Talk:Loch Ness Monster/Archive 4

Semi-protection

I've got the page semi-protected again. Hopefully it should stay on this time. Totnesmartin 17:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article so prone to vandalism? (I do not know...) Enviroboy 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the vandals. Similar topics, such as Bigfoot and Bermuda Triangle also get it. It's mostly just schoolkids pratting about. Totnesmartin 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted (by looking at the history) that this has been uinprotected again, with the inevitable consequences. What [naughty word] did that? Totnesmartin 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah... it was on a ten-day timer. Needs to be a bit longer next time. Like forever. This page will always be a target.

could someone semi-protect this again? please? pretty nessy please with a hoax on top? pauli133 (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've requested it. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the place to do this, for your future reference. --McGeddon (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

awesome. thanks for the heads up. pauli133 (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I know adults say that kids shall always believe in fairy tales and less sophisticated knowledge, but I do not. I, as a 11 year old girl think it is time to take this matter seriously. Yes, there are countless hoaxes about the Loch Ness Monster, but most of them are pretty easy to figure out; most of them. From my research, I think overall there is enough proof. I mean really, it must be pretty smart to pick a gigantic loch that will not evaporate from the dinosaur ages to now! (I do not think it shall be evaporating anytime soon). What I want you to do now, is think about other people`s opinions, and my opinion, and if you believe in my opinion, go to the top of the page, click on "edit this page" and put your opinion right below my opinion with a simple "yes" or "no". Thank you for reading! -- (wrote someone who didn't sign)

It may not have evaporated but it did freeze completely solid for thousands of years during the Ice Ages. That wouldn't have done the monsters any good. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This protection is a nuisance. I have several additions to put in and citations too. How can we get a temporary unprotection? Tony Harmsworth

Eliminated

Unregistered IP here, eliminated the following:

But I say that theory was straight up bull! The humps have been in every sighting. How many travling circuses are there? Therefore the theory is bull worth nothing.

from under the Section - Elephant

Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.224.74.250 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First Sighting Infobox

The infobox lists first sighting as being in the 6th century (retrspectively). This is uncited and not mentioned anywhere in the article. Can someone please clarify this, or can it be removed from the infobox? BobertWABC (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The 7th-century Life of St. Columba is the earliest source mentioning a monster in connection with Loch Ness. Retrospectively, the sighting (or the 'first sighting' in retrospection) would have occurred in the late 6th century. Iblardi (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned somewhere in the text of the article and cited? If it has been, I apologize. I thought I read it meticulously. BobertWABC (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was not clear from the article. I have added some links. Iblardi (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientific articles in literature dealing with Loch Ness monster

There are many articles about the lock ness monster in print. Here are a few found in scientific literature which could be (or may be are) in the current wikipedia entry:

• The Population Density of Monsters in Loch Ness

R. W. Sheldon and S. R. Kerr

Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 17, No. 5 (Sep., 1972), pp. 796-798

• An Alternate Method of Calculating the Population Density of Monsters in Loch Ness

W. Scheider, P. Wallis

Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Mar., 1973), pp. 343

• The Loch Ness Monster-Limnology or Paralimnology?

C. H. Mortimer

Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Mar., 1973), pp. 343-345

• The Loch Ness Monster: Reply to Comments of C. H. Mortimer

R. W. Sheldon and S. R. Kerr

Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Mar., 1973), pp. 345-346

• If there are any, could there be many?

Carl Sagan

Nature 264, 497 (09 December 1976); doi:10.1038/264497a0

• Undernourished monster of Lock Ness

Tippett, R

La Recherche, Vol. 7, Iss. 65 (1976), pp. 278-281

• Humor in the Scientific Literature

Ralph A. Lewin

BioScience, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Apr., 1983), pp. 266-268

• Nessiteras Rhombopteryx

John H. Lawton

Oikos, Vol. 77, No. 3 (Dec., 1996), pp. 378-380

Contains the quote: "The detectives among you will probably have realised that the 11 December issue of Nature was the Christmas 1975 issue, and those of you who are good at crosswords may have noticed an interesting thing about the scientific name of the Ness monster with diamond fin. Nessiteras rhombopteryx is an anagram. Unscrambled, it spells out 'monster hoax by Sir Peter S'."

159.178.50.165 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why is nessie labelled as unsubstantiated? Elasmosaurus (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Her existence is not conclusively proven. The only ways she could possibly exist are (A) if her body is soft enough to absorb rather than reflect the sound waves on which sonar relies or (B) if she is an extra-terrestrial, who only visits the Loch (and Earth) sometimes, in which case she was on her home planet during the 2003 survey. Although she might exist if either of these were the case, her existence is not conclusively verified, hence the "unsubstantiated" label to which you refer. (Sidenote: Shockingly, I am not the 1st to suggest that she might be a giant extra-terrestrial.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot possibility (C), that she is an optical illusion. Before you dismiss this remember that rainbows certainly exist, yet they are "just" optical illusions which only appear in the right conditions. It is quite possible that Nessie is also an optical illusion and only appears when the weather conditions and other circumstances on the loch are correct. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous

lock ness monster nessie we don't know if he is real or not and when we do find something there is alway something that says it is not real so what i want to know if nessie is real tell me please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.101.203 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC) This is a great example of why Wikipedia cannot be taken very seriously. An article about Nessie is fine, but having the article go into pseudoscience in the first paragraph is laughable. Placing a fictitious scientific appearing name at the start shows how a fringe faction can take over an article on wikipedia. Kd4ttc (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet, that is no longer in the article. Wikipedia heals. It would have healed faster in this case if you had removed the ridiculousness instead of ranting uselessly on the talk page. --mav (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Carroll's sonar study

Yeah, the end of that section seems slightly unacceptable, but maybe it's just me.

GoForthAndDie (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What is unacceptable about it? Elaborate please. Bearerofthecup (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster in popular culture

I brought up a topic for discussion at Talk:Loch Ness Monster in popular culture#Discussion needed but since that article seems to be poorly watched, I figured I'd mention it here, on the main article's talk page. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection needed

If any admins are watching this article, would you mind protecting it from unregistered/new accounts? Virtually all the the work that goes into this article is devoted to reverting vandalism. Thanks, ClovisPt (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Should have probably done this sooner. As far as I can tell, there are about maybe two edits in the last hundred that aren't either vandalism or revert, so I've protected it for a month, although WP:RFPP is generally a better place to take these requests--Jac16888^Talk 01:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

April 20-something and it is still "protected", although right from the opening sentence we find, needing to be removed, the word "creature" - hyperbolic, sinister in implication, and plain old POV found throughout Nessiphile literature - when the sentence begs for "animal". I don't know what kind of vandalism it has been necessary to protect this article from, but if it is to protect the right of fanatically POV'd monster fraternity to deny any scientific findings and evidence that the LNM is nothing but a myth, then it only proves how fragile the world of Wikipede is to control by the uneducated, unsophisticated, unwise, biase-blinded and pathologically imaginative among the "anybody" it invites to edit and who take what they read here as more serious and real than anything found written anywhere (excepting obscure tomes which confirm their wonky beliefs, of course). Open the gates, eh, and let's try to get something sensible and fair here, and *then* put on the locks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.195.209 (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Heavens! Keep the locks on indeed; there are many fired-up editors around here. Bearerofthecup (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this page gets hit with vandalism regularly, I'll submit a protection request. (Community editor (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Vandalism

I found this on the page recently: "The Loch Ness Is real it was captured by fishmen it is now being held in a zoo which one dont know. she is 10 metres long and people can see it". The English of that statement is incorrect (as you can tell) and there is no citation. I am removing it. (LaughinSkull Talk) 11:17, 2 June, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism (which was only ten minutes old) - the user had actually blanked a large section of the article in order to write that sentence, which I've now restored. For future reference, it's always better to revert to the previous version of the article, than to try and correct vandalism manually. See Wikipedia:How to deal with vandalism for more details. --McGeddon (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensive 2003 expedition missing

I can't see any reference to the extensive 2003 expedition organised by the BBC which essentially proved, byond any reasonable scientific doubt that there is no Loch Ness Monster - strange that this is missing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3096839.stm --Hontogaichiban (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be exact, it proved beyond any reasonable scientific doubt that the Loch Ness Monster is not an animal in the Loch. However it did not prove that the Monster couldn't be something else, such as an optical illusion caused by specific weather conditions, or gas bubbles caused by geological activity. But I take your point that there should be some mention of the expedition. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC expedition has been added, but it must be pointed out that the reference is a popular news item not a scientific paper. Not being able to find an animal today does not prove that there was nothing in 1933. Nor does it prove that the cause of sightings is purely a myth (which the news item does not say, in any case.) Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The study relies on sonar. Sonar relies on underwater sound waves bouncing off the target, and sound waves in gas and liquid media bounce off hard objects. In other words, a monster whose body is relatively soft would be immune to sonar.

So, the study only disproves a hard-bodied monster. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Relatively soft like fish? How do you think fishfinders work? Moriori (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not mean like fish. Fish have true bones, which are actually quite hard. Something of a more jellyfish-like or slug-like consistency, which lacks the true bones that fish do have (a component that is by no means relatively soft) would be unlikely to be found by those means. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite being told that plesiosaurs are an infinitesimally unlikely candidate, the BBC based their entire programme around a plesiosaur. Unfortunately documentary teams do not research their subject properly and then, through a combination of inappropriate editing and poor interpretation allow material to enter the public domain which is of a less than acceptable standard. Tony Harmsworth - author Loch Ness, Nessie And Me

Google maps image

Saw this on news today: Google Maps wexy (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

and there you have it folks. undeniable proof that boats exist :)--Jac16888^Talk 14:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You call that a boat? Looks more like a squid - a 20 metre squid at that. 88.107.89.126 (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, its obviously a speed boat, you can clearly the corners of the back end--Jac16888^Talk 17:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Here you can see a comparision with a true boat: http://www.morija.biz/weblog/2009/nessie-auf-dem-chiemsee/ Article is in German but result is obviously! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.70.54 (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion — Plesiosaur?

Can we change "presumably from a line of long-surviving Plesiosaurs" in the opening sentence? The word "presumably" gives the impression that the article presumes the creature exists. Although it's subsequently made clear that this isn't the case, the wording still seems odd to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.104.124 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it. It was a very recent unencylopedic addition. The fact that someone can find a web page with a statement does not make the statement a fact. The opening needs to be basic info. Plesiosaurs are properly discussed later.Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, if one goes to the website that had been given — note that the citation was not entered as per WP:CITE — one discovers that the article, “A Review of the Evidence for Living Plesiosaurs,” does not support the existence of Nessie or of living plesiosaurs. I think that anything to do with Nessie and its resemblance to a plesiosaur should be placed elsewhere in the article, perhaps in the Hoaxes section, not in the lede. — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Going from the original edit summary, I don't know if it wouldn't make sense to mention in the lede something to the effect that "The Loch Ness Monster is often depicted as resembling (or being) a long-necked plesiosaur, a type of prehistoric marine reptile," as the plesiosaur thing is a prominent part of the Nessie mythos. However, there's a long way between how it's said to look and establishing that it's real and presumably is derived to plesiosaurs. J. Spencer (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Google Earth (2009) removal

I removed this section recently on the basis that "not every claim of finding the LNM is worthy of inclusion". It was quickly reinstated but no reason was given beyond telling me to shut up. In the absence of an explanation for this, I again removed the section as per my previous reasoning. I notice that this section has again been reinstated, albeit without the appropriate references.

I am still of the opinion that this particular claim isn't worthy of note in the article but I don't want to remove it again, even where it has been reinstated with no explanation. I therefore seek input from other editors as to whether this should or shouldn't be included. Adambro (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there is a source for it. But its notability is another matter. Other source are [[1]] [[2]] [[3]], there are a few more but I got bored. So it has been extensivly coverd (and it would seem has garnered some international attention. But its all fairly minor coverage, a few lines and no more. I would say include it for now, but list it as the most recent sighting that seems to be all thats noteworthy about it.Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate there are a number of sources regarding this but as you suggest, notability is a different matter. Looking at it from a historical significance view point though, it doesn't seem that someone suggesting they've spotted the LNM on a satellite photo and a few news organisations reporting that is going to be of anything other than transient interest. Indeed, as you note, all that is really noteworthy is that it is one of the most recent apparent sightings but Wikipedia articles are not meant to report news but take a view of the historical notability per WP:NOTNEWS. This keeps seeming to creep back into the article but I'm still of the opinion that it isn't appropriate so I'd welcome some wider discussion of this. Adambro (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly not noteworthy in a historical sense. It is not a milestone, more like the usual (and annual) silly season Nessie sighting. We cannot list all sightings, and as this one now seems to have reached the level of obscurity it deserves I think it can be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Photomontage of the monster" and "possible pliesiosaur"

It's a very nice altered photograph of Loch Ness and the Surgeon's Photograph, but considering the Surgeon's Photograph has since been revealed to be a hoax, then perhaps adding another fake isn't a good idea.

Also, from what I understand, the pliesiosaurs were all extinct before the creation of Loch Ness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmadil (talk • contribs) 16:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If any picture is a fake, how is it an issue? FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The photomontage is inappropriate. It should only be a picture which has been claimed and to some extent believed. Anybody could make such a picture today. Head and neck sightings have been very rare, so this does not even represent common witness accounts. One of the upturned boat pictures would be most appropriate, but seeing as they are not (so far as I am aware) in the public domain, the Surgeon's Photograph is still the most appropriate for the info box. Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But that photo is not PD either. No "real" Nessie photo is. So only way we can have a free image in the infobox is if we create one. As long as it is explained that it's just an artistic representation, the current image is appropriate when it comes to demonstrating the common description of the monster. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

pictures of the monster can be found on google earth just type in loch ness

General consensus of that picture is its a boats wake.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Debunking the 'Surgeon's Photograph'

The article mentions the most popular "Nessie" photo -- the 'Surgeon's Photograph' -- had/has its debunkers, but the dates given for the debunking begin no earlier than 1979 (the swimming elephant theory...though something tells me we'd be about as likely to see a Plesiosaur swimming in the Loch as we would an elephant!) Since far more credible studies debunked the photo earlier than this, why is there no mention of that fact? Cyoso (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC).

HOAX?

A recent History Channel geologist stated that Loch Ness was only created by the melting of the massive glacier that had gouged out the present loch bed.

The loch cannot be more than 20,000 years old, the last ice age. Equally there cannot be a Jurassic survivor from 60 million years ago.

The first annual sightings usually coincide with the start of the tourist season.

The plesiosaur explanation is only one of many. FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nessiteras rhombopteryx the scientific name is an anagram of "monster hoax by Sir Peter S". 86.45.199.69 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Monster hoax by Sir Peter S". However, Robert Rines, who previously made two underwater photographs allegedly showing the monster, countered with the fact that they can also be arranged into "Yes, both pix are monsters, R." Edited above. A nice coincidence (Anagram wikiepia) 86.45.199.69 (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Cryptid?

Im not sure this is a common enough word to lead the article off. its hard to figure out when this word was added, but "alleged animal" was used in the past. Cryptozoology is not exactly fringe, but not mainstream either. I would prefer the former phrase, or something similar. i cant find a debate about this word. anyone currently editing here with strong thoughts on the matter?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is also an alleged log, an alleged optical illusion and an alleged hoax, among other possibilities. If you start to call it an alleged animal to the exclusion of the other possibilities, you will need to find sources to prove that someone has alleged that it's an animal. Or you could just leave the term "cryptid" which sums things up nicely and, as a bonus, helps to expand people's vocabularies. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lectotypification of Rhombopteryx nessitas

I wanted to see if it would be permitted to add the following, as it is an important addition to the story: Lectotypification Nessiteras rhombopteryx Scott & Rines was validly lectotypified in accordance with the Articles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature by Fraser-Jenkins (2001), based on the original specimen from which Scott & Rine's (1975) Fig. 1 was made. But unfortunately it has subsequently been revealed that this photograph was of a piece of floating wood, which means that the name has to be applied to the wood and the Loch Ness Monster therefore requires a new name. Thus Rhombopteryx scottii Fras.-Jenk. is now designated herewith as a nomen novum for N. rhombopteryx, Scott & Rines, Nature 258: 467 (1975). Reference: Fraser-Jenkins, C.R. 27.4.2001. Dryopteris stanley-walkeri Fraser-Jenkins, the missing diploid common-ancestor of D. carthusiana and D. cristata (Pteridophyta: Dryopteridaceae), in Pande, P.C. & Samant, S.S. (eds.), Plant Diversity of the Himalaya (Prof. Y.P.S. Pangtey commemoration volume): 119-152. Gyanodaya Prakashan, Nainital, India. Reprinted 19.7.2002. Advances Plant Sci. Res. 11: 1-32 ["2000"]. International Book Distributors, Dehra Dun, India. C.R. Fraser-Jenkins, Kathmandu. Chrisfrasj (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The anogram was not intentional

Concerning the anogram about "Monster Hoax etc." When I asked her permission to publish my lectotypification article, Lady Scott told me that Sir Peter was actually pretty upset to find that there was such an anogram, and she assured me that it had not been his intention at all, but was a complete and unfortunate coincidence. I cited that in my paper, too, and still have her letter about it in my letter file in the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff (Botany Dept.). Chris Fraser-Jenkins. Chrisfrasj (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that is to be mentioned in the article, your paper has to be cited. FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

New name required

The rules of the ICZN (Zoological Code) allow pictures to represent a type-specimen (the original animal which the illustration attempts to depict) that is not available. Once lectotypified the name must apply to that illustration, and as the Rhines photo subsequently turned out to be a wooden part of the boat, the name Rhombopteryx nessitas must now apply to a piece of wood, which is very unfortunate indeed. At the time it was thought that the Rhines photograph was probably genuine. If R. nessitas is merely given a new name ("nomen novum") as I had suggested, it must be based on the same type specimen and would therefore just be a synonym - of the piece of wood, again. I think it therefore needs to be described anew as a completely new species name, with a proper Latin diagnosis and also citing a holotype (which would be an illustration). It would also have to have a new genus, as the genus Rhombopteryx is typified by the species R. nessitas and is thus back to the piece of wood again! It could, appropriately, be something like Nessia scottii or Nessia caledonica, or something else suitable - what would be a good name? Is there a good illustration suitable for citing as the type? Would Sir Peter Scott's painting be appropriate? If so, I would propose to give it a valid name as a new species, to be published properly in a scientific journal - it does not require any actual decision as to whether or not it exists. Incidentally, the Latin termination "-itas" in nessitas is clearly incorrect, wrong part of speech and a peculiar stem, and would have to be corrected to "-ana", as in nessana. Given the strange and unusual spelling, had Lady Scott not told me it was definitely not intentional I'd have been inclined to believe the "Monster hoax" anogram theory! Chrisfrasj (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a painting would be appropriate. But anyway, that question is hardly for this page, which is simply about how to improve the article. FunkMonk (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for discussing - but do you think it might improve the article if reference to the lectotypification were made in it? Chris. 124.41.231.7 (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

This is one of the reasons why i can't take this kind of articles serisouly: the phrase - Mackal noted that there was no similarity between the recordings and the hundreds of known sounds produced by aquatic animals. "More specifically," he said, "competent authorities state that none of the known forms of life in the loch has the anatomical capabilities of producing such calls."[citation needed]

CITATION NEEDED

so how do we know that this guy actually said this? is it a book? an interview? or is it again people making stuff up? if we don't have a source for this, why is this even in the page? it's between hyphens, so it's a quote, right? where does it come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.66.170 (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

1933 fottage

Is there any refrance supporting this as footage from 1933?Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a Plesiosaur!

Either the Plesiosaur theory section should be removed, or it should be very clear that this explanation has been conclusively discarded. If the monster exists, she can't be a Plesiosaur saved by being frozen in just the right manner for millions of years. The lake itself is too new! Loch Ness formed long after the extinction of the Plesiosaurs. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Small caveat on the 2003 survey

Sonar is sound in a liquid medium. Detection relies on the waves being reflected by the object being detected. Soft objects tend to absorb most of the sound that hits them, rather than reflecting it. (You can observe this by screaming into a pillow.) A relatively soft-bodied monster would be immune to sonar, absorbing the waves rather like your pillow, not reflecting them to be detected.

Proven: There can't be a hard-bodied monster.

That's about the size of it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out to you above, fishfinders work by sonar. If it's fishlike, it would be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If fish-like, yes, it would be detectable, but who insisted that it would have to fish-like? Fish have true bones, and so they are not relatively soft in the sense that I mean. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Would relatively soft in the sense that you mean -- and without bones -- include something from the scyphozoa, staurozoa, cubozoa, hydrozoa, scyphomedusae, stauromedusae, cubomedusae or hydromedusae? Some of them are found in fresh water. Moriori (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's catching on to what I mean. The monster could be an unusually complex cnidarian. Since all reports involve a freely moving monster, let's eliminate the sessile taxa. (Hydras are sessile unless I'm mistaking.) There are also some members of the Phylum Mollusca without shells. A giant unknown freshwater cnidarian or mollusk might fit the bill as a real lake monster.

Alternatively, the theories of a giant extra-terrestrial who sometimes visits the Loch are technically not conclusively disproven by the 2003 survey. Quite simply, the alien would have been back on her home planet during that part of 2003. Hence, she was not detected. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, there has never ever been anything there at all. I'll trust Mr Occam on this one. You carry on looking for people to disprove your negatives. A lifetime's work, I'd say Moriori (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm using Ockham's razor. Unlike the Surgeon's Photo, the Diary of Saint Columba is no hoax. Given almost 1500 years worth of witnesses, it is simpler to say that they saw something that perhaps was later exaggerated than to say they all had the exact same hallucination. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

People can see the exact same something even when there is nothing to see even though none of then are having hallucinations, shared or otherwise. For instance, stand 15 people in front of a rain shower with the sun behind them and 15 of them will see a rainbow despite the fact that none of them are hallucinating and that there is no detectable physical object to see other than the rain shower. Occam's razor suggests to me that we have to explain why people see the Loch Ness monster when such a creature cannot exist. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A rainbow isn't matter if that's what you mean. Technically it does exist, though, as it's composed of light, which is real energy.

Besides, a large jellyfish-like freshwater animal could exist and would be invisible to sonar due to the nature of sound waves in a gas or liquid medium, namely that they are absorbed rather than reflected. I explained that earlier. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that's just it: a rainbow doesn't exist. Technically what people are seeing is the sun reflected by the shower. However the sun's reflection is so distorted and refracted by the droplets in the shower that it is unrecognisable. The rainbow only exists as an image on the viewer's retina. In that way it is rather like the dinosaurs in the film, Jurassic Park: these animals do not exist except as images projected on a screen. The fact that a whole cinema full of people see exactly the same thing and agree that it was a tyrannosaur does not mean that there is an actual tyrannosaur made of matter. Likewise with Nessie: why bother with hypothetical jelly-like animals when known mirage-friendly weather conditions combined with boat transits can explain most sightings. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Like most films, Jurassic Park uses edited footage. That's a matter of someone who's really, really good at using a computer. In any case, the Wavelength Spectrum of Visible Light is as real as light itself as a form of energy. The rainbow, which frankly doesn't even look like a matter-based object (although it would be an illusion if at least looked like matter), is an expression of the wavelength spectrum. The longer waves (Red, Orange, and Yellow) really do reflect farther apart into perfect circles with the shorter waves (Green, Blue, and Violet) not quite as far apart. Do light waves not exist? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This took a while, but I forgot to mention that even being able explain most sightings boat wakes and weather phenomena, there must be another, perhaps more complex, explanation for the minority that can't be explained by those things. That is where the Phylum Cnidaria and the fact that its mobile members have soft enough bodies to be invisible to sonar, come into the picture. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sure, that's ok then. Moriori (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of 'Worm'

In the article, where it describes the possibilities of Nessie being an invertebrate, it talks about dragons originally being called "worms" in old English, when in fact the correct term would be "wyrm".

Edit request from 67.190.34.156, 14 August 2010

The Request was accepted and executed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{editsemiprotected}} Under the Surgeon's Photograph section, a few sentences down, it says "The second one, a blurry image, attacted little publicity because it was difficult to interpret what was depicted." attacted should be attracted. 67.190.34.156 (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)  Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In Surgeon's Photo

It says He also claimed that plastic wood did not exist in 1934, although it was a popular DIY and modelling material in the early 1930s.[33] Now this doesn't make any sense. I'm sure it's pretty obvious why. Also, modeling is misspelled. --195.22.191.4 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Modelling with 2 'l's is the British spelling as it is a British topic. Henry Bauer claimed that plastic wood did not exist in 1934, so could not have been used as claimed. Reference 33 demonstrates that it was well-known at that time.Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Plastic wood was available in the early thirties. Henry is in error. I am somewhat put out that many of my corrections to this article I made a couple of years ago have been overwritten with mistaken information. Tony Harmsworth author Loch Ness, Nessie And Me

"Surgeon's Photograph"

The section "Surgeon's Photograph" does not flow very well. For example, the first mentions of Dr. Wilson and Christian Spurling are worded as if we should already know who these people are. Also, it is not clear how the statement "The image was revealed as a hoax in 1994" relates to the later mention of a book published in 1999. The former statement seems to be summary introductory information, but the 1994 event is not actually mentioned in the detailed chronology that follows.

I did not write the above. However, the full size Surgeon's photograph is now published in my book. Loch Ness, Nessie And Me by Tony Harmsworth

Recent sighting

There was a recent sighting by a local on June 15, 2011. Reference: [4] --JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 11:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a recent claim of a sighting by a local on June 15, 2011. Reference: [5] --Moriori (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, this thing was around for a "good four to five minutes" which explains why there are so many wonderful photos of it. --Moriori (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Plesiosaurs cold-blooded?

Who wrote that plesiosaurs were "probably" cold-blooded? Other Mesozoic reptiles, such as dinosaurs and pterosaurs were warm-blooded, so why not plesiosaurs as well? The real reason that Nessie, if she is real, is probably not a plesiosaur is because it would be impossible for a plesiosaur to hold its neck out of the water in the vertical, swan-like fashion that Nessie allegedly does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And in fact, the Wikipedia article on the plesiosaur states "Plesiosaurs breathed air, were probably warm-blooded, and bore live young", whereas the Nessie article states "plesiosaurs were probably cold-blooded" as a reason against it being one, so the two articles currently contradict each by another.

In answer to the question "who wrote?" the answer is in the reference given. This is, as the article correctly states, an argument which has been made. Many arguments which have been made about the Loch Ness Monster (for or against) are far from conclusive, and some are plain wrong. (The article gives ideas and arguments which have been put but tries to maintain a neutral view.) Actually, the only basic truth is that it was said to resemble a plesiosaur by eyewitnesses trying to describe what they saw, at a time when dinosaurs and the like were in popular culture.Chemical Engineer (talk)

Sturgeon theory

A recent documentary aired by National Geographic Channel puts some insight that the famous Loch Ness monster is no more than a sturgeon, since it was sightseen once in this lake and fits many of characterics of some popular believes: including it's stealthiness, a reptilian like when appears out of water and also we now that the sturgeon can survive in salt and fresh water. The particular specie of sturgeon that was sightseen on the lake is the same that live on the coast of Scotland can grow up to 3 to 4 metre and weight up to one ton. This means that many of sightseens of the monster are no more than a hoax of fraud. The few truly genuines was no more than some kind of fish (sturgeon is most likelly) that living on the open sea, and somehow go throught the river Ness and end on the famous Loch Ness for reproducing propouse and it's possible that will be brifelly visible by some witness, just before return to the sea. --85.247.145.88 (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

replace meeja with reuters

Meeja, which is the source for the thing about the Chief Constable, isn't a very reliable source. The same information can instead be directly sourced to reliable news outlets - Reuters and the Western Australia Sunday Times --87.114.90.11 (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing Explanation

This article fails to mention the explanation of the surgeon's photo that was recently revealed on a television show: The picture is of a man's arm!! It seems obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.239.113 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

History Channel x 2

A recent History Channel broadcast showed footage of the lock gates at either end of Loch Ness and concluded that these were far too small for anything such as a seal to get in or out without being seen, which seems to rule out anything seasonal visiting the loch.

Another History Channel broadcast showed geologists carefully examining the area. Using the latest methods it was concluded that the loch was formed by the run off water at the end of the last Great Ice Age, no more than 20,000 years ago. There cannot be any reptilian survivor as a Loch Ness Monster. --AT Kunene (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Bare URLs and GA

A lot of the refs are bare URLs, these should be fixed before a GA review gets started. --PumpkinSky talk 12:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

loch nest monster proof evolution is a hoax in us fundamentalist protestant private schools

How American fundamentalist schools are using Nessie to disprove evolution http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/how-american-fundamentalist-schools-are-using-nessie-to-disprove-evolution.17918511 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.76.108 (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 photo

Clearly, the authors of Wikipedia have their own fish to fry regarding cryptozoology articles. Why should the 2012 photo be included if it clearly demonstrates that there's some large, animate object that is not—as Benjamin Radford, Joe Nickell, and other paraprofessionals would have us believe—a misidentified boulder, log, or dead horse. There remains zero question that extremely large, unidentified animals dwell in the Loch, but the "skeptics" will continue to deny its existence even when it (for extremeness of argument's sake) flies out of the Loch and breathes fire in their faces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.195.49 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 20 August 2012

Have you seen today's development? The photo is part of a hoax claim. It shows a fibreglass model made for a natgeo film.--[[User:Moriori|Moriori]] ([[User talk:Moriori|talk]]) (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There remains zero question that extremely large, unidentified objects exist in the Loch. But there is plenty of question about whether they are animals. They could equally well be Russian one-man military submarines or alien spacecraft with underwater capability. No doubt the "skeptics" will continue to deny their existence even when (for the sake of argument) they fly out of the Loch and invade Inverness. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

1956 photo ?

According to ilalehti there is 1956 photo. http://static.iltalehti.fi/hullumaailma/lochnessetuJI0308_hu.jpg http://www.iltalehti.fi/hullumaailma/2012080315916717_hu.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.184.83.230 (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 February 2013

Papa Chef-- "When I realized, that this was no girl scout. This was a giant, crustacean creature from the paleolithic era!!" Papa Chef--"its gonna be about tree fifty" --Treefitty (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. __Just plain Bill (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

pictures

the picture evidence in not substantial. why are they always out of focus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed127 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

See Photo manipulation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.88.108 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So you can't see the duct tape and nails. --TheDarkOneLives (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The 1933 picture is of an Elephant from Bertram Mills' circus swiming in the loch. He generously offered a £20,000 reward for the capture and made publicity from the offer. Just google pictures of "elephant swiming" and you will see there are many loch ness monsters, mainly in Africa and Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.69.227 (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Many of the pictures are from the period 1900-1960. Cameras were not as sophisticated then as perhaps they are now, and unless you are on a specialist monster hunt you are unlikely to be carrying a Haselblad!

2. Nessie probably only appears for a short period. In the rush and with adrenalin pumping it's not so easy to take a great image.

3. Resolution is lost when an image is enlarged. see 1 above.

Do you really think so many eyewitnesses could be wrong? Survivors of the Titanic stated the ship broke in half and no-one believed them, either! --203.9.151.254 (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What a crappy argument. Did they argue that Titanic wasn't real either? --Diblidabliduu (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Image

The image File:Loch Ness monster views.svg was removed from the article, supposedly on grounds of POV and Original Research. Those grounds are dubious, however, because I don't see a POV inherent in the image, and Original Research claims are not generally applied strictly to interpretive diagrams. The image should be restored. --Powers ^T 17:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I see "unsupported by references" as an obstacle to restoring the image. See WP:OI: "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" __Just plain Bill (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any unpublished ideas. Aren't all of the silhouettes representative of descriptions of actual claimed sightings? --Powers ^T 20:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Which one is which? For example, which one corresponds to Frank Holiday's claimed sighting, as reported in The Great Orm of Loch Ness? If memory serves, none of them does. __Just plain Bill (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a different issue, if you're arguing that the image is incomplete. --Powers ^T 13:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The image has multiple problems, not limited to incompleteness. It is an original synthesis, not published in a notable source. It is unlikely to be an accurate rendering of any sighting. It shows no explicit connection between the schematic silhouettes and the various sightings they are meant to represent. __Just plain Bill (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, interpretive images are not subject to the same restrictions on synthesis and prior publication as text. --Powers ^T 17:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That still does not address the issues of:

• Incompleteness
• Dubious accuracy
• No explicit connection between the silhouettes and particular sightings

How is this image encyclopedic? __Just plain Bill (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Incompleteness can be repaired by adding new images or modifying the existing image. I don't see any cause for doubting the accuracy of the silhouettes, and I don't know that there needs to be a one-to-one relationship between the silhouettes and specific sightings. The artist has grouped the known descriptions into five categories and illustrated those five basic categories. That's extremely encyclopedic, and exactly the sort of thing a high-quality encyclopedia should be doing. Heck, the image is used in dozens of other-language Wikipedias! If that's not encyclopedic, I don't know what is. --Powers ^T 01:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed unsourced image again. Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Loch Ness Monster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Minor issues of grammar, punctuation (some fixed).	Pass
(b) (MoS)	A few slightly doubtful usages e.g. "However".	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Article is properly referenced, with bibliography.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Every section is cited except for some of the Searches. On hold for these to be cited.	Fail
(c) (original research)	No untoward claims.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The early and 20th century history are evenly covered. The major photographs are individually and critically discussed. The major searches are critically described and reviewed. The main explanations are each discussed. Popular culture is handled in a subsidiary article (not part of this review).	Pass
(b) (focused)	Article is well focused on the topic.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Neutrality is very carefully maintained.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Article is reasonably stable. The use of some images has been disputed. Protection has sometimes been applied for vandalism, but content is broadly agreed.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images from Commons except Surgeon's which is tagged and verified fair usage.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The images used are relevant and properly captioned.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	Awaiting citations for some of the Searches. Since there has been no progress towards supplying the missing citations during the On Hold period, a Fail is now the only option. Will be happy to reassess when the marked citations needed are filled.

Discussion

Just wanted to thank you for taking on the Loch Ness Monster review, and if you need any help, don't hesitate to ask.Oakley77 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The review is on hold for a week awaiting citations in the Searches section (tagged in article). If you are actively working on these and need a little more time to locate printed sources, let me know and I'll extend the On Hold period. And if you can recruit experts to help, again, do that and let me know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

River Monsters

Jeremy Wade did an episode on this and claimed that it might be a greenland sharkEricl (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Colloquialisms

Should "dead calm" really be used in the section "Bird Wakes"? It doesn't sound encyclopedic... 178.78.66.136 (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Incoherent Sentence

In the section "The Surgeon's Photograph" we read this sentence: "The strangely small ripples on the photo fit the size and circular pattern of small ripples as opposed to large waves when photographed up close." I don't suppose that Miss Utah or Miss South Carolina wrote this, or if it represents the collision of two inattentive minds, but it has the sound of someone who does not know how to put a thought together. I suppose the writer is trying to say that when small ripples are photographed up close, they look just like the small ripples in the Surgeon's photograph, but "fit" is definitely not an apt word, "size" is redundant, and it is not clear why anyone would think that small ripples should be strangely small or expect them to have the pattern of large waves. At any rate, it would be nice if someone who knows the analytical point and who can write English would correct this. —Wordwright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordwright (talk • contribs) 14:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 August 2013

In the "Surgeon's Photograph" paragraph: 1st occurrence of the name Christian Spurling in "...but after Christian Spurling's confession...". 2nd occurence in "... built by Christian Spurling, the son-in-law of Marmaduke Wetherell...". 3rd occurence in "with the help of Chris Spurling (a sculpture specialist)...".

Who is Christian Spurling, should be clarified as soon as the 1st occurence. Or a couple of sentences should introduce him, as his part was essential in the Surgeon's Photograph affair.

86.210.174.135 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Clearly, the name should not be introduced without some explanation. I'm afraid I know nothing of Nessie, so I wonder if you'd be kind enough to draft those couple of sentences? If you do, just reopen this edit request and I or someone else will be happy to take another look at it. Rivertorch (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 sighting

I've added a section for the 2013 sighting/video. If anybody could expand this, it's greatly appreciated--Mjs1991 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2013

Minor typo in section "Dinsdale film (1960)":

...was only coincidentally shaped like body...

Should be:

...was only coincidentally shaped like a body...

Swickert (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not a plesiosaur?

I'm as skeptical about the existence of this animal as most other people, but under the slim chance that the Loch Ness Monster is real, is the fact that it holds its neck vertically really enough evidence to suggest that it is not a plesiosaur? The alleged resemblance is too strong to be a simple case of convergent evolution. Don't forget that if it is real this creature has survived millions of years after the rest of its kind went extinct. It could have evolved since then so that its vertebrae would allow it to adopt such a position. Indeed, it could still be a plesiosaur, just an evolved one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There would need to be many animals in the population for it to survive. That many extremely large animals would require massive amounts of food every day. Plesiosaurs had lungs. They would have to come up for air at least several times a day. With many animals coming up at least once an hour, their sightings would have to virtually constant.

Also, evolution requires a selective pressure. What pressure would there be to pull its neck out of the water when all of its food would presumable be under the water with it?--Chip Cherry (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is NOT a forum to discuss the topic of the article. --Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"This is the talk page, you are not allowed to talk about the article!..." Seriously, are you having issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.130.248.239 (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

yes you can discuss the article and how it could be improved. No, this is not a blog for giving opinions on the Loch Ness Monster - i.e. the topic of the article.Chemical Engineer (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of the thing

It seems rather odd there's only one when the section mentions like 7. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Claimed pictures are generally copyright and thus not available for Wikipedia (or general use).Chemical Engineer (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Citations

I find it quite odd that in the searches section, almost all of the positive-sounding sections don't have sources: 5 out of 6 (or 7) don't have citations. Is this some kind of weird bias? Did these searches even happen? I am going to research them (at some point in the near future) and if I cant find mention of them, I intend to delete them. It's also a really odd that the most comprehensive search, the one by the BBC which apparently proves that the monster is a myth, is the shortest of them all, even though it has sources. I intend to rectify this at some point. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Can't talk for anyone else but one of the problems that I've come across is where the news databases (paid access or otherwise) start and end. We need WP:RS and that rules out so many blogs and pages in a Google Search but major media only have current archives that go back so far and historical archives only go up to a certain point in the 1900s. Finding WP:RS with those restrictions can often be about the info not being easily available (given we can't just copy any blog) rather than any agenda. But do go looking! (I do and find bits and pieces - although usually more 1800s than contemporary unless really recent.) AnonNep (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected||

78.148.225.229 (talk) wanna edit? go ahead pupil go. if you think you shout make changes then make it what do you think is right then edit the wrong and poat the rght. BUT REMBER NOTHUNG IS WRONG OR RIGHT ITS YOUR BELIFE!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.225.229 (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2013

Infobox states that the last sighting of the Loch Ness Monster is in 2012 yet David Elder's video (2013) shouldn't it read that the last sighting is 2013 not 2012?

Sure, that makes sense. Done. --ElHef (Meep?) 00:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Vanessa?

Okay, I'll bite: what does Vanessa have to do with the Loch Ness Monster that merits a "See Also" entry? --J. Spencer (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Gotta be because Nessie is short for Vanessa. I believe I've even seen it written in books where it's been Vanessa rather than Nessie. Go figure, but a "see also" entry...yeah right. --Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article you will see (note 4) that Nessie is in Scottish usage a familiar form of Agnes. --Chemical Engineer (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As our young ladys name refers to a place (lock Ness) and not a shortnaiing of the name Vanessa (or a scotish varitant) I would like to source a source linking Nessie to Vanessa in relation to our young lady. At the moment its a large chunk of very dubious OR. --Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I took Vanessa out. It's irrelevant to this article as Nessie comes from Loch Ness as Slatersteven says. --Totnesmartin (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The word LOCH is not pronounced LOCK anywhere other than England for some reason. (They appear to have difficulty with "CH" at the end of words. UK TV is replete with ads for such things as "MACK 3" (Mach)razors. 94.11.144.24 (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Many dialects do not commonly employ the guttural "ch" sound. For instance, the word is widely pronounced as "lock" in North America. (When responding to a comment, please post after earlier replies, not before.) Rivertorch (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well It could stand for just Nessa that is a real name you know — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.68.84 (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal Protections for the Monster

The Protection of Animals Act (Scotland) 1912, while not officially recognizing the existence of the monster, nonetheless prescribes severe penalties for anyone harming or molesting it, "if it exists". See for example: http://books.google.com/books?id=STE-xNcbDrgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:1849653089&hl=en&sa=X&ei=S2hrVKr6KbePsQSJ7YGgAw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nessie&f=false For what it's worth, I could find no mention of this fact or anything related to it, in the article. That's a strange, and oddly specific, law Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

See reference 16. Chemical Engineer (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Surgeon's Photograph

I think that Surgeon's Photograph ought to be added to the infobox for the article. Its a pretty well known photo of the supposed monster and it would be nice to have a decent picture at the top of the article. Any objections from anyone? I don't want to move it there myself given the nature of the article. Zell Faze (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It is well known, and has a legitimate claim to iconic status. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

...and I just added it, replacing the Heikenwaelder painting, which does not read well as a thumbnail. __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about the photo on the head of the article, I think the person who took it said on his death bed that he forged it... Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read the section on it before writing. "I think I remember" is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Chemical Engineer (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Edwards' Photo Verification

The section on Edwards' photo made it sound like the Daily Mail reported that Edwards' photo had been verified. In fact, they only reported that Edwards made that claim, so I corrected the wording. I also put "US military monster experts" in quotes, since as far as I can tell, it's the only time in the history of journalism that phrase has been used. KaturianKaturian 15:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

the Loch Ness lake

In the opening paragraph, the phrase "the Loch Ness lake" is straight out of the Department of Redundancy Department. It would be sufficient to write "Loch Ness", since loch means lake. As it is it reads "the Lake Ness lake"

184.70.125.130 (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Loch Ness Monster (also called Nessie) is a cryptid that reputedly inhabits the Loch Ness lake in the Scottish Highlands.

The Loch Ness Monster (also called Nessie) is a cryptid that reputedly inhabits the Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands.

Note: Loch Ness means Lake Ness, ie Loch Ness "lake" is redundant. SnakeEater67 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015

On the recent google 2015 doodle information loch ness is referred to as a lake this is simply not accurate. Albathebrave (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I can only assume you are referring to the section within this article Loch_Ness_Monster#Google_street_view_.282015.29. If so, Loch Ness is referred to as a lake because it is a lake. Cannolis (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree. A loch is the right word and I have changed it. Thanks for raising this. --John (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• How can anyone improve this article when it is locked down?? It seems to be full of POV material, favoring the myth, but it appears only special people can add or amend (never mind remove) information or neutralize wording - and to all appearances, those "special people" are True Believers.

h — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.178.186 (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

An interesting point. Strictly a 'loch' is the English Language word meaning 'a lake in Scotland' (see OED). So logically using 'loch' and 'lake' in the same sentence is an oxymoron - in effect one would be saying the same thing twice. Yet in much of the English-speaking world the word 'loch' may be unfamiliar, and it would therefore be helpful to clarify. From the context here however it is obvious that Loch Ness is a lake. Perhaps 'Loch Ness is a large inland body of water' rather than 'a lake' might satisfy? Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Characteristically for the user immediately above, this regards an issue that has apparently long been addressed in the article and any lack of clarity has been resolved: the lurking WP:COATRACK is palpable. (What's more the online version of the OED, at least, does not say 'a lake in Scotland': it is the word used in Scotland for a lake - though the lake may or may not be in Scotland - in Gaelic and Scots as well as English but it also encompasses a wider range of bodies of water, e.g. sea lochs. While at the dictionary, check out "oxymoron"; perhaps "tautology" was intended.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well regional variants of English are allowed on Wikipedia; it would be a simple matter to say "Loch (the Scottish term for a lake)". Loch is not simply a lake in Scotland, but the Scots term for a lake anywhere. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

However, the article Loch is about the word rather than the thing the word represents. Also, there are fresh-water and sea lochs. But there aren't sea lakes. As Loch Ness is fresh-water, it's best to leave it described as "lake" rather than add potential confusion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

The loch ness monster is ditto from pokemon. It sometimes looks like lapras and sometimes looks like gyarados. Scmarksjr (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I really can't tell if this is a serious request or not so I am leaving it here instead of just removing it. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The Duncan McDonald underwater shock with the LNM in 1880

Much later in 1880 a man named Duncan McDonald who was a diver by trade was sent to examine and locate a sunken ship at the western end of Loch Ness. Upon the arrival of the wreck with his service crew he was lowered into the dark murky depths for a ship salvage attempt. Within minutes of reaching the wrecked ship, he made frantic signals to be brought to the surface at once. The crew and his colleagues said he came out of the water trembling violently. When he was brought aboard, Duncan later claimed to have seen an enormous animal lying around on a shelf of rock saying that " I was underwater about my work, when all of a sudden the monster swam by me when I saw a glance of one of her eyes. It was an odd looking beast, like a huge frog almost grey". He refused to ever dive or work in or around Loch Ness since. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.185.13 (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Sources: The Giant Book Of The Unexplained edited by Damon Wilson from Magpie Books (Bristol) 1998, The The World Of The Unknown Series All About Monsters written by Carey Miller from Usborne Publishing Limited (London) 1977

Danger in the Loch

On the 7th of August 1960, the Lowrie family were spending a rare sunny weekend on the loch aboard the Finola a 12 metre motoryacht near Dores. When at 16h45 they suddenly noticed a "curious form that looked like two ducks fighting or playing" coming up astern occassionaly submerging with a neck-like protrusion breaking the loch surface. After about 10 minutes it swung away to starboard towards Aldourie Point and some photographs were taken. The animal moved quickly causing considerable disturbance when it showed a large body of brown and green. Then it moved towards the Finola and R.H.Lowrie changed course to avoid a collision with the creature. They estimated that it was over 12m in length, longer than their yacht. One of their photos shows little more than a long wake. The same sighting was also seen by another group of people on the shore. A year earlier, the LNM was seen by a couple who were driving their car on the southern side of the loch. They said that a huge animal, with a long neck and a small head, emerged from the bracken at the side of the road carrying a dead lamb in its mouth, when it plunged into the waters and disappeared. Sources: The World Of The Unknown Series All About Monsters written by Carey Miller from Usborne Publishing Limited (London) 1977, The Loch Ness Monster The Evidence by Steuart Campbell. Originally published from the Aquarian Press (Aberdeen) 1986. Republished, Revised & Updated by Birlinn Limited (Edinburgh) 1996.

And what is your proposal for this tripe as far as the article is concerned, anonymous unsigned Anon? 98.67.179.168 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Loch Ness Monster Article as a Pseudoscience Playground

Like our Bigfoot article, this article is a complete and total mess. For example, it uses amateur websites, including blogs, as sources throughout, and treats a figure from folklore as a "cryptid" (see cryptozoology). It severely blends the emic and etic. In short, it looks like pseudoscience is ruling the roost here over academic sources, such as works published by folklorists, academics active in folkloristics—the academic study of folklore. As it stands, this article needs a complete and total reassessment, so much so that it probably just needs a total rewrite with completely new sources from the ground up, employing sources from academics. In the mean time, I've removed some of the most obvious offenders, such as references to cryptozoologists, and tagged it for neutrality and a rewrite. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can really call the Loch Ness monster a product of "folklore" unless you mean in the sense of something like an urban legend. Is there any reliable reference to the creature before the hoaxes such as the Surgeon's Photo? Personally, I think it's all just mistaken identity and hoaxing, but there are "academics" who think there is enough evidence to keep investigating, and that makes Nessie a cryptid, not a feature of folklore. - Tim D. Williamson ^yak-yak 04:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A common misperception is that folklore is something old. It's not. See urban legend. Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, usually a mishmash of zoology and folklore, exterior to biology and folkloristics. The term "cryptid" is only used in cryptozoology. We should have a section regarding cryptozoology and Nessie but to describe the creature in the first sentence in Wikipedia's voice as a "cryptid" not only violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE but negates its standing in folklore while promoting cryptozoology. Again, we need to separate the etic and the emic. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So isn't cryptozoology just the overlap between biology and folklore? Isn't a cryptid a creature whose alleged existence is only supported by folkloric sources? Do you intend to try to expunge the word "cryptid" from Wikipedia in general, or just this article? - Tim D. Williamson ^yak-yak 06:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience all of its own. It has no academic standing and can itself be viewed as folk belief. It is not a combination of biology nor does it methodologically have anything in common with folkloristics, it just draws from creatures from the folklore record, both ancient and modern. It's basically "monster hunting" without regard for the scientific method nor the tools or analysis of folkloristics. The term "cryptid" is used solely by cryptozoologists and it implies that the being may be 'real', as in there might be a fossil for a mermaid or a dragon somewhere or that they might be dwelling in the bottom of a lake. Folkloristics doesn't work that way—beings don't have to have ever been 'real' in the minds of people, for example, and as their expression has many complications, from literary to psychological to historical to religious to social.

I'm in the process of rewriting the cryptozoology article now to bring it up to WP:GA standards. Some of the article still needs to be rewritten, but you might be interested in some of the comments there from folklorists and zoologists. Usage of cryptid other than very limited circumstances is WP:UNDUE because cryptozoology, like flat Earth theory, is a pseudoscience, and presenting it as anything more than extreme fringe is undue weight. Right now we have a problem where a long while back—before we cracked down on pseudoscience on Wikipedia—cryptozoologists ran wild, labeling basically every creature and being from the folklore record on Wikipedia as a "cryptid", likely to promote cryptozoology.

Despite the ancient campaign to add "cryptid" to every article possible, cryptozoology has actually been very poorly covered on Wikipedia. As I think it's an interesting topic, I'm trying to fix this by providing material up to GA standards at cryptozoology. In the future, we could, for example, use a little section here on how this being, the chupacabra, and bigfoot have played particular roles in American cryptozoology. There's a lot to say about it, particularly regarding the need for such a thing as cryptozoology to exist among proponents and criticism from biologists and even other cryptozoologists for the focus on topics such as Nessie.

I regularly do a lot of editing on articles relating to folklore and mythology, often a lot of cleanups, source-checks and rewrites. Unfortunately, all too often this means removing misinformation, and a lot of it stems from amateur cryptozoology websites, thus my sweeps. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for taking the time to explain it for me. - Tim D. Williamson ^yak-yak 00:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hugh Gray's photograph, 1933

Please don't revert this particular photo, as it appears to be the first photo of the monster. Moreover, it has never been proven a hoax, so I think it should be on the pageGigantopithecusman (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

One would expect that the Hugh Gray who reputedly took such an important photograph would have his own article in Wikipedia. He doesn't. It is interesting you say it has never been proven a hoax. Why would you mention hoax? a And incidentally, it has not been proven genuine either!Moriori (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's not how science works. You don't publish something, and then everyone else works to prove you're a fraud. It's the other way 'round. - Tim D. Williamson ^yak-yak 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh! ??? Moriori (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a response to Gigantopithecusman. - Tim D. Williamson ^yak-yak

OK, since you don't believe me, check the internet out: Hugh Gray must be dead, and so, I think it should be ok to include the pictureGigantopithecusman (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

UK copyright law here is the photographer's lifetime plus seventy years. You could try uploading it to Wikipedia and arguing fair use as "a faithful digitisation of a unique historic image" (per File:Hoaxed photo of the Loch Ness monster.jpg), but you shouldn't just upload it to Commons uncredited and claim that the photo is your "own work". --McGeddon (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

So, what do you decide? Gigantopithecusman (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This photo is not a hoax, but the printing of it is. It's a shot of something alive in the water, but it has been almost continuously printed upside-down since 1933, which makes the object look large, but weird. Gray's story that it is the monster, or any monster, is a leg-pull, however, as is the recent claim of some internet guy that it is a blurry photo of a dog facing the camera with a bone in its mouth.

The proof is that Gray stated the picture was taken sometime in the late Fall-early Winter in the afternoon, at Foyers. Foyers is on the south side of the Loch, which means the water would be to the north of Gray while, at that time of the year, the Sun would have been toward the south, that is, *behind* him - way behind him, in northern Scotland. Yet all the shadows in the picture (the big one from the "monster" object plus all of the wavelets and ripples) are coming towards him, as if he is shooting into the sun. That's physically impossible.

Turn the picture over, though, and you see something protruding from the water that appears to be of some animal, casting a shadow away from itself as it should. So does all the texture in the water. The "something" shape can be clearly identified as the rear end of an animal, spray coming up where the body enters the water and splashes it up. Not corrected, it looks like some sort of animated curly-cue, rising up into the air and cleanly creating a big, black shadow beneath it, while the top of the thing somehow being obscured with spray. Properly printed, it's a close view of a rear end of an animal with its head under the water, I'd say most likely an otter. Even Michael Binns and other explainer-debunkers of other aspects of the Loch Ness story have missed this one. I wouldn't remove the photo, but you might at least print it both ways - traditional upside-down and brand-new rightside-up, and let readers decide. Forget the dogbone story, though.

Proper Name

From what I've read from the Cryptozoology organizations and most press, "Loch Ness Monster" is a proper name... just like Bigfoot and Abominable Snowman. Monster is capitalized along with Loch Ness. If a change is warranted we can always do an RfC to see what other editors think, but until that time I moved this article back from the non-discussed move. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

IMO the article title should be "monster", not "Monster". Reliable sources use "monster", and this article has enough problems with neutrality and WP:FRINGE as it is. Miniapolis 14:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think reliable sources do use monster... I have seen both, and more often Monster. I agree with you on neutrality and fringe, but the term Loch Ness Monster has nothing to do with that. It is the proper name for the (imho) fictitious creature. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I've seen small-m more than capital-m in RS, but have my hands full with cleanup as it is :-). Have fun and all the best, Miniapolis 20:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems pretty evenly divided to me from a look at RSs, certainly no overwhelming weight compelling a change. For what it's worth:

small-m - Oxford, Macmillan, Dictionary.com, Britannica

large-m - Brewer's, Encyclopaedia of Scotland, Cambridge, Longman

But as you say @Miniapolis, the article has more significant issues to be dealt with. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey folks, for the same reason that we don't turn to flat Earth sources on the topic of geology, let's not turn to cryptozoology when it comes to folklore. For more information, either see discussion above or at the cryptozoology talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I read it and it sounds like one person's pov, yours. I read the cryptozoology back a topic also... two pov's yours and another guys. I'm not so sure that that most of wikipedia would agree with you. I also read above that the only people using crypto are cryptozoologists. Well that would be wrong as we can see that National Geographic also uses it in interviews with non-cryptozoologists. It is a common term for this fringe science. To remove the category of aquatic crypto for being to specific, I can deal with... but then it should have the more generic category of crypto. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Cryptid is indeed a term limited to the context of cryptozoology, which is indeed a pseudoscience (which the article you link to also makes that clear). There's the reality of the situation. We're not here to promote pseudoscience. Wikipedia has numerous policies to keep Wikipedia from being hijacked by pseudoscience, such as WP:UNDUE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. There are piles of works on the topic by experts in the field—folklorists. Let's stick to reliable sources please. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

In this section are we still discussing whether the term "monster" should be capitalised in the title of the article? The conversation seems to have drifted. How the term is written by crypto circles is initially touched upon but otherwise it is sources in general mentioned above, the eight I mention being solidly RS. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think your sources showed us that it is pretty split out there. If you throw in all the UK Newspapers it would be in favor of capital M imho, but it would be a long drawn-out affair with people producing about a billion sources. Then there would be a fight about whether Crypto sources should count for spelling, then whether newspapers and tv should count for spelling, and on and on till a decision was reached or we had a hung jury. It probably petered out for that reason with how it's been for a long time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, common usage should dictate usage here. And that includes all sources. Since they exist in a bubble, cryptozoology sources may fall in line but sometimes not (and they may also ape biology by inventing fantastical taxonomies, for example). But for what it's worth, if things are pretty inconsistent and we're at the point that we just need to choose to keep it standard here, it seems to me that capitalizing the whole thing as a proper noun is the way to go. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

fish or mammal

Is Nessie a fish or mammal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.124.5 (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Neither. In my opinion it's a weather phenomenon. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably a fish... some catfish or eel or something. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Reptile.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This is NOT a forum for discussing the topic! As it says at the head of the page it is for discussing improvements. Wikipedia is not a place for opinions. The article already has a section giving details of the suggestions which have been published. Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)