Talk:Loch Ness Monster

Template:Vital article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)