don't try to suggest I made that up BTW). I'm still waiting on NLA before I start seriously describing the matter. I may drive over to discuss their views. Being in Canberra, I'm close to all the National Institutions, including ANU where I studied (tho not Drop Bear related subjects), and http://aiatsis.gov.au/.

So when I'm ready we can discuss 'fictitious'ness.˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why spoil the surprise? Because this is an encyclopedia. We tell people that Rosebud is a sled, Vader is Luke's father, "she" is a transvestite, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny are fictional. When an article on a "creature" published on April Fool's Day includes a range map that shows it live is an area of the Eastern coast and any area in the Outback shaped like a smiling koala head, it should be a bit of a clue. This is a fictional creature. It is not a subject for "cryptozoology" as no one over the age of 12 things it is real. That's why we have a photoshopped koala for the image.

Supprise was in regard to NLA results.˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You can't make up your mind and won't answer a direct question. I will consider any further edits by you that seem to be aimed at presenting this piece of fiction as fact to be disruptive and will warn you appropriately. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I answered your direct question: "I haven't made up my mind yet, nice to have an open mind. I m a y be saying the 'simple view' that it is a modern hoax misrepresents the true historical background to the cultural references to Drop Bears, but that is pending my verified sources.". Is that not a reasonable approach.

"I will consider any further edits by you that seem to be aimed at presenting this piece of fiction as fact to be disruptive and will warn you appropriately." Feel free, it is all in the eye of the beholder.

Why do you feel my edits 'seem to be aimed at presenting...as fact'? Do you have any basis for this. I have not stated anything as fact, I have consistently used term like meme & cultural references.

Yet you have yet* to suggest any stronger citations than a one para self published very questionable citation, which uses the term 'legendary'. Just saying. (* I wrote this before your recent substitute citation(s) - I'll examine that later - seem to have been a few versions)

I'm sorry that my attempts to document valid cultural references has seemingly caused you to be upset and defensive. That was/is not my intent. (edit - fix sig.) [User:Mimarx|˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ]] (talk) 15:35, April 10, 2015‎

You moved the fact that this is a fictional creature from the very first sentence to the second paragraph to "save the surprise". No, that is not a "reasonable approach" to writing an encyclopedia.

That this is a fictional creature "m a y" now be seen in five reliable sources, making it the best referenced information in the article.

Your "attempts to document valid cultural references" seems to include a need to move an obvious, basic fact from the lede to "preserve the surprise". Additionally, you find a need to dance around the issue on the talk page. It is a fictional creature. Whether you wish to hide this to keep a cute joke alive or don't fully grasp reality is immaterial.

Perhaps you should check our article on the Tooth Fairy and make sure no one is jumping to conclusions or ruining surprises there. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

deleted empty section.

Cont'd - Cryptozoology - cryptid references, terminology commonly used

(I'll get to the relevance of this later)˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC) I also had a close look at Cryptozoology, and the List of cryptids, my pseudo-random (I just went down the list and chose those that sounded interesting/relevant) review of Wikipedia articles and the terminology used. The majority used term like in the following (contracted for brevity):

Bigfoot .. is the name given to a cryptid ape- or hominid-like creature that is said to inhabit forests

The Yeti .. is an ape-like cryptid taller than an average human that is said to inhabit the Himalayan region of Nepal and Tibet.

The chupacabra .. is a legendary cryptid rumored to inhabit parts of the Americas, ..The name comes from the animal's reported habit of attacking and drinking the blood of livestock, especially goats.

The agogwe is a purported small human-like biped reported from the forests of East Africa. It is 1 to 1.7 m (3.3 to 5.6 ft) tall with long arms.. It has also been reported as having black or grey hair. Its feet are said to be about 12 cm (5 in) long with opposable toes.

The Altamaha-ha (or Altie) is a posited aquatic creature, alleged to inhabit the myriad network of small streams and abandoned rice fields near the mouth of the Altamaha River..The legend has its roots in Native American tradition. Cryptozoologists report that there have been uniform sightings of the creature, in which witnesses claim the creature is 30-feet long..

Tales about the existence of the Beaman Monster in Kansas City have been around for more than a century. There is no proof, however, that such a creature exists. .. The tales claim that the Beaman Monster was the offspring of the circus animal escapee. Although there is no evidence, the Beaman Monster's existence is not impossible.

The Devil Bird, ..is a cryptid of Sri Lanka said to emit bloodcurdling human sounding shrieks .. In Sri Lankan folklore, it is believed that the cry of this bird is an omen that portends death..As the bird is not usually seen and its cry only described in vague terms..The precise identity of this bird is one of the mysteries of the Ceylon jungles.

In Hawaiian mythology, the Menehune are said to be a people, sometimes described as dwarfs in size, who live in the deep forests and hidden valleys of the Hawaiian Islands, far from the eyes of normal humans..The Menehune were said to be superb craftspeople. Legends say that the Menehune built temples (heiau), fishponds, roads, canoes, and houses. Some of these structures that Hawaiian folklore attributed to the Menehune still exist..In Beckwith's Hawaiian Mythology, there are references to several other forest dwelling races: the Nawao, who were large-sized wild hunters descended from Lua-nuʻu, the mu people, and the wa people. Folklorist Katharine Luomala believes that the legends of the Menehune are a post-European contact mythology created by adaptation of the term manahune (which by the time of the settling of the Hawaiian Islands had acquired a meaning of "lowly people" or "low social status" and not diminutive in stature).. No physical evidence for the existence of a historical peoples that fit the description of the Menehune has been discovered.

Ogopogo or Naitaka (Salish: n'ha-a-itk, "lake demon") is the name given to a cryptid lake monster reported to live in Okanagan Lake, in British Columbia, Canada. Ogopogo has been allegedly seen by First Nations people since the 19th century..British cryptozoologist Karl Shuker has categorized the Ogopogo as a 'many hump' variety of lake monster..However, because the physical evidence for the beast is limited to unclear photographs and film, it has also been suggested that the sightings are misidentifications of common animals..

Urayuli, or "Hairy Men", are a mythical race of creatures that live in ..southwestern Alaska. Stories ..describe them as standing 10 feet tall with long shaggy fur and luminescent eyes.. are said to emit a high pitch cry, resembling that of a loon..Rumored to live in the forests .. the Urayuli are said to be peaceful creatures, unlike the Kushtaka of Southeastern Alaska. It is said the Urayuli are transformed children who become lost in the woods at night. It is possible that this tale was started to keep children indoors at night.

A Wendigo .. is a demonic half-beast creature appearing in the legends of the Algonquian peoples along the Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes Region..The creature or spirit could either possess characteristics of a human or a monster that had physically transformed from a person.. The Algonquian believed those who indulged in eating human flesh were at particular risk; the legend appears to have reinforced the taboo of the practice of cannibalism.

The tooth fairy is a fantasy figure of early childhood. The folklore states that when children lose one of their baby teeth, they should place it underneath their pillow and the tooth fairy will visit while they sleep, replacing the lost tooth with a small payment. The tradition of leaving a tooth under a pillow for the tooth fairy to collect is practiced in various countries in the Anglosphere.˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked at more than the above.

So, in summary, the common terms are; legendary, mythical, cryptid, allegedly, said to, folklore, tales, posited, purported, etc.

I did not see, in my sample, the word 'fictitious'.

Getting late (rather early) here, so I will raise the relevance of this at a later time˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk)15:35, April 10, 2015‎|Mimarx15:35, April 10, 2015‎]] (fixed sig.)

"Cryptozoology", such as it is, has no relevance to an obvious, well-documented joke. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

to be cont'd - place holder

BTW - is there a way of having a sub-talk page? This discussion seems to be taking a big slice of the page, perhaps it can be moved down to a sub-page or equivalent. ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimarx (talk • contribs) 15:35, April 10, 2015‎

It is possible, but not necessary. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Part 3 - 11 April - sorry, had to move to keep dates aligned, will find a better way

Note to Mimarx - Convention in talk pages is to add comments at the bottom of the page or section, not intersperse them throughout a discussion, nor to add "placeholders" for future comments. If you want your comments read, put them at the bottom where we'll see them - I certainly have no intention of going back and rereading hundreds of lines of text to find your latest additions.

Either way, this discussion has already gone on beyond the limits of reasonableness. This wasn't rocket science, it seems to be a simple attempt to change a hoax article in such a way as to have a "surprise" for the reader, which now seems to have morphed into a claim that the subject isn't properly documented as a hoax, so it must be real. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to add a little structure to what has become a unwieldy beast.

The only, non structural/typo edits, were "Surprise was in regard to NLA results." in reply to the indented sub-thread under "Why spoil the surprise? Because this is an encyclopedia. We tell people that..." post, and adding Tooth Fairy to the Cryptozoology section (which is there for reference to my future arguments that..later).

My original 'surprise' comment was flippant. Regrettably... I am not, and have never said, that Drop Bears exist.

Because it was (is? I haven't read the new refs) badly cited, was not an attempt to claim it is real. That claim needed better citations, the old one was bad.

I am/will state that Drop Bear as a concept is a significant meme in Australian popular AND HISTORICAL culture. Beyond a joke. Non-Australians, only see a joke, therefore they cannot understand the wider picture. As evident by the above. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Your first "surprise" comment was in moving the fact that they are fictional to the second paragraph.[resigned when he was suspended with the intent to dismiss in August 2012] It had nothing whatsoever to do with the NLA. Your second "surprise" comment also had nothing to do with the NLA.[5] Instead, it was your evasive answer to a direct question about whether or not you accept that drop bears are fictional. Rather than a yes or no, you said, "I haven't made up my mind yet, nice to have an open mind. I m a y be saying the 'simple view" that it is a modern hoax misrepresents the true historical background to the cultural references to Drop Bears, but that is pending my verified sources." I am willing to bet you will be back to try to remove, soften or bury the direct statement that drop bears are fictional.

Let's try a little test: Now that you have had a chance to review the new refs (have you read them?): Do you admit that drop bears are fictional creatures, part of a joke played on gullible tourists and children? Or have you still not "made up (your) mind"? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Mimarx, please stop adding and removing headings/subheadings from this page. While you may have a clear understanding of what you are doing and why, it is not obvious to the rest of us. Instead, it would be helpful if you simply answered the direct questions here: Have you taken a look at the new sources? Have you "made up (your) mind" about drop bears being fictional? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Part 4 - 12 April

Good morning (here). 'I am willing to bet you will be back': I have not left yet, I am reviewing references, waiting for the answers from the NLA, and will be visiting my local library after the weekend.

'Your first "surprise" comment' .. 'It had nothing whatsoever to do with the NLA': Correct, my query to the NLA was some time after my first edits, and was initiated after the, in my view, unwarranted revisions of my good faith edits, without even, it appeared, a cursory examination of the citations I included with the edit. Good quality citations IMHO.

'[resigned when he was suspended with the intent to dismiss in August 2012]': I do not understand this??

You are quick to attribute intent, without much basis. Re my second 'surprise' comment, perhaps I was not clear. I said "I haven't made up my mind yet, .. but that is pending my verified sources.". In that context 'surprise' is the results of that process, that was my intent anyway. But IF you have a preconceived idea of my intent/motives, which I seem unable to change (with tooo many lines) of explanation above, I am not likely to do so now. But I will try yet again - later.

'Instead, it was your evasive answer to a direct question': As I said, I have an open mind and was/am pending further citation research.

'had a chance to review the new refs (have you read them?):' Yes & No, some of them are not available online AFAIK, or perhaps you have a link that you did not include in the citation, or did you find them at your library? Some are somewhat tenuous (one reference to D.B in a paper on software-intensive systems written by a software engineer), one is of unknown origin, another is one of the two I included in my earlier edits in regard to the Drop Bears as a significant meme. The other, Francis et al., I have not been able to see the specific reference.

'Do you admit that drop bears are fictional creatures..? Or have you still not "made up (your) mind"?': See above. You do not seem to understand my view. Irrespective of fictionality, the concept of Drop Bears is a concrete part of Australian culture and has been for a long time. Do you think that someone made up a joke, and then it suddenly went into the joke book of all Australians. There is much more to that, ask 10 Ozzies and you would probably get 12 well crafted tales. I go back to my initial edit 'the major characteristic of D.B. is its notoriety, this is more important to be mentioned first'. I have been consistent in this regard. (and I did not bury the 'fictitious Australian' aspect, It immediately followed what I thought should be mentioned first, as a second para so that it stood out as a strong statement, rather than the last sentence of the first para.

BTW, repeatedly demanding Yes or No answers, will not achieve anything. Particularly when I have said I am awaiting further information.

'part of a joke played on gullible tourists and children?': Joke simplifies and understates the meme. But from a Non-Australian's perspective, it probably appears that way.

'I am willing to bet you will be back to try to remove, soften or bury the direct statement that drop bears are fictional.': You m a y win the bet, but not to soften/bury etc, to properly state the nature of Drop Bears in Australian culture.

BTW, I am not the one doing selective editing to maintain a particular point of view. In small staged edits, you have removed my references to popular culture. You have removed my See Also reference to Cryptozoology - 'Unrelated, unless Santa Clause links to missing persons and supercenturians'. You removed someone else's earlier category "Debunked cryptids" - 'not a "cryptid" any more than the tooth fairy is. It is a joke.'. In fact I bet you will remove many of my edits to maintain you point of view.

"This article relating to a myth or legend from Australia is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." apparently not, any expansion gets whittled back...

Have to go now, need to get the damn roo's out of the veggie patch.

p.s. Re editing titles. OK. I will find a better way. All I was trying to do is break this up so I am not editing War & Peace as one whole chunk. Is there a standard way to sectional-ise what is a rolling commentary? I have not had to have such loong Talk's before. For now if my new post occurs on a new day, I'll stick a section break in.˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, so you've decided drop bears might be real, happen to be studied exclusively on April Fool's Day, have a range that happens to include a sharply defined section of the outback that bears a striking resemblance to a koala's face and is notably similar to the hoop snake. Whether you are trolling, remarkably confused or something blending the two is irrelevant. Drop bears are fictional. This is, by far, the best sourced fact in the article. We are done here. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Fictional

The above "discussion" is long since resolved. Another editor has very sensibly cut down the extensive list of sources for this basic fact.[6] This note is simply to make finding the sources again a bit easier, should our "open minded" friend return. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully I haven't annoyed anyone by changing it from fictitious to legendary creature. This is a tall tale. I've also removed the Fictional marsupial category. That is for marsupial characters from works of fiction (e.g. Blinky Bill. Fictional ≠ fictitious. ZayZayEM (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That is inappropriate. I'm reverting your edit. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss appropriately. What part of legendary creature suggests it is real? This idea that "fictional marsupial" somehow reads better than it is a legend is silly. The article as it stands is barely legible. Was there an issue with the numerous other edits I made. Would hoax animal be more acceptable. As this is how it is described in a number of sources.ZayZayEM (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Legendary" does not say fictitious. Peyton Manning is a legendary quarterback, but he lives and breathes. The two most important things that should be called out in the lede are: 1) It's fictitious. 2) it's Australian. Everything after that is gravy. This article sees repeated attempts about 2-3 times a year to make the first point non-obvious, because "that would ruin the joke". Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"Legendary creature" has a specific meaning - which is why it is wikilinked --- "A legendary creature is an animal described in non-historical storie" (from teh article) - non-historical means not real. "The unicorn is a legendary animal". This is about internal consistency within the 'pedia about how to refer to such creatures of myth and legend.

I'd also suggest the word legend is being used incorrectly to refer to Peyton Manning (It does not appear once in this article). Because he is real, not fictitious. It is appropriate to refer to someone like Herakles.

We should use words to mean what they mean.

If you look carefully at my edits, there is no attempt to make this animal seem like a real creature, but instead I am trying to use appropriate language to refer to this creature. It is either a hoax and or legend - not a creature popularised by works of fiction. ZayZayEM (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The specific meaning of "Legendary creature" is insufficient for this article - this isn't an animal that is referenced in a legend, this is a hoax, an active attempt to deceive in the immediate present. The article you cited doesn't even say fiction, it simply says "non-historical stories". That's insufficient for a WP:HOAX article, where the fact that it's a hoax must be called out immediately. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Are we really going to argue the difference between fictional and non-historical. This creature is already within the :Category:Legendary creatures of Australia. Urban legends and folklore are still legend. C.f. Jackalope or Hoop snake - legendary doesn't necessarily mean antiquity.

Would hoax animal be an acceptable medium?--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to move this discussion to the new section I made and the suggested rewrite I put there. Thank you.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)