Talk:Sea monster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This article is listed on votes for deletion on the grounds that is unencyclopedic. Pete 14:07 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Evercat is reverting my work. He doesnt explain why. Pizza Puzzle

Pizza Puzzle is adding junk about aliens and radioactive dinosaurs. He doesn't explain why. Evercat 14:31 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Evercat obviously hasnt seen the 20 Japanese films about the radioactive dinsosaur that lives in the sea. Pizza Puzzle

Make a distinction between fiction and reality, please. Real accounts of "sea monsters" have little to do with radioactive aliens, etc. Evercat 14:35 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Agreed, the radioactive mutants thing should definitely be explained in context. As it is, the article looks like User:Harry Potter wrote most of it. -- Wapcaplet 14:40 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • It shows Evercat doesnt really know much about this subject (he only wants to force his POV that sea monsters aren't at all "magical" or "supernatural") since he listed the Kraken and Cadborosaurus under "Probably Fictional Sea Monsters" when, in fact, they are both more or less accepted as being real.
  • His insistence that a reference to dinosaurs etc should be removed is also an example of his forcing his POV - the single most common theory regarding sea monsters (aside from outright rejection of their existence) - a theory gaining acceptance amongst cryptozoologists - is that creatures once believed to be extinct still exist (or have existed within recent history).
    • He isnt trying to edit, improve, or NPOV my additions - he is simply trying to censor, delete, and revert them because he finds them "silly" -- in so doing he is not only deleting my additions - he has also deleted work of others and work which he has still made no argument against - in short, he is being irresponsible
The Kraken is more or less accepted as being real? --Dante Alighieri 20:04 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yes, it was probably a giant or colossal squid. Pizza Puzzle
OK, maybe I'm misremembering my stories, but wasn't the Kraken supposed to be an enormous beast, a living island? So large that men would disembark and walk upon it's back? Ever see a squid basking on the surface? ;) On another note, someone needs to remove the reference to the Andromeda myth at Kraken, I believe they are confusing the Kraken with Cetus... unless their source is Clash of the Titans. --Dante Alighieri 20:16 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well, a lot of myth grew up about the Kraken. Also, some evidence indicates that there have been some monstrously large squids. Pizza Puzzle
Kraken is acutally used in reference to several different squids, as well as the mythological squid. Pizza Puzzle

But not just any dinosaurs. Radioactive alien dinosaurs, no less. Yes, real good addition, PP. Evercat 15:01 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sea monsters have a role in fiction, not only do they have a role in fiction, but they also have a role in mythology, both modern and ancient. Thank you for noting this. I hope you oneday learn to appreciate the creative genius of the rest of humanity. Pizza Puzzle

Please note that in the article, then. The article as it currently stands makes it sound as though whenever an unknown creature washes up on the shore of Chile, the first question that springs into the minds of scientists is "Hey, could this be a radioactive alien dinosaur?" There are thousands of sources of information about sea monsters as a mythological creature. Let's please put this stuff in context. I also suggest the article be moved to Sea creature, in order to be a bit more encyclopedic (and in order that it may also contain information pertaining to non-monstrous sea creatures of folklore, such as mermaids). -- Wapcaplet 15:10 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Loch Ness Monster be more of a fresh water monster? Or am I splitting hairs? -- Jim Regan 20:43 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, you're quite right. Evercat 20:46 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Cool. Now we can start a "Fishing for monsters" howto :) -- Jim Regan 23:54 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sea is an ambiguous term, which has different meanings in different languages. The Loch Ness Monster is most certainly a sea monster.

Loch Ness is a freshwater lake. Seas are expanses of salt water. Evercat 16:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I would say the Loch Ness monster is a "sea monster" even if it doesn't live in a sea, just because people say "sea monster" to refer to it. "Freshwater lake monster" is just not the same... Adam Bishop 16:57 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I have never before heard the Loch Ness Monster referred to as a sea monster - have you? Evercat 16:59 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why dont you go swimming with it and as it eats you try and tell me it isnt a sea monster. Pizza Puzzle

In any case, I have already conceeded to your change that these be referred to as "Alleged Sea Monsters" - now you must concede that the Loch Ness Monster is allegedly a "monster of the sea". Pizza Puzzle

Of course I have heard to it referred to as a sea monster...also a sea serpent, even though that makes even less sense. Usually it's just "Loch Ness Monster" though. And I don't mean people say "Loch Ness sea monster," but people do call it a "sea monster." Adam Bishop 17:05 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

sea serpants are a type of sea monster, the other type being giant squids. Most of the rest are alien radioactive dinosaurs. Pizza Puzzle

To solve the Loch Ness Monster problem, we could simply create another article for Lake monsters. Also, there may be some that live in Lagoons, so we would need a Lagoon monster article. And of course, monsters might live in rivers too, hence, River monster. We may also need Stream monster, Canal monster, Tributary monster, Bathtub monster, etc. We should set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Water Monsters. -- Wapcaplet 19:50 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Forget it, I'm willing to accept that "sea monsters" need not, actually, live in the sea. Sea monster is essentially a term of myth, anyway, so I guess it doesn't need to be strictly accurate... Evercat 19:52 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

According the history of Nessie, she was a monster of the sea which has become trapped in the loch. Pizza Puzzle

Pizza Puzzle, interesting article, but I am curious about one thing: why have you recently made 29 edits to this article in a space of only 50 mintues?

I amiably suggest that you try using the Show preview button a little more, that way you can avoid cluttering up the revision history, and keep the number of records added to the Wikipedia database to a reasonable level. Nanobug 03:24 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This article was listed for deletion and my 29 edits saved it. Pizza Puzzle

I think you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting you should not have done the edits, just that you could have done them in batches, say 10 or so changes, using preview, and then save, then another 10 and save etc. I would have thought that it is not the number of edits done to an article, but rather its content, that would affect people's decision on whether or not it should be deleted. Nanobug

Moved from User talk:Pizza Puzzle and User talk:Evercat:

If you're going to play the "cite a source" game, what's your source for Loch Ness being a sea? Being connected to a sea (by an artificial canal, no less) does not a sea make. Evercat 19:37 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Loch Ness is not a sea. The Loch Ness Monster is an alleged sea monster. Pizza Puzzle

Fine. I'm willing to allow that. But surely you'll agree that there can be a disclaimer in the sea monster article to the effect that Loch Ness is not a sea, even though Nessie can be considered a sea monster. That's all I ask. You've convinced me that it can be called a sea monster. Evercat 19:49 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You can disclaim all you want in the article Loch Ness Monster that some argue this to be a sea monster and others argue it to be a flotsam and others think its a radioactive dinosaur - but the list of alleged sea monsters should be kept clean and not cluttered with what is, at most, a matter of semantics. Pizza Puzzle

You're just utterly incapable of any compromise whatsoever. Evercat 19:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If I am uncapable of compromise, why is it that I have compromised where you have done nothing but offer, "Ok, Ill allow the Loch Ness Monster to be listed as a "possible" sea monster but ONLY if it has a special disclaimer." Pizza Puzzle

Exactly at what point in this matter have you compromised? By not re-adding the mutant alien dinosaur silliness? Some compromise. Evercat 20:00 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, since my compromise is meaningless to you, Ill add it back at some point. It is certainly valid, Godzilla is obviously a radioactive dinosaur sea monster. Pizza Puzzle


Well, Godzilla is certainly a fictional radioactive sea monster, but are you quite sure he's a dinosaur? Does the canon refer to him as a dinosaur, or just some ancient creature from the time before time, etc.. --Dante Alighieri 20:18 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not Godzilla just merely resembles a dinosaur, most of the Nessis lore argues that it IS a dinosaur. Pizza Puzzle
Actually Plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs. Evercat 20:23 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I thought the current theory was elasmosaurus? Although, IIRC, elasmosaurs aren't technically dinosaurs either. Of course, both are, in layman's terms, dinosaurs... it's just that paleontologists know more than most people. ;) Also, I'd shy away from calling Godzilla a dinosaur unless someone finds a decent source (film or Godzilla website) calling him that canonically. --Dante Alighieri 20:27 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In any case, stuff about radioactive dinosaurs does not belong in the list of creatures that might have caused historical accounts of "sea monsters". Evercat 20:54 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is a disclaimer that sea monsters do not necessarily live in what humans call a "sea". Sea monsters are monsters of the sea, and other bodies of water. Pizza Puzzle

Do mermaids, tritons, remoras and the like have a place here? Some ancient sailors believed them real -- Error

Uh, remoras are real. :) --Dante Alighieri 03:22 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
From the Remora article:
In ancient times, the remora was believed to stop a ship from sailing and was called "ship-holder."
-- Error
Yeah, I know, I was just having a little fun at your expense. ;p Sorry. --Dante Alighieri 04:35 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I question whether the Flying Dutchman and Moby Dick qualify as monsters. --Dante Alighieri 04:37 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't (obviously). I think that this article suits the not well founded fears that sailors had. Thus monsters and sea ghosts are in, real pirates and Houtman's Abrolhos are out. -- Error 02:25 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Dutchmen is a ship, and thus not a monster; Moby wasn't the monster -- Ahab was the monster. Pizza Puzzle

I understand that ghosts are monsters. About Moby, I remember that it was described as a monster, an especially vicious and huge sperm whale. But I'm not going for an edit war, arr. -- Error

A page on ghosts, or ghost ships might be fine; but this page is kinda sorta intended to only refer to biological entities. Its a very short step from including the Flying Dutchmen to then including German U-Boots. Pizza Puzzle 15:37 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The biological limit is not in my plan. German U-Boots were fully real, I wouldn't include them unless there was some fear of overhyped secret weapons. -- Error 02:25 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

sea monster - do u see where it says monster? Moby and the Dutchmen are not monsters! This isnt a page on "strange scary things of the sea" its a page on sea monsters. Pizza Puzzle

Since you want them apart from this article, can you suggest then an article or a title that can include Bermuda, the kraken and the Dutchman? -- Error 23:12 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Let's make sure we distinguish between:

  • monstrous water creatures whose existen is proven beyond scientific doubt, such as extinct dinosaurs, giant squids, whales and sharks
  • aquatic monsters that some people believe in, but which science largely does not concede to exist (i.e., Loch Ness monster
  • Monsters of legend and myth -- e.g., mermaids

Hasn't that distinguishment been made? Pizza Puzzle

Champ is also a lake monster, not a sea monster, assuming you solved that conflict. Does the supposed plesiosaur carcass have an article on WP? It should be linked to, if so, as should lake monster, etc.- Omegatron 20:54, May 3, 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Sea monsters... see Sigmund

I have a big problem with the first sentence in the artile. Sea monsters are real? Why, because many people have seen them? Are UFOs real? Bigfoot? Steve-O

[edit] Christopher Columbus and sea monsters

Didn't Christopher Columbus encounter opposition to his plan to sail to the "Indies" based on the idea that the Atlantic was infested with sea monsters? How long were Atlantic sea monster myths held to be true? I really need to get this confirmed or denied for the article on Himilco the Navigator, as he originated some of the accounts of sea monsters. I'm wondering how long people believed Himilco the Navigator, if it all. During Columbus' time, would no one be worried about sea monsters? I was going to write in Himilco the Navigator that his myths stood until Columbus and others shattered them, but I won't post til I can verify this. I posted the issue to Talk:Christopher Columbus but they are probably too busy flaming each other to reply. Please help.

[edit] Neutrality?

The difference between "mythical" and "legendary" are so slight, especially in this context, that it makes little sense to claim they are "miscategorized" as being either one. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. While some examples of what were formerly thought to be fictive monsters (e.g. Giant Squid) have been discovered, there is no hard evidence for many of these monsters. Thus, even if they are cited in books and map illustrations, that does not make them any more real, and an encyclopedia should treat them as myth/legend unless they are proved to be otherwise.

Also, how can there be "sea monster carcasses" when every instance mentioned has been unrefutably debunked?

[edit] Loch Ness

Where is the Loch Ness monster in this article. That seems like it would be the first mentioned.

[edit] Vensephone?

In the fiction section, it lists a Vensephone. What is a vensephone? Capitan Obvio 07:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/a/Talk%7ESea_monster_ca30.html"