Talk:North Shore Monster

Citations needed
I recently stumbled upon the North Shore Monster article. I fixed up what I could and changed how the sources are referenced. Like other cryptids, I think that the claims are dubious (at best), but if there are so many 'sightings', we should be able to find more references. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've dramatically reduced the size of this article to documented sources. What appeared was Wikipedia at its worst, simple uncited gossip perhaps created for the amusement of the original editor.--John Foxe (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to wait for a full month after I placed the "citation requested" tags, but I otherwise don't object to what you have done. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you have waited if the article had said, "Even John Taylor, the third President of the Mormon Church, mentioned the monster in one of his discourses"? Creation of phony legislation and perhaps 1398 extra sightings of this critter should likewise be grounds for unilateral and speedy deletion by any editor. It's easier to apologize (which I've done on occasion in my Wikipedia career) than to worry about the niceties in cases that so blatantly assault truth.--John Foxe (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also have tagged such and waited for a citation. If it were from someone who I know that knows better, like you, I would have expected a citation sooner than someone who I don't know, such as the few people who have edited the article.  If, however, someone had added something like, "The North Shore Monster was seen in downtown Salt Lake City," then that would require a citation right then or be removed.  There are varying degrees between these.  But in this case, my objections to the time period allowed isn't enough to revert these changes. As you can see, I still did some copyedits while waiting for the citations. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I might have been more patient had it not been for sentences like, "The men attacked it and shot more than 30 rounds of high power amunition into the beast which had no affect at all, one man was burned to death and another man lost an arm and one toe, however it is speculated the loss of the toe was due to a lawnmowing accident and he didnt want to own up to mowing his yard with out shoes on." Ignoring the errors of grammar, spelling and syntax—and citation to an article which says nothing of the kind—people didn't cut off their toes mowing their lawns in the 1870s, especially on the shores of Great Salt Lake. But like moderns, they did practice leg pulling back then.--John Foxe (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is certainly a case where it should be removed. This is also a case, that if I had come across it as it was, I would have removed it.  But since I tagged it, I figured I'd take care of it once the month was up.  There are some times when there is no need to pull the small weeds because a lot of it will shortly be plowed under.  This is why I left these things after my first pass. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? The max. depth of the lake is only 35 ft., I would think in the years of local human habitation and hordes of tourists there would be proof of such a creature by now. This is ridiculous, there are no lake monsters, no sasquatch/yeti, no goatsuckers and whatever other nutty critters people can come up with. But this is what we get, fantasy garbage attested to by millions of people incapable of thinking rationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.226.143 (talk) 08:25, August 28, 2008