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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

Article milestones Date Process Result May 31, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed April 26, 2016 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 2, 2004, May 2, 2005, May 2, 2006, April 21, 2012, and April 21, 2019.

This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Folklore Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Cryptozoology Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Scotland High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Paranormal High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: April 19 to 25, 2015 (6th)

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

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

I would support deletion. HiLo48 ( talk) 03:12, 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

File:Hoaxed photo of the Loch Ness monster.jpg The introductory picture, copied here, is of low quality (out of focus), and quite old (1934!). A better quality and more recent photograph should be provided. Opinions? 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:A02F:5E5C:EE34:8258 ( talk) 14:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

it is the first. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:43, 10 August 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.

"fix it"? we do not "Improve" images. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

that a group of Nessies or loch ness monsters is called a choir, as in a choir of Nessies. 12.71.95.250 ( talk) 15:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Not done per WP:V. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

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

Great! Bear in mind Facebook pages, tweets, blog posts, Youtube videos, and the Loch Ness Exploration website, and The New York Post and similar tabloids are not reliable WP:FRIND sources for an update. However Deutsche Welle would be a good source. As for the WP:SENSATIONAL claims of a 'new sighting', this may be most helpful. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you. IntegrityForever ( talk) 21:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Good job, nice summary. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks! IntegrityForever ( talk) 22:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

how long does loch ness monster live 138.75.45.157 ( talk) 05:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ask an RS, Slatersteven ( talk) 10:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply