Talk:Black Shuck

Harry Potter

Was this maybe an inspiration for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which features a large black dog whose sight bodes ill fortune? Maybe that could be added to the popular culture section? 71.162.161.199 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

i think that was actually mentioned in another article about black dogs (ghost) although similar i don't think this specific black dog was the inspiration. Killemall22 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, tales of ghostly black dogs have been told all over the UK, so her inspiration could be from anywhere. Apparently the Hound of the Baskervilles probably was inspired by this one, as ACD was told the story while he was playing golf in Cromer! Rob (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As flattered as we are at Witching Hour to have been used as a 'credible source' of information-- I've revised the entry on Harry Potter to be less confusing. I've also added an additional source, which references information obtained in the book. I would have liked to have quoted the specific passages in the book, but am not in possession of the book at this time and have settled for information that is slightly more accessible. I DID NOT include reference to the film, which also contains similar information.Jadewik (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture?

The creature's name has been used by the Black Shuck Motor Cycle Club, an independent motor-bike club based in Ipswich, Suffolk: [1] But there aren't many secondary sources. It seems they do quite a bit of charity work e.g. [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a separate article Black_dog_ghosts_in_popular_culture#Black_Shuck, although to be honest it's probably not notable unless there's something particularly interesting about the group? Thanks Bob talk 07:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is there any standard pronunciation for Shuck? Does it rhyme with "luck" or with "look"? Or does it always depend the local regional accent. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC) As far as I know it always rhymes with luck as pronounced both in standard UK English and in E. Anglian dialects.Costesseyboy (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Mammal cryptids

What exactly are "mammal cryptids"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Please see this soon-to-be Wiki essay. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding cryptozoology

This article is currently a topic of discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Black_Shuck,_English_folklore,_and_cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite and Removal of categories

So I've been looking over this article and I've noticed some issues that need to be fixed. The lead section seems a bit long and has information that should be moved into the main body of the article. I've also noticed that the cryptozoology based categories were removed (I would only classify Black Shuck as a "possible" cryptid if it's event that). I think it's more Paranormal than Cryptid so I'm thinking that the Cryptozoology WikiProject doesn't need to be here for this one (I could be wrong). Since it is more Paranormal/Spectral, I'm thinking some paranormal categories might be necessary for this article. Again this all my observations which may change if more evidence presents itself otherwise.--Paleface Jack 17:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleface Jack (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Although we've shuffled some things around, rooted out some bad material and sources, and made some other changes, the article still needs to be rewritten from scratch with quality academic sources. This is an entity from the English folklore record, and there are plenty of quality sources out there to draw from from regional folklorists readily available. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Leiston Abbey excavation

Should we really be using this Daily Mail article as a source here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

As explained I believe it is a suitable source to say what the Daily Mail claims. The press story surrounding the excavation is why it is relevant to this article in the first place so while the Daily Mail isn't an RS for details of the skeletal remains they are an RS for their own article. (for context around the daily mail, it is widely regarded as inappropriate for citations, see RS/P for more) El komodos drago (talk to me) 12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The content of that DigVentures source is quite informative, despite their own tongue-in-cheek headline (emphasis added):

"But exactly when he was buried we couldn’t tell, and as the public flocked to watch the excavations trench side, this uncertainty fanned the ‘Black Shuck’ flames. ‘Are these the bones of Devil Dog, Black Shuck?’ ran the story in the Daily Mail, and whilst we were completely convinced that they weren’t, the headline could only be read as a challenge. If these weren’t Black Shuck’s bones, then what could archaeology tell us to bring us nearer the truth?"

I'm really not sure what the Daily Mail source adds to this article, other than to show how they make things up to suit their tabloid purposes. I think the fact the story made BBC's The One Show might be more notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

That they were making stuff up is precisely what I think it adds to the article. El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that's a risky rationale. Some readers will read it as a factual report. Adequate signposting, that we are really just ridiculing the Daily Mail, might also backfire. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand that we have to be careful about wording and you are free to reword it. However, the coverage has a reaction article from FolkloreThursday, probably an RS, demonstrating that the coverage of the excavation of the dog (as well as the dog body itself) is at least notable enough to receive a section about it. I think that shying away from this because it is hard to write in a non-contentious way would be a mistake. El komodos drago (talk to me) 16:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The Levistone Abbey Dog Returns!

Hi @David Gerard: and @Robby.is.on: I notice that you have taken objection to using International Business Times and The Daily Mail as self sources for the nonsense that they spoke about the Leviston Abbey Dog. The Leviston Abbey Dog is only relevant in that the Mail et. al. decided to link it to Black Shuck. (The Mail actually seems to be factually accurate here if deliberately misleading).

I see 4 possible resolutions to this:

1. Keep the text as it is.
2. If all you really object is it we can remove the claim that Yahoo! News reported that it was Black Shuck.
3. We can use the archeologist's report to state what the Daily Mail said but this would mean that some details would have to be neglected.
4. We can remove the section entirely.

I have no great feeling either way on whether or not Wikipedia includes that the IBT reported the existence of 6 ft. hellhounds after archeologists dug up a mastiff in a field somewhere. Best wishes, El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a temptation to use less-than-great sources on fringe topics like cryptozoology, because there's so much material. But this has tended to lead to terrible nonsense in the articles. So Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Sourcing says the best Wikipedia approach is to stick strictly to good sources (scholarly ones are best) for a firmly real-world view of events, and avoid low-quality sensationalist sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The use of the Daily Mail as a self source is, in my view, inline with WP:FRINGE to use this quotation given that it has been given appropriate context by the section from the archaeologists bellow, the description of the EADT story as tongue-in-cheek above and the article as a whole. That the Daily Mail claimed XYZ is a real world view and is the only reason the discovery of this dog skeleton is relevant to the article. Due to the significance of that article to the section trying to work around the fact that we can't use the article itself as a source for its contents would lead to a significant hole in the section. Thank-you, El komodos drago (talk to me) 16:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand the arguments made here and I agree that it is frustrating, but we really need a reliable secondary source discussing this topic, ideally a folklorist. There's important context and analysis that the sources I've just reverted are lacking, and their reporting is essentially fringe here. I also agree that we should never directly link to the Daily Mail—they're just not a reliable source at the end of the day, and anything they say that is notable will have reliable secondary sources somewhere. It might be worth bringing this up to the Fringe Noteboard. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The archaeologists involved did a write-up of them being in the Daily Mail, I am just citing directly from the Daily Mail to give an accurate picture of what it said. If you do not feel that the find was notable then delete the section. At the moment we are bringing up an archaeological find on a page about a mythological creature that it has no relevance to except that the two were linked by the national media. I personally feel that keeping the section while insisting that we remove the paragraph about the response in national media leaves the section with a very obvious omission and makes the fact that several national media sources did articles about it an elephant in the room. El komodos drago (talk to me) 19:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay opened up a thread on WP:FT/N as suggested. Thank-you. El komodos drago (talk to me) 16:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Status of article

This article has come a ways over the years, but it is still not in a great shape. The "descriptions" section needs to be totally rewritten with a chronological outline of exactly where the creature first appears in the folklore record and what exactly that says, rather than focusing on the pseudoscientific notion of the creature's 'appearance'. Instead, we need an "attestations" section that details who said what and when, which should really be followed by a scholarly reception section called something like "analysis" that contains discussion from scholars on the topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Black shuck/hellhound/????

Hello readers I’m going to explain my experience to you(s)..basically I was going my road on my electric scooter around midnight give or take 30 minutes and at the bottom of my road (council estate)there is a road (hill)going from left to right downhill..it was after being raining heavy and there is two shores on the footpath that I look out for if it’s raining because there dangerous when I’m on my scooter it’s about 50 yards from there to the hill anyways my concentration was looking for the shores but wen I looked up for a split second and seen something then a second later I looked up again and seen a huge black dog type thing cover approximately 20 yards in 3 strides and on the last stride it looked towards me and it had a massive yellow eye(s) then that was really it I came home and googled I seen a huge black dog with yellow eyes and low and behold that’s how I know I seen a black shuck /hellhound etc.. This was again give or take 2 weeks either side of Christmas 2022 just gone my nana died in January my birth mother died in February It’s only the past few months that I’ve looked properly into black shuck ect..me mind is puzzled by what I seen…

Uaithne fearghail Dublin Ireland 🇮🇪 109.76.88.118 (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead images

Are the two main images File:Blackdog.jpg and File:The Shuck.png really useful when they are so dark? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)