Talk:Mermaid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Merman's Tailfin

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)

I've never seen any depiction that shows the fin vertical like a fish, which suggests the dugong/seal origin for the story. KarlM 00:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In most art the tail is flexible like an EEL and not like a FISH...

"Completely Safe"

I reverted the last edit. The edit added the following external link at the top of the list:

* Mermaidsthe "Rotten Library's" article covering the symbolism and origins of the mermaid legend - completely safe

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

"She's naked and continually wet, with long hair and bare breasts, but she lacks the vagina that (perhaps) dominates the dreams of the sex-starved sailors who encounter her..."

    \

mermaids have the bodies of men and the legs and other parts of FISH!!!

"Actual mermaid stories are fascinating for precisely the opposite reason: they're the most complicated form of male sex fantasy. Mermaids are sex objects on prima facie grounds, but they're missing some salient parts below the waist."

"In The Little Mermaid, she trades her tongue for a vagina, but is forced to endure terrible stabbing pains. She also bleeds from her feet when she walks, adding a layer of the ever-popular menstrual theme to an already overcrowded set of symbols."

"dugong, a sea lion species whose females have hooter-like mammary glands ... If the mind-blowingly ugly dugong somehow stimulates your libido ..."

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)

• I would understand removing the image if you WOULD NOT LIKE or would think that it does not fit there. to avoid "editors war"; If you think that me placing it there is a problem I can email some of my friend and they will place it there(hence it will NOT be listed y the artist; in fact the person who writes from this account and Nick Gabrichidze as physical persona re not necessarily a same person.

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 

Gabrichidze's Mermaids

File:Murmades.jpg

"Murmades"(Mermaids) the contemporary painting of Nick Gabrichidze

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:

• I have concerns about self-promotion. It doesn't help that the page Nick Gabrichidze was removed for self-promotion.
• I have concerns about the image's copyright status, and whether the artist is in fact willing to give up all the rights that GFLD requires.
• Not just any mermaid image will do. The Gabrichidze image is not famous, universally esteemed, historically interesting or representative. (The current image, with the swimmer is historical and also funny, but I don't think it's necessarily the best image either.)
• In concert the swimmer and the Gabrichidze image take up a lot of room and move the text around in a very awkward way.

What do other people think? -- User:Lectiodifficilior

For the purposes of use in a Wikipedia article, the issue of copyright status trumps all other points. The artist may if they wish release the jpg scan uploaded here under GFDL or copyright-free-use and still retain copyright to the original and higher resolution versions. However if not, it is inappropriate to an article that already has PD or GFDL images. Non-free images are only reluctantly and conditionally tolerated on Wikipedia when no free image can be located, and may be subject to deletion in the future, especially if there is a free alternative. -- Infrogmation 04:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This has never been enforced seriously against a user, but technically he already did license them under the GFDL. By uploading an image that you own, you automatically license it under the GFDL. It says it right there on the upload page. Rhobite 07:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Note: The digital image is released into GFDL

• The owner of the account is not the creator of the image, thus he cannot release it into GFDL. He claims to be a friend of the painter, and claims that the painter wouldn't mind its inclusion in Wikipedia. While that's very nice, it falls somewhat short of our legal requirements. The image is presently listed on WP:CP for investigation. Radiant_>|< 10:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

You were told to read the wikipedia copyright rules. Obviously you didn't. mikka (t) 8 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)

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)

Etymology

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).

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the origin is from Middle English, "mere" for "sea or lake", plus "maid". "Mere", in turn, comes from an Old English word for a small lake, pond, or marsh, from the Proto-Indo-European "mori-". So it's native Anglo-Saxon, not from French, though the appendix of Indo-European roots indicates that the same distantly ancestral root also led to the Latin "mare" from which the French word for "sea" derives, so they are distantly related. As for the French word "sirène", it, like the Spanish "sirena", derives from the Greek word "siren", for a mythical creature whose song is enticing. *Dan* 18:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the origin of the term be on the article page somewhere? Val42 03:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Meermaid" is German for "mermaid". Even though the exact and common used German word for "mermaid" is "Meerjungfrau", one could also say "Meermaid" ("Meer" = sea or ocean ; "Maid" = older German word for girl or woman, still used in Bavaria I think, hehe).

Production and costumes

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

Merfolk Redirect

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)

Performing searches on Google returns the following numbers of results:

• Mermaid: 5,420,000
• Merman: 842,000
• Merfolk: 101,000

I think that most people would be searching for the term "mermaid". Val42 04:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Aquatic Ape"

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.

Proposed Merges

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.

It should be fine, but must be more seriously written, I think... --Neigel von Teighen 10:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think it needs work, but I suggest a section in the mermaid article on mermaid reproduction, and the other article as the main article (as "Popular references on mermaid reproduction" or something like that).Pro bug catcher 14:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there really enough on "mermaid reproduction" to justify a separate article? Goldfritha 00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Note the suggestion I made was an article on "Popular references on [of] mermaid reproduction". For popular references I think so yes. For mermaid reproduction only, either way works for me. It's just that a merge would leave the Mermaid article with too much on reproduction and too much on popular references (all that IMO). Pro bug catcher 14:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging mermaid music now. Will do mermaid problem when I can hack out the dead wood. 03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Blood

Are Mermaids cold blooded or warm blooded? 151.198.131.83 17:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what legend you listen to. The only one that I know of that even dealt with this issue is the Charmed episode "A Witch's Tail (Part 1)" that said that mermaids are cold-blooded which is why they can't love. Someone will probably come up with some other examples. Val42 03:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A question I never thought about! Andersen's tale does not say anything related to that nor the classical legends. In Conrado Nalé Roxlo's drama La cola de la sirena ("The mermaid's tail"), a physician says mermaids would be a teratological deformation of women such that the tale covers a pair of atrophied legs, so, maybe he thought them as being human and, thus, warm-blooded. --Neigel von Teighen 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Waterhouse vs. 1921 Cartoon

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)

Is there a way to have both? I am personally a huge fan of the 1921 cartoon and was disapointed to find it missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YesdniL (talk • contribs)

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)

"No vandalism"

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)

Any box that has an entry "Last Sighted" is clearly unsuitable for an article on an imaginary creature. Goldfritha 01:17, 10 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)

OK, but now Waterhouse's painting is gone and the 1921 Cartoon looks pretty bad there. Solutions? --Neigel von Teighen 14:03, 10 February 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)

Oh, now it looks pretty good! --Neigel von Teighen 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Speculation?

"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."

Considering no one's seen one, and many people don't seriously think mermaids exist, it seems silly to speculate on habitat, predation, mating, and family life. No one reads an article on dragons to find out how they care for their young. I'm going to delete this.-70.21.216.114 02:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems someone beat me to it. Well I second the removal of the fluff.70.21.216.114 02:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It was good deleted, see WP:OR --Neigel von Teighen 15:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The paranormal info box probably ought to go, too. Under WP:NPOV#Undue weight if nothing else. Goldfritha 04:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I would go back to this: Waterhouse's painting to the top, 1921 Cartoon either to the bottom or just let it out from the article and, of course, no paranormal infobox. This means, to return the article as it used to be. Anyone has a feeling against it? Or a better idea? --Neigel von Teighen 14:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the notion. Goldfritha 20:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Under WP:NPOV#Undue weight -- what evidence do you have that mermaids are widely regarded as cryptids rather than legends? Goldfritha 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, mermaids were never considered as "animals", but rather "rational" beings with a mortal soul. "Cryptids" would be Nessie or Chupacabras. --Neigel von Teighen 14:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Mermaid(cryptozoology) into Mermaid

The other talkpage is here. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mermaid pool painting in movie?

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)

Cruft list

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)

Excuse me. If I understood it well, this guy thinks mermaids are non-fiction??? (why is this topic lastly so plagued with these ideas?). --Neigel von Teighen 10:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To all appearances, yes. Goldfritha 17:43, 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)

Snort. Writing about fiction is as much non-fiction as writing about folklore, and everyone with any sense knows that.

If you want to assert that folklore is more important than modern fiction, go ahead. But make your case on grounds of noteworthiness or the like, not on this distinction Goldfritha 22:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't "snort" at me. Writing about nonfiction on an article about a nonfiction topic that happens to show up in some modern fiction is way more encyclopedic than just detailing every single mention in fiction as some list instead of trying to write an actual encyclopedic overview of a fiction topic. See WP:ENC, WP:Listcruft, NP:NOT and pretty all the policies for how this place runs. Not to mention WP:CIVIL for your little snort. 22:40, 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)

A collection of myths is still not fiction, as myths are believed by the culture who holds them and fiction is just something someone created for entertainment purposes that meets completely different needs. But as far as the wording goes, I would welcome any wording on the template that doesn't confuse people, but keep in mind that the template goes on a wide variety of pages and not just mythology articles, so any wording would need to reflect that. DreamGuy 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with saying that something is nonfictional or fictional based on the beliefs of those who tell the tale is that it requires mind-reading. Goldfritha 23:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Goldfritha, I've changed the {{fictionlist}} template. I think the issue has been solved. --Neigel von Teighen 08:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed? How?

Put it this way: if you stuck that tag on every article for a novel in Wikipedia, how would anyone argue that it should come off? Those articles are entirely fictional references, and this template declares fictional references are improper to an encylopaedic and academic approach. Goldfritha 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Goldfritha: it also says "An article about a nonfiction topic should only contain fictional references of historic importance so as to not overshadow the main topic. Interesting but not historically significant details should be moved to a separate article (possibly article in fiction or article in popular culture). Mere references unimportant to the overall plot of a work of fiction or trivia, as well as minor examples when more significant ones have already been mentioned, should be deleted."

I think the template is useful: you can't base a non-fictional work as an encylopaedia using fictional references. Mermaids are a non fictional object of study: mythologists study legends about mermaids and references to it should remain as non-fictional as possible. I think these lists must be shortened.

Of course, maybe the template could also be improved and, also, I may be wrong too. I'll think about this a bit more. --Neigel von Teighen 15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Neigel, after you've thought about it, you could address the issues that have been raised. Quoting the template doesn't address those issues.

Furthermore, this is not about the abstract usefulness of this template in general. This is about the fittingness of it for this topic. Arguments about the abstract usefulness are inappropirate.

So what that mythologists study some stories about mermaids? Literary critics study other stories about mermaids. Both get filed under non-fiction in any library.

If you want to shorten the lists, you must give a valid reason for it. Goldfritha 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Those arguments are simply false. Fiction is not folklore. Fiction is fiction. Folklore is nonfiction. They are not filed the same by libraries, and even if they were that argument has NOTHING to do with getting this article fixed. Have you ever looked at other articles here about, say Werewolf and Vampire and Medusa and etc. etc.? Once the fiction coverage got to long it was split off into a side topic. Same thing with topics like Jack the Ripper and plenty of others. In most cases looking at the fiction created about any of these encyclopedic topics is COMPLETELY UNRELATED except in the most minor way to what the main article is meant for. If you want all the fiction about mermaids to be on this article and nowhere else, then you need to cut it down by about 98% so it only covers those items notable in an encyclopedic sense to the overall historical topic of mermaids. If you want to be in depth on the fiction it needs to be split off into a new article. That's just how things are done here, and you;d know this if you looked around and listened when people try to explain them to you. DreamGuy 09:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After having thought about it, I recognize that you're right. I'll remove the template. (Everything can be solved with a bit of patience, isn't it?). --Neigel von Teighen 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, patience here was getting in the way of solving it, because it just let someone who doesn;t know how Wikipedia works whine and complain until you caved in for no good reason. DreamGuy 09:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, template removed. Now, I'd like to review the lists with you; there are surely entries we can shorten or delete or whatever... My concern (and DreamGuy's) is that the list is too long. Do you agree? --Neigel von Teighen 08:25, 14 May 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)

article addition

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)

From your comments, it appears that the problem is WP:OR. You can not put your own thoughts, speculations, or even discoveries on Wikipedia. Goldfritha 16:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the main problem was WP:SPAM for this "mermaidmaker" thing. DreamGuy 09:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge

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)

See last entry in "cruft list" on this page if you have any doubts about the motivation. Goldfritha 01:31, 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)

Ok, we all three, let's calm down and find for a real solution. Splittings are very common specially on those kind of articles where the risk of listcruft is high. But... is it necessary here? Or should we shorten the list, instead? The {{fictionlist}} template is still bad and offers no solution too... although I like it.

Maybe, we need some external opinions, don't you think? I would list this article at Requests for comment so people can enter the discussion and help us. --Neigel von Teighen 10:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We already found a real solution, as used by all other articles on this encyclopedia: Splitting the page off, just like you said. Godlfritha for whatever reason is opposed to it, but that's fine, he can't overrule all the policies of this site on a whim. DreamGuy 12:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

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)

The problem here is the "In popular culture" section and how to deal with it. DreamGuy wants a separate article to avoid list cruft. Goldfritha wants things back.

I agree with DreamGuy that something must be done with that overlengthy list. I propose to restore data into the article, but shortening the list; if no shortening is possible, a new article "Mermaids in popular media" should be created to avoid having an ever growing list that finally takes the whole article up. --Neigel von Teighen 10:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Neigel, don't try to distract from the problem.

I am perfectly willing to discuss the lists. I said so before DreamGuy's stunt. However, DreamGuy's complaint with the list was specious, and the split was carried out to enforce his complaint. First we merge; then we go on to other issues. But DreamGuy is not entitled to short-circuit a discussion and enforce a specious complaint because the section he complained about has other problems. Goldfritha 23:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By "don't try to distract from the problem" you mean "don't confuse me with what I don't want to hear." The complaint was not specious, it is freaking Wikipedia policy. Go read WP:TRIVIA, WP:LISTCRUFT, or WP:ENC sometime, and then take a look at how other articles are handled. What you are arguing here goes completely against everything the whole rest of this website does, not to mention common sense, and now you are wikilawyering to try to ignore all that so you can try to get your way for reasons of personal ego. This is an encyclopedia, not Goldfritha's personal website, so you need to go by the encyclopeia's rules. DreamGuy 12:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's merge the lists and discuss it... I don't want to distract, and if I did, please apologize me. --Neigel von Teighen 12:50, 17 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)

DreamGuy, sadly, there's no guideline that states a "standard" procedure to deal with this, though the one you propose is the most extended. My idea is that we need to save this article from being absorbed by the list and this can be done in two ways: 1) shortening of the list (and that would imply to remerger) or 2) split the article. The problem is that nobody else has responded the RfC and there are no neutral opinions... --Neigel von Teighen 13:09, 20 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

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.

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 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)

The program in question is a mockumentary, aka docufiction. As in fiction, not reality.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Uncited? There are three citations: from NOAA, Animal Planet, and the BBC. According to the producers of the mockumentary, "This two-hour special is science fiction based on some real events and scientific theory" (emphasis mine). Also, the section in question is about the film itself and the response to it (which are well verified), not its fishy implications. I don't think anyone is going to argue that NOAA didn't issue a statement about the Animal Planet film. Anyway, there is already a well sourced "Sightings" section. If you can expand it with the support of reliable sources, then you are welcome to do so. Braincricket (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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. [2]

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"[3] and "...gathered by whistling 'mermaids' (the ama)"[4]. 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)

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)

Hinduism

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mermaid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.	See next item.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Rather too much on 'Scandinavia' with excessive detail on 'The Little Mermaid', but nothing else there (what about "Sjöjungfrun", or the freshwater sprite "näcken") - at least a brief mention?
	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.