Talk:Lake monster

Pseudoscience, Edit Wars, and Total Lack of References
This article lacks a single reliable reference. What does exist seems to simply be outright pseudoscience from cryptozoology corners on the level of flat Earth theory. This isn't good. Either this article needs to be completely rewritten from scratch with academic sources in hand—think from folkloristics—or it needs to be deleted or redirected where the topic is actually handled with appropriate sourcing. However, it's not likely that this article can be rewritten without simple being a repeat of sea monster. This article was tagged for these issues, yet it was edit-warred away by. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the accusations... If you'd like to rewrite the article from scratch, that sounds like a great idea, and a perfect use of a draft in your user space. We can replace the article when you're done as long as it's agreeable to everyone here. If you'd like to delete the article, WP:AfD is for that, so I'd suggest going there. You're complaining about the sources. Do you have some we've excluded? It would be great to incorporate any you're aware of.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not an accusation—it's a fact. You've removed the tags and you need to restore them. Next, I suggest you stop making up rules as you go along. Article are rewritten from scratch all the time and nobody needs to ask anyone permission to edit an article.


 * Finally, there's a Wikipedia policy about restoring material that has been deleted due to having no sources—WP:PROVEIT. The Wikipedia policy explicitly requires users who restore deleted unsourced material to restore the material only with reliable sources. Since you are this individual —got any sources, Jess? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't restore any material. You're getting me confused with other editors.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right, actually—you're the user who removed the tags notifying other editors that this discussion is ongoing and who refuses to restore them. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

We have room in Wikipedia for all sorts of pseudoscience topics, if they are notable and provided that they should be handled according to the guidelines at Fringe theories. I don't think there can be any reasonable dispute that the topic of lake monsters is notable: for starters, a search at Google Scholar produces more than 500 potential sources. The current text of this article seems to contain little more than some basic background material, none of it making any particularly contentious claims (as far as I can see) or asserting in Wikipedia's voice that any lake monster actually exists. The article does identify a few sources, albeit not in the most desired footnote form. It also has a short list of other, bluelinked articles about some particularly well-known examples like Nessie and the Lagarfljót Worm. Under our basic editing policy, this article looks to me like a typical candidate for improvement, not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The notability of the article is not on trial nor has anyone attempted to delete the article itself. The problem is the content and why it simply shouldn't handled along with sea monsters the article. Then there's all the usual cryptozoology infestation problems. When handling pseudoscience, especially cryptozoology, Wikipedia has long had a problem with slipping into the emic voice rather than sticking to the etic. In other words, we need scholarly secondary sources handling cryptozoology as a topic, especially considering its completely fringe nature.


 * Frequently cryptozoology is also very much overrepresented on our folklore articles (which is not okay via WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE) and apparently often mistaken for folkloristics by Wikipedia users (inappropriate usage of the cryptozoology-specific term cryptid implies as much). This doesn't happen so much on our zoology and biology articles, apparently because they're far better watched (or Wikipedia users have a better familiarity with these topics).


 * Cryptozoology is ruling the roost here at the moment and not a single reliable source is provided. This is akin to flat Earth proponents dominating a zoology article. We need secondary, reliable sources from scholars covering cryptozoology activity on the topic (which certainly exist), not pseudoscientific claims. The folklore record is massive on this topic and this article could certainly be rewritten with that in mind. The folklore record and its assessment (by folklorists!) should certainly make up the vast bulk of the article, with the cryptozoology stuff restricted to its own section. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, so you've said scholarly sources covering cryptozoology activity on this topic exist. That's awesome. Can you list a few? I'd love to see them incorporated. I'm not sure I agree about the folklore vs cryptozoology bit, but I'd have to see the sources first to make up my mind about their respective weight. I'm not sure which pseudoscientific claims you're talking about in the article. Can you give me an example?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Jess, first—restore the tags already instead of doing everything you can to spark an edit war. Next, I guess you're still not following the discussion at cryptozoology talk page. Academics frequently study pseudoscience as a phenomenon. As a courtesy, here's one such recent articles for you (from Problematic Wildlife, 2015, Springer).


 * The sheer volume of analysis of folklore, ancient and contemporary, by academics on the topic of beings (or "monsters") dwelling in (or strongly associated with) lakes (and other bodies of water) is absolutely massive. From Grendel in Beowulf to the contemporary Nessie to any of the many thousands of beings associated with lakes in Europe alone, folklorists and other specialists have produced vast (even overwhelming) amounts of text on these topics that this article could easily cover. Cryptozoology is a very recent and extremely fringe aspect of this topic. Right now cryptozoology dominates this article. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * nor has anyone attempted to delete the article itself Remind me about the time you wanted to redirect the article without any discussion. clpo13(talk) 23:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll gladly remind you that article deletion and producing a redirect are two different processes on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I'll thank you to actually look an article over before you decide to edit war. This sad little article has been plastered with "citation needed" tags for piles of unreferenced material since *2009*. Someone with knowledge of the topic happens to come by and do something about it and what do they get? A plethora of edit warriors deciding that—whatever the article may say, no need to bother looking at it—it's time to revert. Not constructive and not conducive to improving Wikipedia. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When it comes to redirecting an existing article, it's the same concept as deleting (blanking). You made a bold edit and were challenged. I don't know why it took multiple reverts by different editors to get you to start a talk page discussion. clpo13(talk) 23:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably for the same reason you decided to simply revert rather than discuss—without even bothering looking at the article, no less, judging by your citation comments. If you want to contribute, go ahead. If you're here out of spite, that's not very useful to the project. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CON. Have you read this yet? clpo13(talk) 00:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed I have—and its many versions over the years. Unfortunately, for this process to work, it's expected for the editors to be familiar with the article in question. Now, this article has been sitting in its current state—more or less—since about 2008. You can call the kettle black all day about the reversion process or you can contribute to the article. Your choice. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, we're talking about contributing to the article now? Your first edit to this was to unilaterally redirect it. Is that your idea of fixing an article? clpo13(talk) 00:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, yeah. Many article require clean up. I've directed you to WP:PROVEIT a few times now—it clearly states that unreferenced material is to be removed and the individual that restores it needs to reference it. That individual is you. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I must be hallucinating then because I see one inline citation and seven general references. Now, if this is about unreliable sources, then that's one thing. But you're saying it's unsourced? clpo13(talk) 00:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure what physical process you're experiencing, but if this is a "source" to you, then we've got problems. Otherwise the only "source" int he article is a reference to some mysterious "Bengt Sjögren (1980)", which is not provided. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The only mention of lake monsters I see is on page 585, and it's a passing mention. I'm not sure how to incorporate that into this article. Any suggestions? Maybe something I missed?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Nah, since you're apparently solely here to troll, I'm not particularly interested in teaching you how Google Books or JSTOR works. Just about any academic survey of cryptozoology mentions its fixation on lake monsters. Restore the tags and I'll take that you're acting in good faith a little more seriously. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, well I can't think of any way to incorporate the source you proposed into this article, so I guess I'm opposed to using it for now. If you think of something or find another source, let me know.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Lol, this guy. Refusing to reinstate tags out of spite, despite ongoing discussion on the talk page, and inevitably rejecting any source provided. Not how to build an article but definitely how to concern troll on Wikipedia. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a troll can be considered a personal attack. clpo13(talk) 00:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Any number of things can be considered a personal attack, yet this isn't an "attack" but a behavioral concern. When such behavior is suspected, it's entirely appropriate. Tag removal when discussion is ongoing is exactly such behavior. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Long-Tagged Section Removed
I've just removed a lot of long-tagged items, much of it in emic voice for cryptozoology, a pseudoscience (WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE). I've left some of the more reliable stuff behind but the quote and its source are still pretty dubious. Article needs to be rewritten from scratch with reliable secondary sources from researchers working in related fields (most notably folkloristics, as this is folklore). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Move to New Article, Aquatic monster
In an effort to improve this article with reliable, secondary sources I'm running into an issue. Reliable sources are blurry about a distinction between lake and sea. This excellent source, for example, refers to the Loch Ness Monster as a "sea monster". What seems to be happening with our lake monster and sea monster is a distinction based on salinity, something that is really an artificial distinction given the record and not something I'm seeing in secondary sources discussing this.

Now, we're clearly not going to have an article for every blurry term for a body of water in the English language (I doubt fjord monster is coming any time soon), so why isn't the topic of aquatic monsters handled in one place? Under aquatic monster, we can also discuss entities that appear in the folklore record as dwelling in, say, rivers. If no one objects, I'll create the new article in time and move what's usable form here over to there. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a terrible idea, especially since there is no article yet for river monster. Biologically, the distinction should probably be between freshwater versus saltwater monsters, but then there should be brackish monsters too. However, such biological distinctions don't really correspond with the fact that the majority of monsters are the products of myth and folklore. It is a bit like trying to classify whether pegacorns are land-dwelling or air-dwelling. Seafaring myth and culture though is fairly distinct from the culture of those who spend most of their time on lakes and rivers instead, so I think it is good to keep them separate. If anything, the subject of river monsters can probably be merged with lake monsters, until there is enough material to create a separate article. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite research in progress
This article need some work, well a lot of it. I'm going to see what I can do while keeping the concerns noted above in mind. Please direct further comments, suggestions, concerns, etc.. here or to my talk page. Cheers. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Rewrite up. I'd like to think its an improvement on the sourcing. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While the article needs a rewrite, I'm afraid you've introduced a number of problems into the article:
 * Equal time for pseudoscience: Cryptozoology is plainly a pseudoscience and Wikipedia has strict policies and guideliness on how pseudoscience is to be represented in article spaces (importantly, WP:PSCI and WP:UNDUE, see also WP:FRINGE). The cryptozoology stuff is extreme fringe and needs to go. For perspective, currently the article reads like a geology article written by a flat earther or a medical article composed by a germ theory denialists.
 * Poor sourcing: There's no shortage of peer-reviewed works or items published by an academic press on this topic composed by folklorists (academics active in folklore studies) over the past few hundred years. In turn, there's no reason to turn to blog posts and no reason to turn to Gizmodo articles on "paranormal investigators" (another pseudoscience).
 * With these things in mind, I'm afraid this isn't an improvement, and the article continues to need a rewrite from scratch. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand where you're interpreting this as giving any weight to fringe theories. It's clearly stated several times that lake monsters are myths, stories, legends, etc... The blog posting you refer is written by a geologist that is considered notable enough to have her own page here and the paranormal investigator is Joe Nickell, a man that has made his career out of debunking paranormal claims and is a research fellow for the committee for skeptical inquiry. SO maybe clarify what you're thinking here?Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For one, the article starts with "In folklore and cryptozoology,", which is on par with saying "In geology and flat earth theory" or "In physical cosmology and in young earth creationism". Wikipedia does not provide equal time for pseudoscience. The geologist you're talking about has no background in folklore studies and the same goes for the "paranormal researcher". These are not authorities on this topic. Why is it you're avoiding folklorists on an article about folklore? Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR, and a huge variety of other easily accessible sources provide a plethora of first-rate sources on this topic. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On specific lake monsters and legends there certainly is a ton of quality information and its well cited in many of the articles on the various specific monsters. As faras lake monsters in general? Not so much out there. I'm trying to avoid a lot of overlap because its not needed here. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're encountering problems with sourcing, it might be because this is a overly specific. There's an artificial division going on here regarding bodies of water, evidently based on salinity (see Talk:Lake_monster). Aquatic monster or just moving all of these to water monster would solve this problem. Reliable sources like Watts's Encyclopedia of American Folklore handle these topics in this way. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That said, there are many, many reliable sources to draw from on this topic. For example, one of the first Google Books hits I get is Archetypes and Motifs in Folklore and Literature: A Handbook, which contains a few articles (for example, "Water Spirits, Motif 420" by D. L. Ashliman) on this very topic from folklorists. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I figured that the merging discussion was dead as the last and only post on it here was from November of 2016. They probably should be merged given the non-specific nature of the topic.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although, I think a merge would result in the elimination of information rather than spreading information on distinct topics.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I'm understanding Bloodofox, if you think more folklore should be added then add it. The mention of pseudoscience in the lede is unwarranted, as the term folklore is already used. Possibly the term Cryptozoology could be used to explain further? I'm not following your comment about having both is like adding flat-earth and geology.Sgerbic (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Like flat earth theory, young earth creationism, and germ theory denialism, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, and therefore bound by WP:PSCI (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I initially had the term cryptozoology in there and removed it because I thought that was the word perceived as giving undue weight to pseudoscience. I think the further concern might be the term paranormal investigator in some of the references not being clear that the investigators are skeptically inclined and are not looking for these things because they actually think they are out there. Not real sure what the issues here are and if you'd like to be specific (or even just change the page) that would be helpful. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

lake monsters in fiction
Can we add a list of films and books featuring lake monsters? The only works that I know of are Lake Placid, Return to Mayberry, and Harry Potter. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I considered that but could only find the ones you mention. I'm unopposed if you choose to make the addition. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)