Talk:Tatzelwurm

Pictures?
Maybe the old woodcuts in Heuvelmans? Or the photo- making it clear that it's probably a hoax? CFLeon 04:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the picture posted anywhere online? A quick google search didn't locate it. :( Titanium Dragon 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, a year later I do the same search and still don't find it. Seems I forgot I looked here in the first place. Anyway, does this photograph exist, and is it in the public domain? It'd be nice to include in the article, though the picture IS pretty... Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The picture can be found on Google Images by entering "tatzelwurm balkin". (unsigned)
 * The photo is reproduced as a plate in Heuvelmans' On the Track of Unknown Animals. As BH comments, it looks quite like a model and not like a living creature. CFLeon (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Tatzelwurm = Drache (Dragon)
The German word "Wurm" (worm) also meant "Drache" (dragon) in ancient times. "Tatzelwurm" is an old German word for dragon. Mythology calls them the mightiest dragons of them all, so it is thought of as a huge creature, not an oversized lizard. 193.159.108.157 (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Against the Day
The Tatzelwurm features prominently in Thomas Pynchon's novel "Against the Day". I think this should be mentioned in a "The Tatzelwurm in popular culture" (or similar) section.

Detentionaire?
Hi In the reference section there is only mention of 'Detentionaire' What does this mean please? Aethalides (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

An amphisbaenian ?
In some illustrations the Tatzelworm is represented with a cat-like head, now the skull of bipes is superficially cat-like.Longfinmako (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't found sources that discuss the Tatzelwurm as amphisbaena, but that may exist somewhere because someone uploaded an amphisbaena image (File:Aldrov tatzelwurm.jpg) as a tatzelwurm image. I couldnt find this image in the stated book so it looks to be misattributed.


 * Bipes (lizard) which is a Mexican lizard with two forelimbs being discussed by Studer (1814), Dall Torre (1887) to Heuvelmans (2014).--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Cryptozoologists
I've just removed a bunch of recently introduced references to works by cryptozoologists. As cryptozoology is very much a pseudoscience, we should be vigilant about making sure that works such as these don't slip into our pieces. Rather, as we're talking about an entity from the folklore record, we should be referring back to folklorists wherever possible. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Bloodofox, sometimes you have to use the sources whereever the research takes you.


 * In this case, the primary sources I found are all eyewitness accounts, and based on that, I would charcterized this to be a topic similar in nature to Loch Ness monster or tsuchinoko. Articles on those cannot be written based on "folktales" about them since there really aren't any.


 * I've never used this Bernard Heuvelmans as a source before. But your labeling him as "cryptozoologist" and practioners of pseudo-science and such rings hollow to me, because I'm really only using him as a English-language source for the original eyewitness accounts and descriptions that are given originally in Latin or German. And there is no pseudo-science involved in republishing the collected the lore.


 * However if there are some novel hypotheses that Heuvelmans advances that have little acceptance in print, I would agree that such out-on-the-limb theory would be too WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE to be legitimate included.--Kiyoweap (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Heuvelmans is an iconic cryptozoologist. If you take a closer look at the works you're drawing into the article, I think you'll find that they can only be described as pseudoscience. Again, we should be turning to folklorists for material on folklore. Surely you wouldn't, say, use material from a flat earth proponent for a geology article, just because it happens to be at hand. The situation here is much the same.


 * This focus on "sightings" over analysis and commentary from folklorists is also wrong-headed and pseudoscientific, which is a problem we've had for a long time. When it comes to folklore, please turn first to folkloristics. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems you are complaining of a general problem with other pages getting WP:UNDUE amount of edits sourced from Heuvelmans or worse, and crowding out "commentary from folklorists".


 * However, to stick to the topic of Tatzelwurm, there is no appreciable folklore beyond the "sightings".
 * Or at least, in my effort that search turns up empty. If you insist otherwise, the onus is on you to present them.


 * As an illustration, JSTOR search on "Tatzelwurm" registers only 1 hit in English.
 * It's the chapter Cryptozoologist: Real Science or Pseudoscience? in a book Abominable Science!'' (Columbia University Press).--Kiyoweap (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If you're planning a solid rewrite, most of your sources on this topic are going to be in German, as I'm sure you're aware. However, turning to pseudoscientists and a list of "sightings" isn't the answer here. Rather, better to turn to commentary in folklore collections in German. True, these are going to be a little tougher to dig out, but the relevant commentary is out there somewhere. Do you have access to the Germanische Altertumskunde Online? There might be something of use in there, for example. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If you imagine there are folkloristic opinion papers on this topic I have grossly overlooked, then go find them yourself and modify the page accordingly. I am going to construct the article based on the sources I am finding within my parameters of activity.

Much of Heuvelman's reference to this creature is just regurgitating the content of older texts and journals. There is no folkloristic expertise required in providing English summaries of these. The book issued by Routledge, a major academic publishing house is sufficient WP:RS authority for that. I don't see your removal of this citation and replacement by cn as justified. WP:NPOV says non-neutral should not be given undue emphasis, it does not say you should censor entire books if portions of them are non-neutral. --Kiyoweap (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There are no doubt secondary sources on this topic out there. However, my main concern was the reintroduction of cryptozoologists and cryptozoology into this article. As you know, this has been an ongoing problem for folklore-related articles on Wikipedia.


 * What you've currently got here looks fine to me, but we should really be looking for more secondary sources to keep this article from turning into a monster hunting piece. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The content being added here is entirely credulous, describing these legendary creatures as those they actually exist. This kind of pseudoscience belongs no where in Wikipedia. The many "explanatory notes" are a) pedantic and b) unsourced. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Taking a look at the edits you've made and the edits made by the article's current primary author after my comments above, I agree. Again, we need solid secondary sources here authored by folklorists. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As to content being "entirely credulous", I saw no need to give headbanging reminders to readers that "Scheuchzer's dragons" are . That is common sense. But if you disagreed, you could have edited the tone with more judgmental language as you wanted, rather than engage in wholesale delete. And Scheuchzer was actually not so "credulous" about these dragons either. Read here. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In this diff you made some OK fixes but you also re-added the absurd level of detail about the poisonous breath, complete with the editorializing/OR "exaggerated" - there cannot be "exaggeration" around something that doesn't exist, and you re-added the content that the breath actually caused something. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

False accusation. My edit that reads "later exaggerated to being a breath of fatal toxicity" is a summarization of the inline source, Ley (1948), p. 132. Quote:

"The tatzelwurm's attack, the peasants continue, is extremely dangerous; the animal is highly venomous, so venomous, in fact, that its breath can kill. When the story has progressed to this point, the zoologist stops listening. This is no longer zoology, but folklore and superstition, and except as such it has nothing at all to do with science. It must be noted, however, that the reports collected by several men of high reputation do not mention these obvious exaggerations". --Kiyoweap (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is one thing to say, which X described as an exaggeration, and another altogether to put that in Wikipedia's voice - doing so was a violation of the PSCI policy on top of edit warring. I have given you notice of the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience topics. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not fixed the WP:PSCI violation that you have edit warred into the article. Please fix it. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "The Tatzelwurm.. has been said to have poison breath,[4][11] later exaggerated to being a breath of fatal toxicity."[12]
 * The topic is a creature of legend and folklore.
 * It is quite obvious the people/folk are the ones who are "say" ing or "exaggerat" ing. Not Wikipedia.
 * Stop throwing out desperate twisted logic to keep your frivolous pseudoscience accusation afloat. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Kiyoweap, I'm disheartened by your responses here. As you're aware, we have long had problems with cryptozoology and articles like this on Wikipedia, primarily because no folklorists appear to have been active Wikipedia during its formative stages. In turn, many Wikipedia articles read like monster hunting guides, made for and by cryptozoologists. It's a positive development that these articles are finally getting the attention they deserve. If someone says that the article reads like a monster hunting guide, that's a red flag that it's time to make some changes and hear them out. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Bergstutzen
Bergstutzen is not a form listed in Dalla Torre, and I assumed this and Birgstuz'n were form with suffixed definite article -en ending but that appears incorrect, or at least I am notfinding it sourceable. So the form Bergstutzen form might be added, using other sources.

There are other forms like Beißwurm I havent added either which I havent checked against other sources.--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Insertion and Reinsertion of Cryptozoology Sources
I have again removed material cited to Bernard Heuvelmans. Please refer to WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Uh, Bloodofox, I did not add back Heuvelmans. Perhaps you meant Eberhart. You also deleted my content cited to Willy Ley.


 * I have allowed that Eberhart's book may not be the ideal source so I placed the better source tag there, and I think that should be sufficient. WP:RS's language qualifies that one should try to use "better sources" "when available".


 * Also I was only using this source in a limited way, to source what the German names Stollenwurm and Bergstuz mean in English, and the identification of a "Scheuchzer's dragon" as a Tatzelwurm (to underscore Doblhoff's stance). There is no pseudoscientific argument involved in any of these three points.
 * As I see it, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:BIASED sets guideline on how to use source with potential bias. It doesn't prescribe your sort of censorship.--Kiyoweap (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As anywhere else, I'll be removing instances of pseudoscience (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE) from the article on sight. That includes citations to works of pseudoscience. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, given that Meurger is someone who has published a piece referring to Tatzelwurm in Arv - Nordic Yearbook of Folklore, you might weigh in on the fact that his collaborative work Meurger&Gagnon 1988 does cite both G. M. Eberhart and Heuvelmans with dignity. Therefore the position that Bloodofox maintains that these authors have zero legitimacy on any matter whatsoever is rather not tenable. You are not defending your deletes on logic and persuasion. We are not here to be entertained by your Bloodo-dogma.--Kiyoweap (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, cryptozoology is quite uncontroversially a pseudoscience. Please find better sources to support your additions. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So where is the cryptozoology in the statement that Stollenwurm in German means "tunnel worm"? Please find a source besides Bloodofox when making such overreaching assessments.--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you understand. There's no need to go around in circles here. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible that some source material written by people who are cryptozoologists, while obviously not reliable on the topics of animal anatomy or alien visitations and the like, may be reliable on topics such as folklore beliefs? MPS1992 (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, cryptozoologists usually have far less of a background in folkloristics than they do biology. We don't cited material from flat earth proponents in our geology articles, nor do we cite data from young earth creationists in our articles on evolution when they conveniently happen to mention something useful for the article. In turn, cryptozoologist pieces are simply not appropriate sources for articles on entities form the folklore record unless they themselves are the topic of discussion. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that cryptozoologists have far more of a background in biology than they do in folklore? MPS1992 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant to the discussion, but the keyword here is folkloristics, not the object of study, folklore. The gap is most obvious in that cryptozoologists typically pluck items from the folklore record and dream up biology-inspired taxonomic classifications (while ignoring the most basic fundamentals of the academic study of folklore). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see that it's your belief that cryptozoologists have that sort of relation with the folklore record. Can you direct us to any evidence for that belief, please? MPS1992 (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My belief? Have you not read Wikipedia's article on this topic? Here you go: Cryptozoology. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not very interested in Cryptozoology, this article is really about folklore as far as I can tell. MPS1992 (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You'll find significant discussion regarding cryptozoology and cryptozoologists from folklorists there. While cryptozoology rejects folkloristics (and biology, for that matter), cryptozoologists are themselves sometimes studied and discussed by folklorists. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just so. If you would like to reduce the amount of content in Wikipedia that is sourced to cryptozoologists, then striking up a campaign on articles about folklore works against your intentions. Word to the wise. MPS1992 (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Judging by your comments here, I presume that you're unaware that cryptozoologists treated the site as their personal monster hunting database until a few years ago (Wikipedia lacked folklorists during its formative period but apparently had no shortage of cryptozoologists). This article was one such example. In turn, we're still removing cryptozoology stuff throughout the site, which is why this discussion is very relevant to this page and many others like it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. That was a WP:GREATWRONG which you are now seeking to right. By over-reacting. Stop it. MPS1992 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure what you’re on about, but I guess patience won’t do it. Put simply: Add pseudoscience and expect it to be removed. At the end of the day, it’s that simple. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are determined to remove material regardless of any valid discussion of its relevance on talk pages, then you are heading for a block, and fast. It's that simple. MPS1992 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible that some source material written by people who are cryptozoologists, while obviously not reliable on the topics of animal anatomy or alien visitations and the like, may be reliable on topics such as folklore beliefs? I think the general consensus regarding pseudoscience is that while pseudoscientific or fringe sources may occasionally mention "X is true" (i.e. something uncontroversial or some fact accepted by the mainstream), they are not recognized as authorities for these facts, and so are not appropriate to cite, e.g. "but some of what they say is true". Of course, if an an independent source notes that a fringe source said "X is true", we could include that in the article and cite the independent source. But that almost never happens, because there are always plenty of non-fringe WP:RS sources who are citeable for facts accepted by the mainstream. BTW, I have never seen a cryptozoology source devote any space to mythology or folklore for its own sake. If mythology/folklore is mentioned at all, it's usually part of a rationale to support contemporary anecdotal sightings of supposed mythical creatures. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Tatzelwurm in Switzerland
The article says "The name Tatzelwurm is not traditionally used in Switzerland..." -- but when I was in Meiringen (in the Bernese Alps) this summer I noted that the Aareschlucht tourist attraction had a model of the creature and a sign board which called it "Tatzelwurm". Likewise the Frutal bakery in the town had pastries in the form of the creature which were also called "Tatzelwurm".

The reference given for that assertion is dated 1896. It seems likely that things have changed since then.

However I don't feel that my personal observations are sufficient for me to remove that sentence.

Paul Clapham (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)