Talk:Mokele-mbembe/Archive 1

"is believed to"

Who believes it to? Everybody? :-) Passive voice is sometimes useful, but sometimes it covers up for lack of essential information. In this case, in order to be written from the neutral point of view, the passive voice must be avoided (by you :-) ) or given an indirect object (by you :-) ). --LMS

The greatest problem with this article are its sources. 'Some scientists' is no good, we need names of those wildlife textbook 'scientists', fringe science books, etc. You can NPOV all you want, but the content is already there. Phlebas 18:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pulled out pending verification

Around 2000 a man led an expedition into the Congo forest, and among other things, looked for Mokele Mbembe. His opinion is that Mokele Mbembe formerly existed and was a rhinoceros.

This statement needs a source, cf. Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. In particular, we would like to know who that man was, where he came from, what he saw, when he was there exactly, where he did publish his opinion that M-M was a rhinoceros, and last but not least, why he is notable. — mark ✎ 22:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It was in a UK TV program series about the Congo Basin, that I saw a year or two ago. Anthony Appleyard 09:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• See Mokele-mbembe#2001: BBC Congo: Ref now proven. It seems likely to me that Mokele-mbembe was a rhinoceros, from long ago during the end of the Ice Age when much of the Congo forest was drier and more open, mixed with native stories about big dangerous constrictor snakes or snake-demons. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Naming inconsistent

The article isn't consistent on the precise spelling of the name, in that it varies as to whether there is an apostrophe, a hyphen, and whether the name should be capitalised.

• mokele m'bembe
• Mokele-mbembe
• Mokele mbembe

It also isn't consistent about whether the name should be italic or not. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 09:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You are very right. My two cents: the apostroph shouldn't be there; both words are typical Bantu words. Most literature, as far as I'm aware (see the bibliography I added yesterday), uses the hyphen, so it might be good to stick to that. Capitalization is another thing that's not consistent: Mokele-mbembe or Mokele-Mbembe? If we add up the numerous references from the cryptozoological realm, Mokele-mbembe seems to be the most common spelling. But if we count them as one (which seems reasonable enough), Mokele-Mbembe seems to be just as frequent. — mark ✎ 10:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Rhino-like?

i think it's possible that mkele-mbembe is a rhino/dinosaur something in between. I was reading a artikel about ndoki and they hade interviewd some native people and they have described it as an rhino whit a long neck and have a very long horn. so it's possible that we are dealing with a new species of rhinos. (unsigned)

Something "between" rhinos (mammals) and dinosaurs (reptiles) cannot exist, but an unknown variety of rhinos might. Are there any references to this aritcle?--Niels Ø 13:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice the quality of the comment. I think it's a kid. CFLeon 08:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Heuvelmans (On The Track Of Unknown Animals) talks briefly about reports from the Congo suggesting an aquatic rhinoceros (aquatic in the sense of hippos), but my copy was stolen years ago. He was writing years before the m-m controversy flared up in the '70s, and I don't think he even mentions the name, although there is a chapter about 'dinosaurs' in Africa (even mentioning the 'Kangai Rex' fake photo). CFLeon 08:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, there's been a lot of debate and rethinking lately about whether dinosaurs actually were reptiles, and even whether or not they were cold-blooded. I believe this debate has been particularly spurred by the discovery of fossils that indicate some species of dinosaurs had feathers. Offhand, I can't link to any specific sources, though they shouldn't be diffcult to find with a good Googling.

Rhino-like? "...a long flexible neck and with a tail similar to an alligator's." Wikipedia Lol, that's one strange looking rhino :)

Aside from the question of whether dinosaurs were really reptiles, it's entirely possible that an animal could have some physical traits of both a sauropod and a rhino, without being closely related genetically to either. Creatures with little or no common ancestry can develop similar traits if both live in environments where those traits are beneficial. — Red XIV ^(talk) 19:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please how could it look like a rhino its much bigger than a rhino and it has a long neck and long tail so it has to be a sauropod up to 36 feet long by 20 feet tall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.110.142 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mokele-Mbembe" is a generic, loose term used to describe most African cryptids, and many spiritual fictional beings that have nothing to do with the actual dinosaur. When natives admitted to a rhino being Mokele-Mbembe, they were referring to EMela-ntouka, which is a new species of rhino. Elasmosaurus (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe is a giant amphibious monitor, that's all. What kind of reptiles are somewhat able to compete with mammals plus crocodiles and grow to large sizes : monitor. What kind of reptiles looks like old representation of sauropods : monitor. What kind of reptile would dare to attack injured hippopotami: monitor. What kind of animal has a pachyderm like skin and is long-tailed : monitor.Longfinmako (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You missed one important detail, all known monitors are carnivorous, while the creature reported in the depths of the Congo is clearly a vegetarian. Perhaps it is a giant form of marine iguana, which is herbivorous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Varanus bitatawa is frugivorous.Longfinmako (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The only rhino to have ever exist to meet the descriptions of the Mokele-Mbembe is the Indrocatheir which has been extinct since the Miocene. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

movie?

Wasn't there a movie from the '80s about the mokele-mbembe? I thought it was called Baby but it didn't come up on IMDB.

Yes, that´s correct! I just added a reference to that movie. (Danielos2 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Why is there no longer any reference to the film on this page? It's called Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend. IMDB link here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088760/ (KariCastor (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC))

Recent expansions

I think the many new expansions to this article is excellent, and I agree completely with all skepticism. However,I think some of it should be rewritten as it sounds a bit too dogmatic and biased at the moment.--Danielos2 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How convenient that the writer (Redmond O'Hanlon) just happened to "find" that the creature was a "fabrication." He sold lots of books, I bet. --IT'S A LION! (really) 20:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he must have. People here rush out to buy books saying that something they've never heard of doesn't exist. Really, think about what you're saying. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Needs Lots of work! On my list to do now

Article Needs Lots of work! On my list to do now. I agree article is very NPOV, I plan on fixing that, though I've got to fight the POV to go the other way, though I have done with my Mokele-mbembe site, mokelembembe.com, by just providing facts. A lot has gone on in the last couple of years with Mokele-mbembe research and that all needs to be added, need to added to my own site, have to do both at the same time. Still more questions then answers for me on the whole subject.

--Mokeleman 09:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Lots of work is an understatement. Anyway the following section is encyclopedic:

"According to science writer and cryptozoologist Willy Ley, while there are sufficient anecdotal accounts to suggest "that :there is a large and dangerous animal hiding in the shallow waters and rivers of Central Africa", the body of evidence :remains insufficient for any realistic conclusions to be drawn on what the Mokèlé-mbèmbé may be.[27]"

It may be what some science fiction writer said, but aside from him being self-contradictory (a: there's sufficient :evidence; b: there isn't). I would advocate removal of said piece, or a complete rewrite. Perhaps something along the lines :of there being a lot of anecdotes, but there is no evidence whatsoever. Assuming this is even actually supported. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, "Mackal judged available evidence as consistent, writing ...", is this even still in accordance to ::contemporary reasoning. An animal of the supposed size would require a tremendous amount of food. The proposed habitat may ::not be large enough to support such an animal, especially not a breeding population. Sources need to be put in ::perspective. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving Page Back to Mokele-mbembe

I'm going to put in a request to change to make Mokele-mbembe the main page and to have Mokèlé-mbèmbé. Mokele-mbembe is what Mackal used in his book and that how most people reference it, and how I reference it, as least in English, so need to go back to the standard.

--Mokeleman 10:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED. I actually didn't notice that Ganeshk had relisted, but the request was a week old and seems pretty clearly reasonable and well-founded. The reason was posted here for a week without attracting objection, which seems as good as a formal poll. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Mokèlé-mbèmbé → Mokele-mbembe – Mokele-mbembe is the more accepted standard of spelling. The page Mokele-mbembe already exists, but it should become the main page and Mokèlé-mbèmbé should redirected to Mokele-mbembe. Relisted here for discussion. Ganeshk (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Portuguese??

Frau Ilse von Nolde, who asserted that she had heard of the animal called "coye ya menia" (Portuguese for "water lion")

Say what? Flapdragon 01:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible OR

I removed this new bit as they look like original research: (possibly out of defense) Totnesmartin 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There's too much unsourced stuff here without adding OR as well. Totnesmartin 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe's spelling and meaning?

Where is the spelling Mokèlé-mbèmbé from? Lingala doesn’t usually use this type of spelling. There either is no accented characters (popular spelling) or accented characters sometimes with some special characters like ɛ, grave accent is rarely used if not ever. If the accents are somewhat representing some kind of spelling à la French, then mokɛle-mbɛmbe goes against Lingala's vowel harmony rule, with both /e/ et /ɛ/ in the same word. If the accents represent tones, then the right spelling probably is mokelé-mbembé, mokɛlɛ́-mbɛmbɛ́, mokɛlɛ́-mbembé or mokelé-mbɛmbɛ́. The Kawata dictionnary in Lingala has an entry for mbɛmbɛ́, meaning snail or slug, one for mbémbé, meaning supplication or lament. Mokelé is egg, mokɛ́lɛ́ is blacksmith, and mokɛ́lɛ torrent/stream of water. I'm not sure how the meaning “one who stops the flow of rivers” fits in. --moyogo 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We're just going by what we see in books and websites. Is there a Lingala-to-English phrasebook or something available? And would it help with Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu? Totnesmartin 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, can't find anything close to it. But Ngúma monɛ́nɛ is litterally big python, ngúma = pyhton, monɛ́nɛ = big, although in classical lingala it's ngúma enɛ́nɛ. --moyogo 00:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The illustrated Lingala-French dictionnary of Adolphe Dzokanga only has the spelling Mokelemembe, pl. Mikelembembe, for Dinosaur(s) (the dictionnary uses the African reference alphabet so the word is with /e/ not /ɛ/. --moyogo 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the spelling might not be using the African reference alphabet, not all words in the dictionary are using it unfortunately. The book was self-edited so there are some issues. However, the spelling Mokele-mbembe is probably more correct in Lingala than Mokèlé-mbèmbé. --moyogo 06:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In Ley (1959) it's apparently "Mokéle-mbêmbe", but for some reason the article uses "Mokèlé-mbèmbé." Have we ever established where or when that started? --tronvillain (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. I've asked more or less the same at WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mokele-mbembe,_crypto-creationists,_and_mystery_sources :bloodofox: (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Non scientific work

This page is nothing more then a list of expeditions. It should be about the Mokele Mbembe itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DinoBird (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

The reason why there is nothing about this Fantasy animal is because there IS no science behind it! its just a fake created by creationists to decieve people!--50.195.51.9 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mokele Mbembe was first described by the native people who have been living there for thousands of years. No fabrication needed. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Evolution

I removed this statement from the introduction, as it is not supported by sources:

If it happened to be a dinosaur, its existence would defy the evolution theory.

Miraculouschaos 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good that you did. This statement makes no sense. Then the coelacanth should be impossible as well. _90.214.110.174 (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, obviously the work of a desperate young-earth creationist. If this creature is real (and I have my doubts) it is simply a living fossil, a relic sauropod living in conditions that managed to preserve its primitive features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Problem that comes up every single time with Young Earth Creationists reporting living dinosaurs is that they look NOTHING like the animals from the fossil record: a 195 foot long quadrupedal Spinosaur? NO! a hooved Ceratopsian with no frill and a keratinous horn? NO! a Scavenging toothed bioluminescent Pterosaur that perches in trees? NO! a semi-quadrupedal Herrerasaur? NO! An aquatic Sauropod that hibernates and is ectothermic? NO! a 2 foot tall Tyrannosaur? NO! All of these are fakes made up by deranged people, there is no evidence and there never will be! if anything these animals would prove evolution because again they are NOTHING like the Fossils!--50.195.51.9 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that most cryptid dinosaurs and pterosaurs look more like reconstructions from the 1800s than what we know dinosaurs to be now, not to mention many of them being found far outside the known geographical ranges of their fossilized ancestors (ceratopsians in equatorial Africa? Um, yeah, have fun with that) --24.36.130.109 (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

According to native descriptions, the Mokele-Mbembe appears to be more of a sauropod than a fish, Ceratopsian or Pterasaur. If at all, it's a dwarf sauropod. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

1992 footage

ref: Crypto Zooloyg A to Z, loren coleman & jerome clark if you dont like it just remove it and dont be an arse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.165.193 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 14 July 2007

Popular culture (The Punisher War Journal)

The Mokele mbembe appeared in issues 6 and 7 of Punisher War Journal v1 (Wolverine crossover). 189.158.24.50 (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)g_z

This article needs serious help

I have tagged two obvious instances of problems in the lead, but there has been minimal attention to factual accuracy, NPOV, and sourcing for this article. Please help improve the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk) 17:39, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

In Universe

The "in Universe" tag is specifically about fiction. It links here [1]. this is not an appropriate tag for a non-fiction based article irrespective of whether the subject matter is thought to be real or not.Niet Comrade (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. The other tags are fair, but that one was just silly. Zagalejo^^^ 18:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism

I note there's nothing in this article about the role of cryptozoology in Young Earth Creationism and vv. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I find that very annoying. I put a slight reference to that in here, but some vandal removed it. It wasn't the best source, however. Poorly written, and a real disgrace to creation science. It was at least something, though.Hawkrawkr (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, we've been over this before. Wikipedia is not the place for discussing young-earth creationism. Wikipedia articles contain information currently within the realm of accepted science, which young-earth creationism is not. I respect your devotion to your beliefs, but this just isn't the place for them. There are many other sites that would love to hear your opinion, try Conservipedia for instance. Also, just to correct your point, the Mokele-mbembe does not disprove evolution, which many creationists claim. Not only is there a startling lack of evidence for the existence of such an animal, but even if it were real it would be just like the coelacanth, a living fossil relatively unchanged for millions of years. Its existence doesn't prove that evolution is false, but simply that when preserved with the right conditions a primitive organism can bypass it. Evolution is an accepted fact of life, I'm not forcing you to accept that, but please don't argue about it on mainstream scientific grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Information

Why isn't there more info on MM itself? The list of expeditions and info on them is nice, but I would like more info on legends surrounding the actual creature, or _something_ about him. Anyone else feel the same?Hawkrawkr (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Don't get your hopes up, the "Beast Men" special on Nat Geo isn't too informative either. I'm watching it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.242.79 (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Small writing error? "underground cave" -> underwater cave?

As per subject: Small writing error? "underground cave" -> underwater cave? As caves are by necessity under ground. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Long list of expeditions

It dominates the article, and is poorly sourced in many cases with cryptozoology forums and Discovery Channel TV shows being cited plus pop culture mixed with primary sourced books by fringe authors. Needs a complete overhaul. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Apatosaurus?

I have heard frequent claims that Mokele-mbembe may be a descendant of Apatosaurus. This, however, is very unlikely. Apatosaurus is not known from Africa, nor is any other known diplodocoid. Furthermore, Mokele-mbembe is said to be the size of a large elephant, far too small to be an apatosaur. Instead, perhaps Mokele-mbembe could be a titanosaur. There are titanosaurs known from Africa, and many were within the size range of Mokele-mbembe. That seems more probable to me, assuming the animal exists. Perhaps this could be noted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is an old image of Diplodocus labelled as this creature here? FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There was no ES for the addition, and the caption was misleading; I’ve restored the previous sketch.—Odysseus1479 05:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Jurassic Park III?

I've seen Jurassic Park III many times and I am fairly sure there's no Mokele-mbembe in that movie. Now, I haven't seen JPIII in a while so I forget some of the details, but if the part about Mokele-mbembe proves to be incorrect, which I'm pretty sure it is, please remove it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC) It's not. I just saw it the other day, and there is no Mokele-Mbembe in it. Just Brachiosaurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.209.132 (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

how can you be so dumb?!!!!!!! there was a lot about mbembe in"JP lll" if you did not get it its your own fault — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.133.166 (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Newmac Expedition

Re this edit, the source (Kickstart.com) is not appropriate to demonstrate notability since it's basically a kickstart.com project attempting to raise money. We need independent secondary sources such as news items, books by reliable authors, academic journals, etc. that have reported the information in some detail. Feel free to add with such sources. Thanks - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Entry has been restored in a slightly different form incorporating both the Kickstarter link and also links to blog pages discussing the expedition and what happened to it.Graham1973 (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Narmer Palette

The animal depicted on the Narmer Palette is said to be mythological -- but given the possible existence of the Mokele-mbembe; the palette's "serpopard" motif could be a depiction of said animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.83 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Reference Cleanup

This articles references need a serious cleanup, there seem to be three different styles of reference format used across the article. I'm currently working on sorting out the web references, some of which are bare urls pointing to jpgs rather than articles proper. The book references on the other hand are all over the place. Some are specific page references others are simply book titles without specific page references. I plan to convert these to {{Cite book}} format in the near future. If anyone has any objections to my continuing with the reference cleanup, please let me know.Graham1973 (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, go for it. A lot of the refs are bare URLs, and several are dead links, potentially unreliable sources, or non-English. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

All based on a misunderstanding?

According to this site the word mokele-mbembe refers to a type of spirit rather than an animal. If so, the search for living dinosaurs in the Congo based on rumours might be in vain for more reasons than the usual Cryptozoological ones.

2015-01-03 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

White explorers and natives recorded seeing this fabled monster, ad the natives say it's the spirit of the water because they say it usually comes out of the water. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mokele-mbembe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://livingdinos.com/myPictures/Iguanodon.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050206224132/http://extreme-expeditions.net:80/prexpage.htm to http://www.extreme-expeditions.net/prexpage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mokele-mbembe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/images/mm1_3070.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050206224132/http://extreme-expeditions.net:80/prexpage.htm to http://www.extreme-expeditions.net/prexpage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mokele-mbembe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101127050320/http://www.extreme-expeditions.net:80/prexpage.htm to http://www.extreme-expeditions.net/prexpage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Mythology Box

I just added a Mythology Box for convince

History

Is there a better way to organize the massive history section? Reading as a chronology is very overwhelming and really isn't a good encyclopedic style. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 07:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Cryptozoologists, creationists, and "living dinosaurs"

@Tronvillain: and @LuckyLouie:, this article is probably the most notable of the living dinosaur bunch. Have the two of you had the chance to survey academic material written on this topic? Extremely fascinating stuff, very revealing, and, in fact, often funny. If you haven't encountered it already, Don Prothero's writing on Mokele-Mbembe "research" makes for interesting reading (such as The Story of Life in 25 Fossils: Tales of Intrepid Fossil Hunters and the Wonders of Evolution, pp.232-234, Columbia University Press). He provides first-hand insight into how the Young Earth creationism-cryptozoology overlap occurs. Interesting also how cryptozoologists like Loren Coleman and George Eberhart 'cover' this. In short: maybe there's a dinosaur! — much like how this article was written. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

See also Loxton and Prothero's discussion on this at Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other Famous Cryptids (pp. 115-116, 262-265). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's clearly the notable one of the "living dinosaur" pages. The huge "history" section and use of fringe sources is problematic. --tronvillain (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a fix for the history section, but I've managed to track down some of the original quotes being referred to by Clark. --tronvillain (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. I’m waiting on a book at the moment to verify some data on this topic before prepping a draft for this. I should have it later this week. In the mean time, I figure the best we can do for the article is to keep the fringe at bay and see what other solid sources might be out there. The reality of all this is unfortunately very different than what the article currently presents (no doubt because it’s based on stuff by Coleman and Eberhart). Much of the article’s current bibliography still consists of fringe sources (Coleman, Mackal, Gibbons, Shuker, etc. — all cryptozoologists and all quite unreliable). Fortunately, as we’ve discussed, there are plenty of solid sources out there on this from academics. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The bit from the 1700s may still be useful as background on rumours of large beasts, as mentioned in Abominable Science. The suggestion of an actual dinosaur seems to start with Hagenbeck's Beasts and Men (1909) (after Carnegie's popularization of Diplodocus between 1905 and 1910), as seen here (mentioned by Loxton) and here. --tronvillain (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Went and found the actual Beasts and Men text. There were a few inaccuracies. --tronvillain (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there's some stuff out there from local media during that era as well. I'll hopefully have more details about that soon, but this might be mentioned in Loxton and Prothero, particularly coverage within Rhodesia. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I've done a quick rewrite of the lead to pave the way for the rewrite. It looks to me like we're going to have merge all of those subcategories into a single category, and it seems to me that we're going to need to do some major trimming on some of these non-notable 'expeditions', as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Especially since a quick search turns up even more "expeditions" including another one or two by Regusters. --tronvillain (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Along with von Stein, the von Nolde section and the Schomburgk bit of the Hagenbeck section seem to come via Exotic Zoology (1959).--tronvillain (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Smithsonian-Universal Film Manufacturing Company African Expedition (1919-1920)

The page originally contained a section about the 1919-1920 Smithsonian Expedition, and while it's been removed, it may be worth addressing on the talk page in case anyone attempts to add it again in the future:

A 32-man expedition was sent to Africa from the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. between 1919 and 1920. The objective of this expedition was to secure additional specimens of plants and animals. Moving picture photographers from the Universal Film Manufacturing Company accompanied the expedition, in order to document the life of interior Africa. According to cryptozoologists Loren Coleman and Patrick Huyghe, authors of the Field Guide to Lake Monsters, "African guides found large, unexplained tracks along the bank of a river and later in a swamp the team heard mysterious roars, which had no resemblance with any known animal". However, the expedition was to end in tragedy. During a train-ride through a flooded area where an entire tribe was said to have seen the dinosaur, the locomotive suddenly derailed and turned over. Four team members were crushed to death under the cars and another half dozen seriously injured. The expedition was documented in the Homer L. Shantz papers.

What it says in the Field Guide is simply "Then, in 1920, the Smithsonian Institution sent a 32-man expedition to Africa, which found unexplained tracks along the riverbank and heard mysterious 'roars'" - where the quote in the above passage originates isn't clear. It's also not entirely clear where the story originates as attached to mokele-mbembe, but what the existing reference actually contains is:

November 29, 1919. Collected plants in the morning, mostly for seed. Several orchids, of which I have collected the bulbs. After a long and tiresome tramp returned to camp at about 1 p.m., and found the following telegram from Theirry at Elizabeth, addressed to Shantz at Kafue: "Railroad wreck Congo stop Armstrong Stowell both killed stop other all right stop Have cabled Baker for instruction and wired Heller stop You Cannot help by abandoning your trip stop Suggest you wait further wire from myself stop Burying Armstrong today Stowell tomorrow." Armstrong is business manager and Stowell director of movies, so two heads are removed at once. We knew no details of their work. Has cast a gloom over the whole endeavor.

It was Joseph R. Armstrong, William Stowell, and four natives who were killed, when "While the train was stopping for fuel, a man controlled water truck broke away and crashed into the rear of the train, smashing the last coach to matchwood." The expedition didn't end, four members of the expedition weren't killed, and the train was stopped for fuel between Sakania and Elisabethville when it was impacted from behind - it didn't suddenly derail and flip over during a ride through a flooded area. In fact, it also wasn't a "32-man expedition." --tronvillain (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking into it a little further (it's mentioned in Mackal's A Living Dinosaur? (1986) and Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science (2013)), the connection dates back to at least 1919 with a NYT article entitled "Hunter Says He saw Prehistoric Monster; Belgian Returns from Congo with a Story of Tracking Down a Brontosaurus":

Details of the alleged discovery of a survivor of the prehistoric Brontosaurus are given in a delayed Reuter message from Bulawayo by the Belgian prospector and big game hunter, M. Gapelle, who has returned there from the interior of the Congo States. He followed up strange footprints for twelve miles and at length, he says, sighted a beast of the rhinoceros order with large scales reaching far down its body.
The animal, he says, has a very thick kangaroo-like tail, a horn on its snout and a hump on its back. Gapelle fired some shots at the beast which threw up its head and disappeared into the swamp. It was pointed out that the American Smithsonian Expedition was in search of the monster when the members of the party met with a railway accident in which several persons were killed.
Discussing the Smithsonian expedition yesterday, Dr. S.F. Harmer, director of the zoological section of the British Musem of Natural History, while keeping an open mind said:
'I should doubt strongly the survival of any of the race of Dinosaurs, the enourmous creatures belong to so remote an age. In the forest and swamp of untrodden portions of Africa there are probably remarkable specimens of unknown beasts, but the likelihood is they are mammals of a much later type. The discovery in modern times of remains of extinct animals has all been of creatures comparitiavely recently extinct. It was only at the beginning of the last century that the great awk became extinct and the dodo, which was living on Mauritius, was not of so greatly remote a period as the Dinosaur or Brontosaurus. The remains of the mammoth were in a similar category, namely mammals of a recent period.'

Then in the Times (London) there was a reply from the acting representative of the Smithsonian African Expedition in Elisabethville sent on 21 January:

To the Editor of the Times. Sir,–I am authorized to contradict the statement that the members of the Smithsonian African Expedition who proceeded to this territory came here to hunt brontosaurus. There is no foundation for this statement. I may also state that the report of the brontosaurus arose from a piece of practical joking in the first instance, and, as regards the prospector "Gapelle," this gentleman does not exist except in the imagination of a second practical joker, who ingeniously coined the name from that of Mr. L. Le Page.

Nothing in any of the other Smithsonian Expedition related materials mentions anything about tracks or roars that I can find. --tronvillain (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Heuvelmans gives an account of some of this, including the statement from Wentworth Gray. Just before that, he writes “… the press was adding embellishments to the story almost daily.… The number of members of the Smithsonian expedition killed in the railway accident increased dramatically, and this institution was said to have raised a fund of $5,000,000 to finance the monster’s capture.”—Odysseus1479 21:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm the one who removed this section along with another one from the 1700s. This content could potentially be included as part of myth's history, but it would need to be in the context of the modern academic perspective and not just part of a list of "evidence" supporting the creature's existence. –dlthewave ☎ 22:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Pulling fringe sources

Currently the article outlines a variety of "expeditions" from fringe figures, such as Young Earth creationist cryptozoologists (Gibbons) and pseudoscience advocates (Mackal). All of this needs to be stripped out if this article is going anywhere. I'll begin doing this today. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Some of those could potentially be used as sources about their own claims, but clearly they aren't reliable sources for factual statements in Wikipedia's voice. I'd suggest excising the problematic sources first (especially when used for claimed historical sighting) in favour of "citation needed" before moving on with additional removals and reorganization. --tronvillain (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You are correct in trying to improve the article by removing the "list of sightings" so common to crypto/monster narratives. Perhaps the few remaining well-sourced ones could be summarized in an "Expeditions" section comprised of a few well-written and encyclopedic paragraphs. Unfortunately, it will need to be chopped away at in smaller edits while examining each source and citation — and this takes time and effort (which, by the way, I don't have right now). Good luck, though. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Ley's Exotic Zoology

Currently the article keeps a reference to Willy Ley's Exotic Zoology, by no means a reliable source. We're going to need to find something better, but chances are we probably don't need this anyway, particularly in light of Loxton and Prothero's chapter dedicated to the topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I could see mentioning it in a section on the development of the legend as an elaboration of Loxton and Prothero's "Through the 1940s and 1950s, early cryptozoological authors Willy Ley, Ivan Sanderson, and Bernard Heuvelmans picked up and discussed the turn-of-the-century "African Brontosaurus idea.", but it shouldn't be supporting entire "Sightings" sections. It's also probably relevant in that it seems to be the first use of the name. --tronvillain (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This quote is currently sourced to Ley:

The animal is said to be of a brownish-gray color with a smooth skin, its size is approximately that of an elephant; at least that of a hippopotamus. It is said to have a long and very flexible neck and only one tooth but a very long one; some say it is a horn. A few spoke about a long, muscular tail like that of an alligator. Canoes coming near it are said to be doomed; the animal is said to attack the vessels at once and to kill the crews but without eating the bodies. The creature is said to live in the caves that have been washed out by the river in the clay of its shores at sharp bends. It is said to climb the shores even at daytime in search of food; its diet is said to be entirely vegetable. This feature disagrees with a possible explanation as a myth. The preferred plant was shown to me, it is a kind of liana with large white blossoms, with a milky sap and applelike fruits. At the Ssombo River I was shown a path said to have been made by this animal in order to get at its food. The path was fresh and there were plants of the described type nearby. But since there were too many tracks of elephants, hippos, and other large mammals it was impossible to make out a particular spoor with any amount of certainty.

As it turns out, it (that specific quote, not the entire section in Ley) appears in Sanderson's "There Could be Dinosaurs" in the 3 January 1948 issue of the Saturday Evening post, so it originates somewhere before that. --tronvillain (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

But then Exotic Zoology is a collection of Ley's other books, and The Lungfish, the Dodo & the Unicorn was originally published in 1941 and it has the quote on pages 164-164 of the 1948 revised edition.--tronvillain (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Given how utterly unreliable these figures are (including for their own claims, as they frequently misrepresent themselves or change position from item to item), I think it's best that we stick to secondary sources describing their actions. This will also keep them in context. While we currently have some users watching the page who are more than ready to edit-war to keep stuff like Gibbons and Coleman on the article, there's little reason to cite them directly when can build much of this article from reliable sources like those of Loxton and Prothero. Until the article gets more eyes, it looks like we'll simply need to replace the nonsense here with reliable material before removing it. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, the whole chapter is devoted to speculation about finding a real world animal to explain the sirrush. Which reminds me, I have a bunch of stuff to add over there at some point. --tronvillain (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't decided whether the subject of that article or this one one makes for my favorite cryptozoologist fixation. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Turns out that portion was in the original The Lungfish and the Dodo. --tronvillain (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that the source was still referenced but absent, so have restored it at the bottom for now (it doesn't mean that I particularly endorse it). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Explanations other than dinosaur or nonsense

Is it true that there is such a scarcity of alternative explanations for Mokele mbembe sightings? One could theorize a lot about it, e.g. that it is an unknown large mammal perhaps related to the extinct paraceratherium, an unknown (sub-)species of rhinoceros living in the congo basin, or perhaps a yet-unknown population / subspecies of african forest elephants. Or an unusual reptile that is not directly related to dinosaurs. Or that one of these things may have existed until recently, and is still part of local mythology. Besides a brief mention of a rhino theory, the article mainly deals with Mokele mbembe being thought of as a dinosaur. While this theory is not entirely impossible, it is a rather exotic one given the time that has passed since the last known dinosaurs existed. I would expect a higher diversity of cryptozoological explanations. Also, not all cryptozoologists are young-earth creationists, by the way. --2003:E7:7748:3E09:B01C:40ED:7A62:EFB8 (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

While there's no mention of paraceratherium, it seems to me that most of what is suggested above is already part of the article. Since this page is not a forum for the discussion of the topic and that the article text must be a summary of reliable sources, I suggest to cite sources that could be used to expand the article. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"it is a rather exotic one given the time that has passed since the last known dinosaurs existed. " They are not dead yet, but still extant organisms. See main article Dinosaur:

• "Reverse genetic engineering and the fossil record both demonstrate that birds are modern feathered dinosaurs, having evolved from earlier theropods during the late Jurassic Period. As such, birds were the only dinosaur lineage to survive the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago." Dimadick (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Well, it seems to be difficult in general to find reliable sources about cryptozoological topics. Those who support such ideas often get lost in far-fetched speculations, and scientists with a good reputation seem to avoid such topics in order not to be seen as crackpots. The most accepted theories usually explain cryptid sightings as a purely psychological phenomenon, I guess because you can't do much wrong with that - psychology definitely plays a role, while the presence of anything real behind it is always speculative and disputable. I will look for more reliable sources when I have a lot of spare time...

By the way, while birds may be extant dinosaurs, Mokele mbembe's description doesn't really resemble a bird. It rather resembles a sauropod which we haven't seen on earth since 66 million years. Although when I re-interpret the descriptions a little, a monstrous flightless bird becomes another exotic option. But if there is, or once was, some real creature behind the myth, I would prefer more familiar animals, such as a population of unusually large rhinos or forest elephants. Ockham's razor will probably favor such animals over sauropods as well. A sauropod is exotic because it must have survived all the time in Africa in the face of competition with various other animals, without leaving enough fossils to get found by us. Survival of an ancient rhinoceros (paraceratherium descent?) is already way more likely, as the fossil gap would be shorter. A population of an ordinary rhino or elephant species is even more likely, as that requires much less chance to happen. --2003:E7:7748:3E70:98DE:B106:9A7:6FDA (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)