Talk:Mermaid

about NOAA "Mermaids do not exist"

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 201 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.

Realistic Mermaids & Mascot

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

Mermelaid

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)

Sexual Reproduction

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)

"Son of a muse's" comments support the idea that wiki editors should have to prove they have an IQ higher than 65 before they allowed to edit any articles. In all my years of reading rubbish on wikipedia I don't think I have ever read anything quite as stupid. Surely this is a secular form of Poe's Law at work and he's just pulling everyone's leg? I mean no one can really be that stupid, yes? There is a 50% chance that mermaids are real? Maybe he meant to post that on conservapedia, they go for that kind of "logic" over there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, mermen may not have dicks, but clearly encyclopediae do.

The Mermaid Problem

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)

Reference to myth/folk-talk of mermaid on the rock

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 (UTC)

The Unknown Mermaid Heroine Of Florida Keys

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)

semiprotection

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)

Mermaid heraldry? i.e Starbuck logo?

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)

Mermaids

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)

Wikiproject Fishes

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)

Mermaid webshows on YouTube

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.

French Origin ?

Mer- and -Maid are both of germanic origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.139.44 (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Fabled" vs. "fabulous"

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)

While some meanings of "fabulous" apply, the word is often used informally in a similar sense as "awesome", which I don't think is the intended meaning here. I doubt that many reliable sources use "fabulous" to describe mermaids. 66.91.208.85 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

However, the phrase "fabulous creature" is idiomatic, and certainly applies to mermaids, while "fabled creature" is not idiomatic, and really means something different. In the specific context given here, I really don't think that the phrase "fabulous creature" will be misinterpreted as meaning "really amazing creature." I think this is a choice between the wrong word and the right word. Even though it's possible (although illogical) to interpret "fabulous" differently, I think we should choose the right word.

Just a quick search of Wikipedia revealed the word "fabulous" used in the same context in a number of other articles: Persian mythology, Franz Hohler, Adlet, Salacia (mythology), Cryptozoology, Enfield, Yeti, Karuta, Li'l Abner, Mars in fiction, and probably scores of others, as well as in the titles of multiple books used as sources for articles about fabulous creatures. The phrase "fabulous beast" also appears in numerous articles, with "fabulous" given the same meaning. It would be silly to avoid using the correct word merely because it's more familiar from other contexts.

As for the phrase being used to describe mermaids in "reliable sources" (not sure what qualifies as a reliable source when speaking of a creature from folklore), this came up on a Google search:

"The Mermaid or Siren: This fabulous creature of the sea, well known in ancient and modern times as the frequent theme of poets and the subject of numberless legends, has from a very early date been a favourite device. She is usually represented in heraldry as having the upper part the head and body of a beautiful young woman, holding a comb and glass in her hands, the lower part ending in a fish. John Vinycomb, Fictitious and Symbolic Creatures in Art (1909).

George Bancroft Griffith, "Mermaids and Mermen," Ballou's Monthly Magazine vol. 59 (1884), "...Scientists and savants alike are "all at sea" respecting it, and say that if the mermaid be indeed a fabulous creature, they cannot class this strange comer from the blue water...."

Other examples in books of folklore go back at least to the 1820's, and the phrase is still in common use, even if not always respecting mermaids specifically.P Aculeius (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have used "fantastical" myself. No confusing alternate definitions.—Kww(talk) 01:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fantastical" suffers from the same ambiguity. As a synonym of "fantastic" it could simply mean, "amazing," and in fact that's the more familiar use of the word. Both "fantastic" and "fantastical" could be used in this case, but they also both carry the connotation of being related to the fantastic genre of modern fiction, as opposed to the traditional folktale. In the past they were both used in cases like this. But because "fantastical" is basically a synonym of "fantastic," it sounds deliberately archaic; like something out of the florid language of the Victorian era. Really, all of the best adjectives to use in cases like this are susceptible of different interpretations. That's why context is key to understanding. I just don't see any particular reason to prefer "fantastic" or "fantastical" to "fabulous." P Aculeius (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you actually speak a dialect of English where "fantastical" means "great" as its primary meaning, or one you would know without looking it up? "Fabulous" and "fantastic" have primarily come to mean "great" in my dialect, and the meanings related to fantasy and fables are known to me only through academic study. I would go so far as to class those definitions as archaic. "Fantastical", on the other hand, clearly means "related to fantasy" to me, and I'm only aware of other meanings as being archaic.—Kww(talk) 03:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Suspend your disbelief, please. In my "dialect" of English, "fantastical" isn't used very much at all. It's mainly a synonym of "fantastic," which is used to make that word sound more florid and old-fashioned, which is exactly the effect I'm trying to avoid. It's perfectly true that "fantastical" isn't used to mean "great" but it is used to mean "fantastic," and that word doesn't mean what I was trying to say in the first place, in either of its meanings. Neither the use of "fabulous" meaning "a subject of folklore, myth, or legend" nor that of "fantastic" meaning "of or relating to fantasy" is considered archaic or academic. But "fabulous" is a more general term and isn't as clearly associated with a specific genre of modern literature, which makes it preferable in this case. However, the main point being debated here is whether "fabulous," meaning "a subject of folklore, myth, or legend," is preferable to "fabled," which is closer in meaning to "legendary," in its usual sense (implying grandeur), and is also more closely associated with the fable as a literary motif, which is not the context in which mermaids generally appear.

Surely this underscores what I said earlier about any term that might be used being susceptible of different meanings based to varying extent on context. Just as "fabulous" could mean either "great" or "relating to folklore," "fantastic" and "legendary" and "mythic" are all used to mean both "great" and "occurring in fantasy, legend, or myth". For that matter, "wonderful," "great," "terrible," "awful," "amazing," and soforth all can be used with different connotations based on context. Taken entirely out of context we have one common association with each, but in context the exact meaning becomes clear. "Great" can mean either "wonderful" or "large" or "important," "wonderful" literally means "inspiring a sense of wonder," not "great," "awful" literally means "inspiring with awe." It makes no sense to restrict the language of Wikipedia to the most familiar definition of each word, even if that means replacing ordinary words with unusual ones for the sheer sake of precision. Doing so not only presumes that readers are incapable of understanding words in context, but also sets an impossible task, when all of the words we might use to describe something are susceptible of different interpretations. If a word is vague to begin with, it makes no sense to substitute an equally-vague one for it; and the fact that one particular form of a word is used only in one context doesn't create a solution if it serves mainly to draw attention to the word, without providing the precise meaning of the substituted word. P Aculeius (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, "fabulous", while technically the correct word, carries too great a risk of being misunderstood, since the colloquial meaning now dominates. 86.160.222.173 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The meaning isn't colloquial; it's simply an alternate definition that clearly doesn't apply here. Context is everything in English, and the intended meaning is apparent from the context, because the other possible meaning would be nonsensical. I've addressed the "merboy" term in the following section. P Aculeius (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fabulous is not correct it means something else. The technically correct word is mythical or mythological.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"Merboy"

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)

The Supreme Insult by Hamad Flatt

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."

So … do you get mermaids? Do you understand what they are? No doubt a range of traditional definitions occur to you. A mythological sea creature, generally portrayed as a pretty woman with bare breasts, long hair and a fish tail from the waist down. Thought to lure sailors to their death by singing beautifully. Probably were actually manatees (dugongs) or seals, mistaken by horny sailors for women. The mermaid myth was used in a famous story by Hans Christian Andersen. And in a much later animated film made by Walt Disney. And in a line of Barbie-based mermaid toys by the world's largest toy maker, Mattel, Inc. There is also a famous statue of a mermaid sitting on a rock in Copenhagen. The Polish city of Warsaw has used the mermaid as its official emblem for centuries. Starbucks Coffee has the mermaid symbol in its corporate logo. As well as these famous examples, there are thousands of coastal towns, seafood restaurants, beaches, resorts and clubs, that use the mermaid as part of their name, theme or branding.

All of this is a fairly typical and traditional explanation of mermaids as they are normally understood. But do you get them? When I was a boy about 13 or 14 years of age, an older boy told me a joke. I didn't understand what the joke meant, but I came to understand it later. It went roughly like this. What did the blind man say when he walked past the fish market? I dunno, what? Good morning ladies. (Women! Stay with me. I know this is a deeply offensive subject. I ask you to realize that the uncomfortable feelings you are having are part of your ancient conditioning!) As I say, I did not understand the joke at the time and I don't think the boy who told me got it either. I was still some years away from my first sexual encounters with girls, when I made a discovery that explained the joke. Vaginas smell and taste somewhat fishy. This is a basic fact of feminine biology known by every sexually experienced man and lesbian. It is also something every woman knows - at least the smell part. Non-acrobatic straight women, who may not have had their mouths or noses close to a vagina, know it because of menstruation, when the smell can get stronger than normal. As well, some women have a naturally more intense smell which becomes noticeable during or after sexual intercourse.

Now do you get mermaids? Put it together in your mind. An image of a woman makes the top half, plus an image of fish from the waist down. It is a visual pun: mermaids are vagina symbols. Now I have lost a portion of my readers right there. Some of you have just gone yuuukk! and tossed the book away. Take the blue pill and lie down for half an hour; however, I cannot assure you that you will ever see mermaids the same again. Others have gone online, or rushed for their reference books, to check what I am saying. They are certain this symbolic meaning of the mermaid must be known, because they have already realized that it is too blindingly obvious not to be. Let me tell you what they will find: nothing. How do I know? Because searching the internet and reference material for days after my own personal mermaid shock is exactly what I did. There were two things I could not believe: (i) that I had never seen the vaginal connection before; (ii) that nobody else had ever seen it before, at least not consciously. So I googled my little heart out. Like me, you will find a vast amount of mermaid material, from simple explanations of symbolism through to lengthy academic-style articles, armed with a phalanx of footnotes. And you will find that some authors come quite close to saying that the mermaid is a vaginal symbol. They intuitively understand that the image has sexual overtones. They get that bit: most people can see that aspect quite readily. But when it comes to connecting the dots and understanding that the mermaid is originally and obviously a vaginal symbol, something stops them. As you read their articles, you can sense that they are grasping at the truth but cannot quite break through the last barrier of realization. How is it possible that a common symbol like the mermaid, which has existed for thousands of years, could have such an obvious but unseen meaning? How could it be hidden in plain view from all of us? How did its meaning get forgotten? Why are we seeing it now? Are there more symbols with hidden meanings? And how is this connected to the supreme insult? Let us see how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

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)

Agreed. The Supreme Insult is apparently an ebook, self-published via Amazon. As such, it's not an acceptable source unless the author is an "established expert". A Google test with '"Hamad Flatt" -wikipedia' got one hit: the author's website which promotes the book. Nothing on Google Scholar either. I probably should have looked into the source yesterday instead of just cleaning up the prose. Oops. Braincricket (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say, without distracting from any of my learned friends above, that Hamad Flatt's book is now called "Woman" and that I have read it all and quite frankly, I was astonished by the book. Just my 5 cents worth. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.55.132 (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ama divers

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. [1]

Should this article include a section about Ama divers?

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:

• It's full of speculation and statements that are likely to be challenged (e.g. "this may have been the origin of the Siren myth") and relies only on one source, which is a blog. It's not "factually accurate and verifiable".
• If we removed the original research, we would be left with a paragraph about Ama divers, and is that relevant? I think it might be a little off-topic.

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)

Found a couple trivial mentions of the mermaid–ama connection: "the ama have been romanticized as mermaids"[2] and "...gathered by whistling 'mermaids' (the ama)"[3]. Sadly, I don't have access to a really great library. Braincricket (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removal of all, or most, of the "Ama divers" content, based on lack of good sources. —ADavidB 17:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Another thought: Would you want to keep the "Human divers" section and shift its focus to mermaid performers? We could cut way back on the ama stuff and add a bit about the "mermaids" who perform for tourists at Weeki Wachee Springs. Braincricket (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A small, well-sourced "performers" section could be a good way to cover these "mermaids". —ADavidB 17:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Finished with the "Human divers" section. I think the one source that ties the Ama to mermaids might be a little weak. At least the author, Rebecca Stott, seems to be legit. I'm amused by the way the article ends, given the sort of vandalism the page gets. I wonder if we'll be accused of anti-mermaid POV-pushing by mermaid rights activists. ;-) Braincricket (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)