This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I do not know if anybody asked about this yet, but how is the tailfin of a merman or mermaid alligned? If you were to view a merman from the front, if the tailfin is alligned sideways parallel to the shoulders, it is similar to that of a dolphin. If, however, the tailfin is alligned at right angles with the shoulders, then it is similar to that of a fish. Are there any legends that specify which way the tailfin is alligned?
DaDoc540 04:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
In most art the tail is flexible like an EEL and not like a FISH...
I reverted the last edit. The edit added the following external link at the top of the list:
I object to the description of it as "completely safe." I would define "completely safe" as being something I wouldn't hesitate to send a young child to. I would not expect such a page to include material like this
\
mermaids have the bodies of men and the legs and other parts of FISH!!!
Now, there's nothing wrong with the content. Wikipedia is not "safe," and its links do not need to be safe. But there's something wrong about misrepresentation. If a link says "completely safe," it should resemble that description.
I could have just removed the "completely safe." But I thought the misrepresentation should be noted (in case it becomes a pattern) and others brought in to discuss its re-inclusion. I also object to a mediocre cryptozoological article at the top of the external links, but this is a much lower-order objection. In fact, I wouldn't have changed it just for that; I figure, good references will bubble up and bad ones bubble down over time.
Lectiodifficilior 03:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The copyright can be changed for "fair use" if it is more convenient. If you feel like IMAGE does not fit there then tell me and I will forget about this page(I am not a this page creator after all and I respect the hard work of people who did create it). Otherwise I will change a copyright status and will place image back there(or someone to do it for me if that bothers you) within a few days OK? Please remember that ADDING content to wikipedia is better then removing staff. May be this on-line encyclopedia seems like full pot for some but believe me some parts of it( and especially visual information) is like desert yet.
Anyway I will do as I wrote; if you have an objection please get back to me, otherwise I will assume that "science is sign of agreement" if it's OK with you
Cheers Gabrichidze 1:54, 18 June 2005 (UTC
For the umpteenth time I am reverting Nick Gabrichidze's "Mermaids" image (seen to the right); others have done so too. I think the arguments against it are strong, and there are clearly others who feel the same way. I think this imposes a duty on the poster (whom I believe to be the artist) to explain and justify the post. Others should agree or disagree with his reasoning, and some sort of rough consensus be reached.
My arguments against are:
What do other people think? -- User:Lectiodifficilior
Thanks for adding my sig; apologies for forgetting. "Trumps" seems a bit strong, but I get your point. In any case, if that issue were to go away I still don't think it deserves to be in the article, let alone at the top. Mermaids on the Web has over 1,300 images, many of them PD and I'd bet half of the others would gladly make their work PD in order to get the promotion that Mermaid offers. Lectiodifficilior
Note: The digital image is released into GFDL
Following the harsh discussion at [[caucasophobia] and Nick Gabrichidze VfD pages group of our oponents including Radiant began to remove and re-edit all wikipedia content regarding NckGabrichidze,including the images submited for featured picture category and pages they had previusely shown nointerest for. most content is either removed or taged with absolutely inapropriate tags(see caucasophobia decoration or absolutely unacceptable tags of copyright violation) The vandalism in progress will be filed this eve I guess. Gabrichize
Here I didn't even realize there was a past history with the image here, but I removed it almost immediately when it showed up today, as it frankly looked amateurish to me, isn't famous, didn't really illustrate anything in the article, and had no information about copyright status, etc. It seemed to me someone was trying to put up a painting his or her high school student child had done for class or something. DreamGuy 13:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Is there any information about the origin of the word "Mermaid" ? Is it possible it has a French origin ("Mer" means "Sea" in French) ? It is funny because it looks like the opposite in French : "mermaid" is "sirène" and its pronunciation looks like "sea-rène" (literally like "sea queen", but I don't know if "rène" is a variation of "reine" (queen), this is only a supposition anyway).
A Wikipedia reader sent the following message to the help desk.
I created a section called Productions and Costumes, thinking this was pertinent information that a lot of people look for. If things about Ariel and Madison and the Starbucks Mermaid who are not legendary Mythical characters either can be mentioned on it, why is it that the section on productions (such as people who perform mermaids for the enjoyment of others) and costuming (people who create mermaids for the enjoyment of others) was deleted? The section was open for other productions to be added as well and included one of the top photomanipulation creators of Merfolk.
Please let me know why my information addition to your mermaid related information page was deleted.
I am posting it on his or her behalf.
Capitalistroadster 06:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Seeing how no one seems to want to answer this and explaine why my post was taken off, I have decided to join and post on my own behalf.
Could someone explain to me why it is that my section that speaks about costumes and production companies and people who do photomanipulation of mermaids for others got deleted but yet the "Tail Man" can have his own whole page doing nothing but talking about his company and his product that he sells?
I would appreciate a reply. Garnette
Why does "merfolk" redirect to this page? Shouldn't Mermaid redirect to the less-specific "Merfolk", where information from both Mermaid and Merman would be merged? Turly-burly 02:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the section discussing the aquatic ape hypothesis because, well, it was incredibly stupid. No one who took that theory seriously ever thought that it had resulted in merfolk-like characteristics in prehumans. KarlM 00:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What if somone did take it seriously there are some messed up people out there. By the way I think that mermaids are a bunch of bull crap. 69.214.26.195 20:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I never saw the Aquatic Ape story, but (ask any real anthropologist) HUMANS differ from apes with a reversed pelvis (allows Missionary) bouyant breasts (unlike apes) and hairlessness, PLUS we can swim (Apes can't, they're too dense)
Humans at some point, probably at the same point that African proto-humans feasted on fish and grew HUGE brains, lived in and around the water.
Evolution and creationism aren't exclusive, so keep an open mind, ALL of you.
Mermaid Music is merely more info about mermaids; long, but also messy. Could easily be distilled down to a para here.
Mermaid problem is the same, insofar as it is not a joke. Goldfritha 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
That would be ok with me. (re: Mermaid Music article submitted by me, Robert Mui I will pare it down and place it here if you'd like. Please let me know. I've done what you had suggested. Thanks.
Merging mermaid music now. Will do mermaid problem when I can hack out the dead wood. 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Are Mermaids cold blooded or warm blooded? 151.198.131.83 17:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Which image should be placed at the top of this article: Waterhouse's A mermaid or the 1921 Cartoon? I restored the "original" order (Waterhouse at the top & Cartoon below), but there have been people that seems to like it inverted... What should be done? --Neigel von Teighen 07:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes. Let's see: the situation has changed a bit with the new images included... we must see where to put it, maybe delete/move/else another image and presto! Any idea where? But, please, keep Waterhouse where it is... (unless you have a better place to put it... if so, great!) --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 15:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
They have erased my paranormal infobox, I made the mistake on 1860 B.C. but I got that from a site that said that(or close to it) but then there is this site named "American Monsters" that said they had been heard from since 5000 B.C. So I was going to make a change, but it was deleted. So I made it again with some changes.
Ender_Wiiggin 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is also under cryptozoology and other groups and is classified as undiscovered animal, due to that other users in wikipedia, are in the cryptozoology group, it says the goal is too provide complete coverage on subjects related to cryptids, by expanding articles on cryptids, and stories about them. This creature is also listed in Cryptid. Ender_Wiiggin 4:15,10 Febuary 2007 (UTC)
Lets just keep the picture there I'll put the waterhouse picture back on the article.
Ender_Wiiggin 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
"If mermaids exist it would be hard to catch one due to their intelligence, for science has never managed to get a dead body despite the fact that mermaids are supposed to love hanging about near shore, where capture should be easy and their dead bodies would probably wash onto the beach. If they did exist they would be attacked constantly against underwater predators like sharks, and would probably be living inside sunken ships,if the sunken ship is explored then they would have hidden in the ships closets. Their mates(merman) probably abandon them after mating,like acouple of animals after reproduction."
I do it, then. --Neigel von Teighen 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so, I am supposed to put info boxes on cryptid animals, and this is a cryptid animal.Ender_Wiiggin 01:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The other talkpage is here. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to identify a movie or tv show I saw when I was very little (Early 80's). Their was a mermaid painted on the bottom of a pool. The pool may have been at a motel.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.245.75 (talk • contribs) 14:29, April 27 2007 (UTC)
This article is now on the cruft lists started by DreamGuy. See diff. Should we think about splitting off Mermaids in popular culture or some similar article? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 07:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate having to explain this all the time, but here it goes again:
Folklore, mythology, etc. are nonfiction topics discussing what people actually believed.
Mermaids in movies, stories made up for movies, TV, etc. are fiction and everyone with any sense knows is not true.
Mermaids as folklore is a nonfiction topic. List of fictional mermaids and Mermaids in popular culture are fiction topics. Bunch of trivial mentions of the word mermaid on some videogame, or some RPG that has a mermaid "monster" (gee, wouldn;t that be just about ALL of them? so why need to list them separately?), or some Pokemon or Magic the Gathering card with a mermaid is subtrivial fictioncruft that not only shouldn't even belong in an article specifically about fiction but defnitely should not be on an article about a real nonfcition topic of the history of the legends and folklores and archaic science and etc. of mermaids.
I am discouraged by how many people seem to think that mythology and legends are the same thing as movies and one off TV references and equally deserving of info (or, in fact, less deserving of coverage in the article from the looks of just how much fiction cruft got crammed in here). DreamGuy 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. What you are talking about is "mythology" as the "science that studies myths", not "mythology" as "collection of myths". It's an old controversy. Of course, the science of myths is non-fiction... is a rather serious and intersting topic. Maybe, we should reword the template to clarify it better, don't you think? --Neigel von Teighen 11:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The template is not going to be removed until the problem is fixed. The article is still amazingly filled with god awful fictioncruft. It's horribly bad. That's what the tag was made for. DreamGuy 09:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Heck with it, I just split the fiction off into an article myself since waiting around for it to happen wasn;t going anywhere because of a very obstinate editor. Look, even Siren has a Sirens in popular culture article, it's just how things are done. If you want to talk about fictional mermaids you can now go see Mermaids in popular culture and leave this article to the overall topic. If you have a problem with this, please go read WP:ENC and WP:Listcruft before reverting... and if you still feel like reverting, don't bother, because there's absolutely no justification for it and you will never ever prevail under the argument that this article has to be unlike every other article on similar topics just because some editor refuses to appreciate the difference between fiction and nonfiction and an encyclopedia and an indiscriminate listing of trivia. DreamGuy 09:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I made an addition that got deleted in the article Mermaid under Artwork. It went something like this:
From a particular point of view, mermaids can also be seen as muses who "sing" to the artist. This can be appreciated in the work of Merrmaidmaker, who uses computers to design fractal mermaids. If you zoom to the image, each part of the whole expresses a different and unique feeling, which when seen completely as a whole mermaid, adds to that mysterious characteristic which defines them.
i added a little more. I made the article because i think the work i do adds to the whole mermaid imagery, and its a good representation of our age, computers, fractals, etc.
I didn't know how else to show the images but to create an entry Merrmaidmaker and in there put the external link to the images, which i have placed on a blog at wordpress.com Then include a link to Merrmaidmaker in the addition i made to the article Mermaid under Artwork.
I want this images to be public domain, but im still learning how that works and making up my mind. for now ive decided to do it like this, which was the recommended option at wikimedia:
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
My only intention is to release the images and the new concept of how a mermaid can be understood and depicted in our contemporary society. yes, i am the artist but i don't think that should be a problem. how else could i do it?
I need help on this because i think people will like it.
Thanks in advance.
R (merrmaidmaker)
Merrmaidmaker 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This i put on the user:merrmaidmaker page
((hangon))
this is my first try at wikipedia and im having some problems. the redirect from article Merrmaidmaker to user:merrmaidmaker is appearing by itself, and i think i myself created the user:mermmaidmaker page by mistake when trying to make the merrmaidmaaker article.
The reason for the merrmaidmaker article is because i have created an entry in merrmaids/artwork/ and i don't know how to make a link to the images, which i have in a blog but are intended for public domain (im also new with that. i uploaded an image to the commons and labeled it
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".
but im not even sure if thats why i intended, i think so, because i want it to be public domain but to retain some rights, at least for people to Know that the original were made by Merrmaidmaker.
Thanks a lot in advance. MM
Merrmaidmaker 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The split was a grossly improper attempt to shortcut a consensus going against the editor who made it. Goldfritha 01:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Give me a break. There's no justification for a merge at all. Give it a rest and stop opposing Wikipedia policy.DreamGuy 01:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
An editor tagged a section of "Mermaids" as having "too many fictional references for a non-fiction topic." When other editors objected to the phrasing, and the discussion was still going on, the editor split off that section without consensus. 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
There are a great many things that could be said about the lists that were included here, but that they were fictional, when mermaids are a non-fictional topic was not a valid reason. (Folklorists write about mermaids, and that's non-fiction; but literary critics write about mermaids, too, and that's non-fiction, too.)
Furthermore, as shown here, (in the second change), [1], DreamGuy's avowed purpose in splitting off the topic was to short-circuit the discussion.
The proper solution is to restore the data, remove the new page, and continue the discussion with valid reasons for what ought to be done with the lists. Goldfritha 05:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the proper solution is NOT to restore the data and remove the new page, as that would be going against all established protocol for how to handle these kinds of pages. They always split the popular culture sections off when they get too large. Any attempt to do so without gong through the proper channels will simply get reverted, so don't bother. If Goldfritha wants to overrule standard procedure on these matters he should take it up with some policy page dealing with these situations and not try to fight it on an a single article level. After all, whatever local consensus he can try to get together cannot overrule the broad consensus already established to make the long line of "__ in fiction" and "___ in popular culture" articles. DreamGuy 13:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments Keep seperate. All these vile "in popular culture" articles are just meaningless unencyclopedic lists anyway and the mermaid one is no exception. Tullimonstrum 09:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
South African belief in mermaids did not arrive with the white settlers,the Amapondo [a xhosa tribal branch of the eastern cape] have a strong belief in water spirits,mami wata type figures.Xhosa people like coloureds have some san/khoisan ancestry and may have adopted it from them.So the rock figures may have some deeper symbolism than mere hallucinations suggested by western/academic anthropologists/archaeologists.I'm cape coloured and also of anglo-irish/pondo ancestry - my great grandfather immigrated to pondoland from Ireland in 1912,my father grew up among the AmaPondo.
Anyone who has seen the Animal Planet documentary "Mermaids: The Body Found", might feel differently about this . Intresting however that NOAA made a statement about this in 2012 AFTER the 2011 Documentary where ex NOAA employees comment extensively and produce some pretty hard evidence to support their claims. I think we have come to an age when an official Government statement needs to be as subject to scrutiny equally as anyone else. The Government has their rationale that they would not want us to know that we share DNA with or seagoing cousins, as we hastily pollute and poison the oceans, and conduct secret military tests resulting in beached whales and mermaids. This reference should be removed as it is uncited , and not from a reliable source or a source with contradictory interests. In fact the eyewitnesses in the documentary make a stronger case that mermaids MAY WELL exist, than the NOAA official "response" to an overwhelming documentary. A question about wikipedia polices , which is more reputable a government agency that can not substantiate their claims or eyewitnesses who conducted forensic evaluations and have gone public? — Markosjal (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)189.182.104.130 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention anywhere that the mermaid is used as an official animal/mascot of many mythical story's involving pirates and the sea. It is also in connection to "sea cows" that are called manatees. Sailors would see the animals and categorize them as mythical mermaids. I think this is an important fact, that we mention real humans converting into realistic mermaids for careers to be features in aquariums, zoos, theme parks, ads, and a means to take this fictitious animal and turn it into a mascot for promotion to save our seas on an environmental stand point. Famous examples of women who become, "Professional Real Life Mermaids" example can be found at: www.hireamermaid.com
It is well known that a fresh-water mermaid is known as a mermelaid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.114.238 (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Well-known to whom? I've never heard of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.250.11 (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
and in stores you can even buy Mermelaid Jam ... tasty !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.89.81 (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Trying to find out how it is possible for a female mermaid and a male mermaid try to make a baby is very tricky to figure out. My opinion on it is that the female mermaid makes babies as a fish does. She lays eggs, and once the eggs are ready to hatch, they hatch. Because I see no other explaination other wise for it. Do you have a different popinio? Well, if you do, write it down here. I do wonder, though, if they can make a baby(ies) with other species.
Can anyone provide clarification in the article on how Mermaids and Mermen sexually reproduce and create off-spring? Do they engage in sexual intercourse similar to humans? or do they spawn like fish? Can a Mermaids only become impregnanted by a merman or can they mate with other species (i.e. humans) and become pregnant? This is a serious question and I would appreciate a serious answer. 68.160.109.172 06:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
That depends on the legend. In the one that I've heard, mermaids must seduce a man (human) while she is in human form. This is how little mermaids are made. I haven't heard of anything involving mermen. Val42 07:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Mermaid eggs become fish Mermaids bear mermaids as live young
This is just my own opinion... and assumption, as well as logic. Merpeople are like in stories told to be half woman, half dugong or whatever. Then, in certain paintings, they have been known to be like the conjoined leg people. Except the end of the leg where our toes and ankles would be, is actually a fish fin. Therefore they look like they have connected legs until the end of the ankle.
As for sexual reproduction, through this assumption I think it would be that they reproduce as men and women do. Thecutnut (talk) 09:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Or someone's committing bestiality... Thecutnut 05:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Male fish do not have a penis anyway. I don't think male merman (if real) could have sex in the same fashion as a human male. Male fish just spray out and cloud the area after the female fish lays her eggs from his milky-colored semen. I think the same would be for the mermfolk. It's kind of ridiculous to assume that if merfolk existed that their genitalia would mimic human genitalia. Just because they are human from the waist up does not mean they function sexually as a human from the waist down. Armoredavian (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This is stupid. Why do u people waste your time acting like mermaids are real and that they can ACTUALLY reproduce. Come on, even a child knows that mermaids aren't real enough to reproduce. AND if im wrong, prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.253.162 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Your right, there is no way to prove that mermaids exist unless you actually have proof of its existance, an actuall living mermaid. You also couldn't prove that a rainbow was real if we never saw one, bears would never be real if we never saw one, germs would never be real if we never saw one. The fact is that people, like you, are so biassed against the idea of faith that the only way that they can beleive in something is if you actuall see it, however this beleif becomes based on faith also. For you must beleive yourself not insane to have these assumptions, you must beleive that you are actually living the life you are living to beleive anything. Because for all we know we might be a figment of someone's imagination and may only exist in their dreams.
So yes it is true that there is no proof of mermaids, but there is also no proof against the fact that their aren't any. As a matter of fact there is exactly a 50% chance of it being real or fake. So now I ask you, if mermaids are not real... show me proof.
Son of a muse (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Basically, I was thinking that like Armoredavian said, mermaids should be able to lay eggs, just like fish. Superjustinbros. (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This article has been deleted, but the last thing on the discussion was 'merge into the main mermaid article'.. a sensible thing to do. However, it's absent.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This is referenced by the liner notes to the Irish song The Mermaid (An Mhaighdeán Mhara) recorded by Anúna and other singers. The lyric translations that I have seen do not tell the story that is referred to in the liner notes (a mermaid is found by a fishman who hides her clothing forcing her to remain in human form, has two children with her, who then find her hidden items and she returns to the sea, but visits them..) So I assume this is a "known" folk-tale somewhere, but cannot find it. It seems this would be a useful addition to this article, but not without some reference to a text that gives the folktale itself - prefereably a scholarly work on folk stories and their meanings/motivations.
Does anyone know of a source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.104 (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2008
The special mermaids of Florida Keys sound crazy and unknown, but that is because everyone thought that one eleven year old girl was crazy. They want to remain anonomous, so I will not state their names. The girl was on a beach in Florida Keys, and went onto the dock with her nine year old brother. They looked at people fish and the fish in the water. The girl sat on the end and looked out to the water. She saw a big, blue-green fish, and leaned out more to get a better look. She fell in. She recalls, "As I fell into the deep water, I knew I couldn't swim up, because I couldn't swim. I just let myself down, knowing I would have to die this way, without being noticed." Her brother did see her go under, and went to get help immediately. "I was so scared," he says. "I'm autistic, you see, and I would break down if I lost her. She's my closest friend." When she was still drowning, she saw the fish swimming near her. "It was not a fish, it had the body of a really beautiful woman, and she molded together with a fish bottom. She had to be a mermaid. She had the blue-green tail, long blonde hair that went down to where the hips are, blue sparkling eyes, and she was having a clam swimsuit top strapped together with seaweed. She picked me up, whispered in my ear, 'You're going to be okay, don't be scared. Your future is bright,', and then I was unconcious," She was washed onto the beach when no one was watching, and a lifeguard did nouth-to-mouth to get her back. When she said a mermaid rescued her, she was taken to the operating room to see if she damaged her brain. She hadn't hit her head, but she goes to counseling every Sunday to see if she's thinking right. Everyone but her brother doesn't believe her. If you ask her if she believes in merfolk, she'll say yes and gladly tell you her story of her rescue. When she was on the airplane that would take her back to California, she saw the flight attendant, and wondered where she had saw the face. Then, she remembered. "She told me and my brother, 'You're going to be okay, don't be scared. Your future is bright,'" She remembered the face of her forever. Now, she is 15, hitting 16. She will always say, "I believe in mermaids, because I'm alive because of one." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.113.199 (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I have semiprotected this as no-one appears to be watching it. I am not fussed if unprotected and someone else promises to watch it or IP edit it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone aware of any info on the Starbucks coffee logo with regard to the coat of arms/heraldry? The "Starbucks" mermaid appears, as a national emblem, on a 17th(?) century space-heater stove (vaguely similar to this one), exhibited in the Vilnius Valdovu Rumai. The stove is covered with a repeated pattern of ceramic tiles; one tile shows the Lithuanian Vytis, a second the Polish Eagle coat of arms, a third tile shows the Starbucks mermaid. The first two tiles clearly signify the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth of the 16th-18th centuries. The mermaid is presented as an equal, in size, proportion, and frequency, of the other two coats-of-arms: it is clearly a coat of arms signifying some or another political/geographical region in union with the commonwealth. But which part? I'm guessing parts of the Belarus, or possibly parts of northern Europe; I'm not clear on which, and thus pose the question here (of course, the stove could well be a bit of 17th century propaganda, as it were -- making the pretension that the mermaid was on par with the Vytis and the Eagle). Would love to know more. I presume that there is no chance at all that the mermaid is that of the Jurate and Kastytis legend, but given the age of the legend, and of the logo, I wonder ... linas (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I have done research on mermaids stretching from 1991 and i have interviewed over a hundred people who had direct contact with mermaids. During these researches i have had the opportunity of sighting one at a distance of less than twenty metres. I have come to conclude that they exist and i believe they appear only to people whom they want to appear to. The unfortunate thing is that, i have tried capturing one on camera but it has a speed of disappearing. There is an element of intelligence in mermaids. I visited a certain old man who has told me of the existance of mermaids in real human life and take the waters as a transit channel. I will be gratiful if there are people out there who are willing to share with me this notion of mermaids leaving two lives. my email is janetnyamus@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.151.66 (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Removing tag associating this article with Wikiproject Fishes. "WikiProject Fishes aims to help organise our rapidly growing collection of articles about fish taxa. Issues outside the scope of this WikiProject include fishkeeping (fish aquarium topics), fishing, fisheries, fish cuisine topics, fish farm topics, fish market topics, fish processing topics, fish product sales topics, fish products topics, and fish trap topics." [direct cut and paste from project main page]. This article does not fall within the scope of that wikiproject. Neil916 (Talk) 07:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
There's thousands and millions and....Um....More.This should be noted on the page of Mermaids In Popular Culture'.The other thing to be noted is fake mermaid tails made from fabric.
Mer- and -Maid are both of germanic origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.139.44 (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
When I revised the lead paragraph yesterday, after an editor had removed the word, "mythological," I substituted the word, "fabulous" as a description. I felt that "mythological" implied the appearance of mermaids chiefly in myth, although it's not apparent that there are any references to mermaids in the stories most generally described as myth (i.e. creation stories, stories about the gods, etc., as opposed to folklore). I also considered using "mythical" since it has a slightly different connotation, not as strongly tied to myth. However, the general connotation of that word is that it implies fictitiousness, which wasn't what I was going for either. "Legendary" might have worked, but it also has an unwanted association, implying something heroic, or "larger-than-life."
So I settled on "fabulous," which seemed to have the right connotation, a creature described in story or legend. This has since been revised to read, "fabled," but I don't think that's the right word. Like the difference between "mythical" and "mythological," "fabled" is related to "fabulous" but is more specific, and implies either an actual origin in fable, or something closer to "legendary" than what I meant. I think it should be reverted to "fabulous," since that merely implies that mermaids are familiar from folklore or traditional stories. In my opinion, "fabulous" is a broader term and has a more general application, which is really what we should be going for when treating a subject that, like all folklore, exists in the grey area between reality and fiction. P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
After a recent edit restored the reference to "merboy" in the lead paragraph, which I had earlier removed as it didn't seem to be a legitimate or common term relating to mermaids, I did a little research of my own. "Merboy" does appear in Wiktionary, as does "mergirl." However, neither entry provides any history or examples of usage. Neither appear in Webster's Third New International Dictionary, nor in the Oxford English Dictionary (1971 edition), nor at Merriam-Webster.com, and a Google search revealed only two references to the term more than a few years old, both in forgotten children's books that appear to have coined the word independently, once in 1882 and once in 1928.
Based on this search, it does not appear that either "merboy" or "mergirl" were ever terms in general use, or used in folklore. Instead they have been coined exclusively for use in "modern" fiction. As such, they aren't synonymous with "mermaid" and don't relate to the mermaid as a creature of folklore or mythology. While the appearance of mermaids in fiction is clearly relevant to the article, and the terms "merboy" and "mergirl" might be properly described under that heading, they don't belong in the lead paragraph of the article. P Aculeius (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing the material from Hamad Flatt's monograph, The Supreme Insult from the main article space. The source is an eBook published only a day or two before its assertions appeared in this article. The work has never been reviewed, and the author has no other published works. Examining the book, it seems to consist entirely of the personal speculations of the author, which lead to conclusions that are unknown to the scholarly community, described as a "shocking truth" known only to the author and his wife. An excerpt published five days ago on the author's website, thesupremeinsult.com, cites no sources and provides no basis for his conclusions other than anecdote and his personal opinion. I suspect that the author himself added this material to the article. Since I think that this edit is likely to be controversial for that very reason, I'm including part of that excerpt below. The author gave express permission to do so: "This extract may be freely published, reproduced or broadcast in whole or part by journalists, bloggers, commentators and reviewers in any form of publishing media, including print, electronic and broadcast media, provided always that the source of the extract is cited."
This is a self-published and non-scholarly work by someone whose opinion does not constitute a properly investigated and documented treatise. The brief discussion of traditional depictions of mermaids appears to be structured after the Wikipedia article, and the author's research seems to consist of random Googling and vague references to unnamed (but supposedly voluminous) works. His conclusions have not been subject to peer review or academic discussion. As such, the material doesn't belong in the article space. Wikipedia articles are meant to be informative, not inclusive of every novel theory. P Aculeius (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I am going to remove a (challenged) sentence about women's physiological advantages in tolerating cold. I found a source that contradicts it. Putting it here in case it comes up again. [2]
Hey everyone. Great article—I've really enjoyed working on it. I know I am a newcomer, but I was thinking about nominating it to be a good article. I think it's close to meeting all the criteria, but the section on Ama divers worries me a little. Here's why:
If it were just me, I would remove the entire section and add a link to "Ama divers" in the "See also" section. But it's not just me, so what do you think? Best regards. Braincricket (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the "Human divers" cleanup. The ending of the section is a bit amusing, but still factual enough. I also checked with the mermaid rights activists, they've consolidated with the unicorn rights activists and they're cool with the article, due to the secretive nature of mythical beasts.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The scholarship of James Forlong is highly doubted and is also a WP:FRINGE. The word "Matsya-nari" (mermaid) exists in Sanskrit, but is not associated with Matsya. However, Matsya is depicted in a half-man, half-fish form. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | OK | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Have rearranged and merged some sections. Style acceptable. Lists n/a. Plot summaries not excessive. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | OK. Some untidiness as some names have forename surname, some surname, forename: not a pass/fail issue for GA. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | OK, citations wherever necessary. There is a somewhat commercial link in 'Cosplay' but it seems to be needed by the context. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | The article has struggled since its earliest uncited beginnings back in 2002 with a systemic bias to popular culture. The current article is far more scholarly and now presents a reasonable balance of cultures and is suitably well-written. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | OK. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Not an issue. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images from Commons. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All are directly relevant. Have cut down modern depictions to 1 per artist (some need exact dates); and the key one mentioned in the text, that of John William Waterhouse, is lacking. Not pass/fail issues. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Mermaid is now an informative and trustworthy article. Given the well-meant popular pressure, it will need to be monitored for WP:OR and balance, but with the range of references and the current balance and organisation of the text, it should be possible to accommodate new stories and media references without infringing WP:UNDUE. |