Talk:Pope Lick Monster

Why the reverts
And especially why the vandalism accusation? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict)
 * I suspect that the problem is felt to be that the article looks a bit of a mess with all the internal links. I can't be sure &mdash; reverting with nothing but an edit summary accusing SS of vandalism is unhelpful to say the least.  Even if the linking is excessive, it obviously can't be called vandalism.


 * I do think that it's a bit excessive, to be honest. For details of Wikipedia policy, see Make only links relevant to the context and Manual of Style (links).  Some, at least, of SS's new links are irerelevant in the context. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've just noticed that SS removed the two categories; why? I've replaced them.
 * I've also removed some of the links to common words like 'scream' and 'creature', as well as to Cattle mutilation (the article tells us little more of interest than that cattle mutiliation is the mutilation of cattle (oh, and sometimes of horses and sheep)). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I just happened by while checking new pages and removed the excessive wiki-links. Maybe SS meant them as a joke and I was wrong to call it vandalism. If so, I apologize. -12.74.168.12 17:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think there useful, this is a wiki after all. I think the link to cattle mutilation should stay, but I didn't mean to remove the catagories (sorry about that). Anyhow vandalism is pretty specific, see WP:ViP. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Metro Louisville, Kentucky
What does this mean? Could someone add either an explanation or a clearer description in the text please? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:24, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Metro is short for metropolian, as in inner city, not suburbia. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I'll make the change. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Metro isn't synonymous w central tho, so unless you know where in the city Pope lick trestle is located (which I don't), central might well be innaccurate. For example, a given shop in NYC could be "metro" even if it lies on the edge of the city, so long as it is urban, and not suburban. See or Metropolitan. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Before the merger of the city/county governments, I would have said that the trestle is in eastern Jefferson County. It's just outside the Gene Snyder Freeway, off of Taylorsville Road.  I don't think it was within the municipal boundary of Louisville before merger, but I am not sure.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's a map from MapQuest. FWIW, "Metro Louisville" is the ordinary name of the merged Louisville city / Jefferson county governments.  -- Smerdis of Tlön

OK, is the version I have now correct? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. I think the Louisville, Kentucky article explains the usage of "Metro Louisville" as well.  I'd like to know when the tales of the monster originated.  They've been around since at least the late 1970s, when I first heard it.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dr Banginston Coops of Australia quote
Is there a source for the long quote from this chap? -- Longhair 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As no source has been provided, I'm removing the quote. It's re-produced below if anyone requires it.

Dr Banginston Coops of Australia has studied the Pope Lick Monster for some time and came up with a probeble explanation:

''"I have pieced together some information that I have researched to make a plausible argument. The Pope Lick Monster (PLM) was probably just a normal man. He was probably born in the early 1900's or the late 1800's a normal human. But there are cases of humans having abnormal hair growth on parts of their bodies. Now he was probably disowned by his parents or ridiculed by other children so he may have run away. Now he probebly only had the condition on his legs and may have been able to join a circus (which is a popular rumor). Now circus's always exaggerate their shows. For example, they might say a 7ft man is 8ft to attract crowds. A popular image of the "devil" or satyrs and minotaurs is a man with hairy goat legs. Now the circus could have said he was one of these because of the extreme hair growth on his legs. Now when he visited Pope Lick, the spectators might have thought of him an evil being and tried to kill him or some men just wanted to beat him up because he was different. He obviously escaped into the wilderness. He obviously wanted revenge, and growing up on the streets as I said earlier would have lowered his morals because he would have to steal food, etc. So he had a reason to attack the town and was able to kill without regret. So he escaped to the nearest landmark (humans are attracted to landmarks instead of the wilderness) which was the trestle. He may have also just killed in self defense because of people hunting for him. He also killed sheep for food, not to harass the farmers (he could have killed them for both reasons.) Now he may have been killed by a hunting party, He may have died of a disease or age in the wilderness (meaning his corpse would be lying around) or he may have retreated to civilisation and lived a normal life till his death. The horns can also be explained, If a man is walking in the wilderness and is scared of by a naken hairy man, he isn't going to tell his friends that. He would probebly say he had horns and was a giant adnormal monster to not only make him popular to the town but also reduce his toughness. Now, when a person is also walking out in the wilderness, and is attacked by a hairy man, he/she will run like there's no tomorrow, and will probebly only notice the fur. Now he would assume it's the goatman and would assume its horns. We may never know what/who the PLM was but I hope I have made just one explaination that could be possible."''

-- Longhair 23:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Unnatural Union
Why does this article cite the union of a farmer and a goat as 'unnatural'? I thought Wikipedia should have a Neutral Point of View? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilBrak (talk • contribs)


 * Humans and goats can't breed by any natural means. The chromosome counts are wrong, among many other issues.  Even if you want to be NPOV on zoophilia, I think it's okay to describe a human/goat hybrid organism as unnatural; it is something that couldn't possibly occur in nature. 129.97.79.144 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternate theory
My mother always told me - once I was old enough - that the Pope Lick Monster was a legend invented to keep adventurous youngsters from climbing out onto the trestle and getting killed. If anyone else has heard this theory I propose it be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.183.31 (talk • contribs)

Similar-Sounding Creatures
This seems to sound slightly similar to the troll from the Three Billy Goats Gruff fairy tale. It's only speculation, but this might be an origin of the Pope Lick Monster tale/legend. --Everchanging02 01:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"names were seperated for a reason"
And that reason is? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I shall leave you to work this one out yourself, but one of the reasons might have something to do with long names wrapping around in narrow infobox columns, and another might have something to do with allowing the user to click on any part of a multi-part location.

perfectblue 19:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My change left two parts in place, a link for Louisville and one for Kentucky. Why is that not good enough?  "Louisville, Kentucky, Kentucky" looks very weird.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, it appears you just changed it back to the way I had it. Did the "reason" disappear?  Geez.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 19:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be called an accident caused by clicking on the wrong version of the page.


 * perfectblue 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is, what I did was perfectly all right. You don't seem to acknowledge that.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 21:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, I just said that I made a mistake and edited the wrong thing, didn't I?


 * perfectblue 07:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research
I removed a fair amount of material that was not cited, in accordance with No original research ("Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories") and Verifiability ("Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. . . . The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."). Please feel free to reinstate the information with reliable sources. &mdash; Elembis (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand the removals. However, I do have a source for the media section, and I will add back more information that I can cite from The Encyclopedia of Louisville. Thanks!  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 22:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

While it may be true that "Urban legends are permitted looser verification as they are not claimed to be true, or even plausuble", and while we don't need proof of an urban legend to mention it, we at least need a source indicating that the legend actually exists, because Verifiability and No original research forbid the inclusion of material that has not published by reliable sources (see quotes above). Is there another policy or guideline which states that urban legends do not need citations? &mdash; Elembis (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, its primarily WP:RS that I was referring to. It's not exactly exempt, but the burden is less. You can use a much weaker source than you could for, say, an entry about physics or history, because your claiming existence and not truth.


 * perfectblue 12:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, WP:OR was not actually violated because no conclusions were made or arguments proposed. It was actually WP:V that was broken by the inclusion of un-cited bits of urban legend (WP:OR is there to prevent users from putting forward their own hypothesis etc).

perfectblue 14:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Licking the pope?
Why is it calle dthe Pope Lick? Do it does it does lick the pope? Yecch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.16.151 (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

is this on purpose?

 * a legendary half-man, half-goat[1] and half-sheep[2] creature

Three halves?  ◦◦derekbd  ◦   ◦my talk◦◦  16:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty of hanging on the Trestle
Recently a woman was killed while trying to hang on the trestle to avoid the train. However, this article suggests that he was able to do it. Maybe it should be removed that it is nigh impossible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:8C00:55B0:E0B0:D359:451:D2C0 (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Better fencing
Maybe the fences around the trestle should be upgraded or something, as standing 8-foot (2.4 m) tall clearly isn't enough. How about getting some barbed or high-voltage wiring installed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.6.124 (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion board about this subject. This page is for discussing the improvement of this article.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 11:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)