Jump to content

Talk:Loch Ness Monster/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Folklore or cryptid

Where is the evidence that it is entirely folklore? There is no such source, so this creature must be considered a cryptid. Verwoerd (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Folkloristics is an academic discipline. Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. Please review WP:UNDUE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Cryptozoology is also a dictionary term that is perfectly acceptable, and describes this mythical entity perfectly. Buzzard isn't scientific either when describing different types of vultures, but it is a term well used and can be sourced. Cryptid is a valid description of the Loch Ness Monster, no more no less. Do I think the beast exists? Hell no.... someone must have been smoking some powerful brambles to conjure this thing up. Just like Zeus, RA and the Bogieman. But the term is well used and can be sourced as such. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Because you found a term in a dictionary doesn't mean we can use it here. In fact, dictionary entries on these entities usually use terminology from folkloristics—primarily because they're frequently assigned to folklorists. Cryptid is also a specialized term used specifically by cryptozoologists—just because you've done a Google search and found an article discussing it doesn't mean you get to smack it on this article. Turn to articles on the topic in journals in folkloristics and see what you find. It won't be cryptid.
We have a policy against this particular type of nonsense creeping into articles and to keep pseudoscience from hijacking our entries: It's WP:UNDUE. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, the lead shouldn't define a topic from a pseudoscience's POV in Wikipedia's voice, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But the Scientific American source can be used to cite a sentence somewhere in the body of the article, e.g. "According to crytozoologists, the Loch Ness Monster is a cryptid who..." etc. describing the cryptozoology view of the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Two things for @LuckyLouie:... 1. I don't think the term is only a pseudoscience term as it's entered the lexicon is such places as The Oxford Dictionary, NY Times Crosswords, and Websters Cryptozoology definition fits it to a tea. The UK Telegraph specifically call it a Cryptid. So like it or not the word is standard usage these days even beyond the realm of the weird crytozoologists. American Heritage dictionary is also very clear that Cryptozoology studies the Loch Ness Monster. The Canadian Encyclopedia uses the term Cryptid to describe Sasquatch. So it should be linked as a category. 2. But assuming we entertain your more narrow view of the word, where would you suggest is a better placement for it out of the lead sentence? And it should be more like "Per dictionaries, encyclopedias, and cryptozoologists, the Loch Ness Monster is a cryptid which...." Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from pushing pseudoscience on this article, whether with or without pretzel logic. Review WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and WP:FRINGE and kindly move on. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I see that you're now attempting to use this as an argument to insert 'some encyclopedias and dictionaries' ([1]), into the article. The few articles you've found, including the sterling and all authorative NY Times Crosswords link, simply say that cryptozoologists consider the Loch Ness Monster a cryptid. This is not news. Most encyclopedias and dictionaries don't even bother to mention cryptozoology in the context of the subject of this article. Underhanded attempts at promoting your agenda like this isn't buying you good faith here. We have policies like WP:UNDUE for a reason. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You would be incorrect. Dictionaries and encyclopedias consider the LNM a cryptid, by definition. You really seem to hate that the word cryptid has entered the English language as an alternate to saying "An animal whose existence is disputed or unsubstantiated by science." It's an accepted term. What cryptozoologists do with it I don't really care. Underhanded attempts by you to remove this info won't buy you good faith anywhere at wikipedia and I suggest you stop edit warring before you get another warning by an administrator. The term is used by many entities other than cryptozoologists so get over it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
"Accepted term"? By cryptozoologists, yes. And that's about all the use it gets, as even the links you've provided demonstrate. And now you've removed the term "pseudoscience" form the article relating to cryptozoology. I suggest you brush up on WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE—pseudoscience is to be labeled as pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Again you are incorrect. When the term enter encyclopedias and dictionaries, newspapers and magazines, it ceases to be only a cryptozoology expression. It has entered main-stream usage. You just refuse to believe it and I don't know why. I suggest you brush up on just what the definition is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you review your links. They all state quite clearly that cryptozoologists consider the beings to be cryptids, which should be obvious. The term is by no means mainstream, lol. I highly recommend that you find a different angle if you're going to continue trying to push you agenda on to this article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Then you have no ability to read my links and I now understand why you can't comprehend this. It has entered mainstream usage and several of the aritcles I linked above make no mention of cryptozoology next to the word cryptid. It's a normal, if new, word. If you are trying to push out a dictionary and encyclopedic term I suggest you go elsewhere, since those are perfectly acceptable on wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
"It has entered main-stream usage." and "a dictionary term that is perfectly acceptable"? Oxford, Webster, Collins but Cambridge, Chambers, Longman, Macmillan, Britannica. Well there is a blip on the radar but... Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
There was a time it was in none of them. But it's also why my edit said it had entered "some" dictionaries and encyclopedias. It has also entered news articles and crosswords. Dictionary.com (Random House Dictionary) doesn't use cryptid, but it does talk about the LNM under cryptozoology (no mention of pseudoscience, which it obviously is). That's all I was saying. But to look at it from Bloodofox's angle, the word doesn't exist outside the pseudosciences, and that is flat out wrong, and making it seem that way to our readers is also wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
As should be abundantly clear to you at this point and as further demonstrated by Mutt Lunker's links above, the term is a specialized term used (and coined) by cryptozoologists. It encompasses a concept central to the pseudoscience. Like many pseudosciences, while it's strongly overrepresented on the internet, it's not something we're here to promote. No matter how you slice it, cryptid is not in common use and when it is used, it's decidedly marked—perhaps even under the influence of some of our worst offender articles here on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
And it should be abundantly clear to you at this point, it is a term coin by the pseudoscience of cryptozoologists but has also entered mainstream and well-used dictionaries, encyclopedias, newspapers, magazines, etc... When it is used it is not always marked in any way other than the term "cryptid." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
First: Markedness. Second, you haven't demonstrated that the term cryptid is in common use outside of referring specifically to cryptozoology. At this point, I suggest you get a blog where you can freely complain about global warming, talk about how annoying academics are, and try to convince the rest of the world how common the term cryptid is in everyday speech. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You know something... I'm just realizing something. When you address me specifically you are a liar and a harasser. If you don't keep to the topic, and you keep attacking me personally with snide remarks and terrible bedside manner, you are going to be reported and you are going to find yourself blocked. Knock it off. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Threats aren't necessary: You can expect to get called out when you express your disdain for dealing with academics and "global warming alarmists". It has a direct bearing when you're pushing to get pseudoscientific terminology into an article and deleting the word pseudoscience out of an article ([2]). :bloodofox: (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
If you continue to attack me, then threats of bringing in administrators has a direct bearing on the conversation. Keep it on topic and non-personal and all will be well. Continue to spout hogwash about my beliefs and listing of other conversations and it'll be another trip to An/i for you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Folklore, Folkloristics, the General Public, and Cryptozoologists

At the moment the introduction of the page presents a false dichotomy. For one, the idea of the Loch Ness Monster is well represented in popular culture without the fringe trappings of Cryptozoology. At the moment, it is written as if anyone who might think that the beast is the survival of some kind of dinosaur is a cryptozoologist. Not so. The term cryptid is, well, obscure to the general public and is probably simply over presented here because this is the internet.

Second, scientists, as in biologists, seem to be presented as the authority on this topic. The reality of the situation is that we're talking about folklore and not particularly unique material, either. Folklorists should be consulted as the authorities here. Outside of a pithy and poorly-written section called "folklore", the moment there are exactly no folklorists offering analysis of how the notion developed and what its implications are, which is what you'd usually get from the field. Right now the article appears to have been written by cryptozoologists and then adjusted to be a bit more respectable. The article needs a total rewrite with peer-reviewed academic sources by experts in the appropriate field. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

All good points. —PermStrump(talk) 23:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. BTW, I don't mind the article mentioning what the cryptozoologists believe, providing it's reliably sourced. But the article does need some major rewriting using objective sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've protected the page due to disruptive edit warring between two people. Bloodofox and Fyunck(click), if you resume edit warring when the page protection expires, I will block both of you. I advise you to observe WP:1RR on this page in the future. --Laser brain (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)\

That's Wikipedia for you. Despite purported neutrality, articles on cryptids are always written dismissively, since "everyone knows that there's no such thing"--until Nessie becomes the latest of a LONG list of "no such thing" to find its way into the zoology texts. I love these "skeptics" who claim--and staunchly defend (!)--that there's no such thing as "the unknown": yes, that's why we employ people called SCIENTISTS, who will presently modify yesterday's ideas and reverse last week's altogether. Neutrality is only for modern "liberals," who enforce their "liberalism " by forcing it down conservatives' throats; let's hope they enjoy the totalitarian world that arises from the ashes of this one if they have their IQ-of-zero-point-five way. Wikipedia administrators have a great deal of fun flexing their muscles by banning people. Dare to tell the truth, and some git of a Lord Fauntleroy will press his li'l button and eliminate you. You can hardly blame them: I, too, had a blast deleting people's accounts when I was a seventeen-year-old sys admin in college! Bunch of friggin' children with the attention span of an HB draughting pencil and the deliberateness and scholarly maturity of a grapefruit. It's positively disgustifatated and makes one want to ralph one's victuals.

Hey, I understand your frustration. However, administrators were trained and nominated by the community because they have way more experience on this wiki than others. But they are the equal rank as us. Even though they have a few more editing tools, it doesn't mean they are the dictators of the wiki. There's no tyranny. All of us are as important as each other. Actually, if you get to know people, many of these admins are really nice and are really out there to help you. They aren't there to get you every time you make a mistake. They are human, just like you and me, okay? I hope you can see that soon. My opinion of admins was just like yours when I started, but they are much better than that; I realized that quick. It just takes some time to get into the groove of things, that's all. But if you message them and get to know them, yeah, they are more than happy to help you out! :) Trust me, you'll see. 3primetime3 (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Please don't encourage pseudosciences here. We're not here to cater to their whims—we're here to produce objective articles with reliable, secondary sources. In this case, this is an article about folklore and as a result we consult folklorists. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail

As the DM is no longer RS please stop inserting it as an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The citation I add backs up the claim that the picture was published. The sentence that I'm including a citation for isn't backing the authenticity of the photo, it is just saying it was published - and it was - and I've provided the example. You can't claim that the picture wasn't published because you don't like where it was published. The citation is relevant and prudent. User:Beta7 (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: How about we just say in the article where the citation was published directly and remove the citation tag altogether? That way, people immediately know that the picture was published, but it is also apparent where it was published, and everyone can make their own judgments on that.User:Beta7 (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
And we have better sources for it already there. The DM is not RS, certainly not for what they claim people have said to them. The solution is to find a better source. The issue is not the photo, it's the the DM are not reliable for what anyone says.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
You aren't addressing the issue. I'm showing that the picture was published. That's it. Let's talk about how we accurately say that. You can't scrub from existence the fact that something happened. User:Beta7 (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Beta7: I have explained Wikipedia's position to you on your talk page. This was a community consensus and cannot be overturned or overruled on a local talk page. I also remind you that it is your responsibility to justify its usage, and to refrain from re-inserting the reference until you have community consensus. On top of that, you are giving the impression of edit-warring; you are certainly close to breaching WP:3RR. Be mindful. Cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 12:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Beta7, I have not exercised the whole paragraph from the article, just the use of the daily mail, and material sources to it. The issue is that the DM is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


We have the mail and a blog, is any of the material about "skipper" rs?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Continuing to say the DM is not RS is missing the point. I merely want to say that it was published. I know the DM is trash, but it is still a publication. We can't scrub that fact from existence that a picture was published there. I've offered a compromise - why don't we just use in-line citations and list the places it was published? Also, I see that you continue to edit the content of this section while we are having a discussion. There can be no way that you aren't engaging in edit warring at this point, as Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi reminded us about above. Let's hold off on edits until we resolve this conflict. Thanks! User:Beta7 (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
That is not what you wrote, you quoted someone. The DM cannot be used to claim anyone (but them) said something.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
As to my edit war. I have inserted appropriate tags for dubious sources. In addition I have reworded the article to accord with the correct use of the DM as a source. The material you want has not been removed, just re worded so as to conform to policy. The section still says what you want (the photograph was published).Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Beta7 and Slatersteven: On reviewing the rather clear-cut and unambiguous community consensus, which states that Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles... there are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate (my emphasis), I will, in cognisanze of the former instruction, perform the latter duty. Thus I will restore the article to the pre-DM version; or do we need some administrative intervention here, do we think? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Well I suspect you already know both answers, yes I think it should be edited back. the material that is "uncited" is not about the photograph existing, but someones opinion of its authenticity.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Just so.
I have restore the last version that accomplishes the letter and spirit of the recent RfC and community consensus generally. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 19:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna, unless I'm missing another rule (entirely possible!), I agree with Slatersteven's edits before your latest edit. Since he and I agree, can't his last edit stand? I'd like to revert to that version. Beta7 (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Significance of 1933

The newly-built road was needed for a new hotel, opened that year (the only one on the South side, I think), and many commentators have noted that so-called scientific reports about the monster can be traced to this date. We usually call it creative advertising, or public relations. Valetude (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestion is?Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
...that this confirms doubts about the monster's existence. Valetude (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstand, what is your suggestion as to how we improve the article?.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
By mentioning this significant factor in the 'Origins' section. Valetude (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
As it is speculation it should be in another section,such as the section about hoaxes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Unless there is a reliable source for speculation that publicity for a new hotel influenced the Loch Ness Monster legend's birth, it's WP:SYNTH anyway. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I recall seeing it somewhere myself, I just cannot recall where.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Loch Ness Monster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Folklore

Given only one (dodgy) reference to Nessie in folklore it is hard to see how this can be made any more "mainstream" with regards to folklore (especially as the only reason there is any link is Nessie researchers trying to establish a provenance).Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

There are a ton of solid sources out there on this, both inside folklore studies and beyond. They're not hard to find. I'll prepare a rewrite along with my ongoing draft of bigfoot. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I would rather you discussed it before making any major changes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
We can discuss the rewrite when it's done. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
As I said I would rather you did not do that. I dislike trying to work through huge reverts, especially when we are going to be dealing with a major change in emphasis. I do not think the article (as it stands) needs major work, and minor tweaks can be discussed separately.Slatersteven (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
No one needs permission to improve an article, and this article certainly needs a total rewrite. Dig into some secondary sources on this topic from academics and you'll see exactly what I mean. If you already have and you still don't see the numerous problems throughout this article, I'm not sure what to tell you. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
No, but you need consensus to make any (not even major) changes. And I am telling you you do not have consensus to make bold changes to style and content. You could start by giving me an example of what you want to change (that is the common practice). This is why I am objecting, because I have no idea what you are going to do, and you seem oddly reluctant to tell me.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Philosophy

If it is important in this area, the following may be of interest:

Should we believe in the Loch Ness Monster? An exercise in the formation of belief. in a refereed journal and a book.

This full title is given in the book, the second part is omitted from the current online version

Pitt, Martin (January 2003). "Should we believe in the Loch Ness Monster?". The Pantaneto Forum (9). Retrieved 8 August 2018.

See also the editorial introduction: Sanitt, Nigel (January 2003). "Editorial". The Pantaneto Forum (9): 1. Retrieved 8 August 2018.

It was reprinted as a chapter, pages 211-216 in the section Philosophical Bridges in the following book

Sanitt (Ed), Nigel (2005). Motivating Science: Science communication from a philosophical, educational and cultural perspective. The Pantaneto Press. p. 211-216. ISBN 0 954978005. Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2018

Change "sceptics" to "skeptics" as it's a misspelling occurring multiple times. 38.94.167.10 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

[3], as this is a UK page we use UK spelling.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: per Slatersteven and WP:ENGVAR Danski454 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loch Ness Monster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

https://in.news.yahoo.com/loch-ness-captured-girl-holiday-051552888.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.198.70 (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

Add a picture of the apple maps photograph at the appropriate section. AbdulShariYahar (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Majavah (t/c) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

There has never been a consensuses or any reliable sources that say Nessie is a cryptid. She is 100% folklore. Unless there are creditable sources that say this then it should be removed from the lede. By sources, I dont mean other cryptid followers just confirming what another one states, I mean reliable accepted secondary sources2A00:23C4:215:C500:D00B:2139:7AB:7AEE (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure she is folklore.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

Plesiosaurs are endothermic, guys, not ecothermic. Sources:ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5994164/sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100614093341.htmresearchgate.net/publication/325597956_Quantitative_histological_models_suggest_endothermy_in_plesiosaurs Buriolestes (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buriolestes: What exactly do you want to change? The word "ecothermic" doesn't even appear in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021 (2)

Edit: Plesiosaurs are warm-blooded, not cold-blooded. Link here:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325597956_Quantitative_histological_models_suggest_endothermy_in_plesiosaurshttps://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2010/06/10/prehistoric-sea-dragons-kept-themselves-warm/. This is intended to be a reponse to user Anachronistic Buriolestes (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buriolestes. Are you referring to the text in the section Loch_Ness_Monster#Exotic_large-animal_species? Whatever the case, you'll need to provide a more coherent description of your request, e.g. "In sentence A, change X to Y". Also, you don't need to keep making new edit requests to communicate on this Talk page; simply click on the "edit this page" tab, scroll down to this section, add your text, and save.- LuckyLouie (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources for John Shields Seal hoax

I'm never confident editing but here's some relevant sourcing I found for a citation needed claim in the articel 

* New York Times Apr 2 1972 - Loch Ness ‘Monster’ Is an April Fool's Joke[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/1972/04/02/archives/loch-ness-monster-is-an-april-fools-joke.html
Great find. Thanks! - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

Loch Ness monster (Nessie) has been sighted by many locals of the small island of Great Barrier Island. Some believe it is part of the Maori legend being a Taniwha. Others believe that it is just a log or a tree or maybe and oversized eel. The location of the sighting is known to be in the harbour of Port Fitzroy. No images have been taken but many sightings have taken place around the area. 210.55.76.197 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Loch ness monster

Google alexa.. 2409:4071:4D0D:8EEA:106F:4FF3:CC56:1E83 (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and? Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The lok ness monter

The lok nes monter is released ro not 86.12.5.229 (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Locless monster" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Locless monster and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Locless monster until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

loch ness monster

big with sharp spikes on it's back 65.36.70.39 (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Another meaning of "Loch Ness monster"

Another meaning of the term "Loch Ness monster" is the orientable surface of infinite genus and one end.

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

What about Harold Edgerton's research?

Dr. Harold Edgerton of M.I.T., famous for his strobe photography, did a renowned study of the Loch Ness in an attempt to locate any evidence of a monster. (See [4]https://www.technologyreview.com/2007/10/15/223418/the-nessie-quest/.)

And? Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Google street view

On the google sighting there should be a mention that the street view guy normally on the mini map is the yellow person himself but if you go to loch ness the charachter becomes nessie 80.252.79.2 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

So? Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Exotic large animal"

In the section describing the animal as a possible plesiosaur, there is the following passage:

"In response to these criticisms, Tim Dinsdale, Peter Scott and Roy Mackal postulate a trapped marine creature that evolved from a plesiosaur directly or by convergent evolution.[150] Robert Rines explained that the "horns" in some sightings function as breathing tubes (or nostrils), allowing it to breathe without breaking the surface. Also new discoveries have shown that Plesiosaurs had the ability to swim in fresh waters, but the cold temperatures would make it hard for it to live."

Would I be justified in deleting this? It's embarrassingly desparate speculation, cited to a source I can't access, and seems intended to give WP:FALSEBALANCE. And even if it accurately summarizes the source, it's self-contradicting (how can something evolve from a plesiosaur by convergent evolution...to become more plesiosaur-like?). I honestly think the entire "exotic large animal" section is heavy on quasi-scientific speculation and poor sourcing and could be cut, but at the very least could we delete the passage above? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I would support deletion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Mackal is a fringe source. See discussion about Mackal at the cryptozoology article. Looking at the references and current structure of the article, it needs serious work. We need to be focused on what experts on this topic—folklorists—have to say about it rather than individuals like Mackal. Almost all of it is going to need to be deleted and rewritten from scratch. There's far more to this topic than is covered here. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Undue weight template added beneath the section heading. Please revert if this was inappropriate. Agreed that a rewrite is in order but I'm probably not the best one to do it. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Search in recent news

there was an article by BBC recent about a large search taking place with a hundred volunteers, should it be placed into the search section? 1keyhole (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loch_Ness_Monster/Archive_5&oldid=1248481090"