This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Loch Ness Monster article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Archives:1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 31 days
The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a
WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of
folklore and
folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to
discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Scotland and
Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the
paranormal and
related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with
current tasks, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
A good fatih editor removed the picture citing copyright concerns. However the author
M. A. Wetherell of the picture died in 1939 (hence any copyright has expired since 2009) according to Wikipedia.
[1]. The authorship and copyright information needs to be updated in the file details, but I do not know how to do it.
86.133.224.25 (
talk)
06:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I think something else is going on, besides a "good faith editor's" actions. This article used to have the entire "Surgeon's Photo," but when I look through the history to find it again, They were all replaced by a photo of the Loch Ness Monster Roller Coaster in Virginia. So I wondered if somebody had replaced the original photo with a hoax photo. But the trouble with this is that the roller coaster photo doesn't have a history of an earlier version. (It's called Lochnessmonster.jpg.) So somebody must have deleted the original photo from WikiMedia Commons and put another photo in its place. (I don't know if it's possible to delete a photo from WikiMedia Commons, so I may be all wrong here.)
Anyway, does anyone know where I can find a copy of the full original photo? I believe I know how to fix this if I have the photo.
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)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello, I am starting an update for 2023 under the "Searches" section to include information about a 90th anniversary hi tech search done in late August 2023.
IntegrityForever (
talk)
19:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply