Jump to content

Talk:Mokele-mbembe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dinolover45 (talk | contribs) at 15:55, 19 March 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

1992 footage

ref: Crypto Zooloyg A to Z, loren coleman & jerome clark if you dont like it just remove it and dont be an arse

"is believed to"

Who believes it to? Everybody? :-) Passive voice is sometimes useful, but sometimes it covers up for lack of essential information. In this case, in order to be written from the neutral point of view, the passive voice must be avoided (by you :-) ) or given an indirect object (by you :-) ). --LMS

The greatest problem with this article are its sources. 'Some scientists' is no good, we need names of those wildlife textbook 'scientists', fringe science books, etc. You can NPOV all you want, but the content is already there. Phlebas 18:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pulled out pending verification

Around 2000 a man led an expedition into the Congo forest, and among other things, looked for Mokele Mbembe. His opinion is that Mokele Mbembe formerly existed and was a rhinoceros.

This statement needs a source, cf. Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. In particular, we would like to know who that man was, where he came from, what he saw, when he was there exactly, where he did publish his opinion that M-M was a rhinoceros, and last but not least, why he is notable. — mark ✎ 22:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was in a UK TV program series about the Congo basin, that I saw a year or two ago. Anthony Appleyard 09:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naming inconsistent

The article isn't consistent on the precise spelling of the name, in that it varies as to whether there is an apostrophe, a hyphen, and whether the name should be capitalised.

  • mokele m'bembe
  • Mokele-mbembe
  • Mokele mbembe

It also isn't consistent about whether the name should be italic or not. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 09:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are very right. My two cents: the apostroph shouldn't be there; both words are typical Bantu words. Most literature, as far as I'm aware (see the bibliography I added yesterday), uses the hyphen, so it might be good to stick to that. Capitalization is another thing that's not consistent: Mokele-mbembe or Mokele-Mbembe? If we add up the numerous references from the cryptozoological realm, Mokele-mbembe seems to be the most common spelling. But if we count them as one (which seems reasonable enough), Mokele-Mbembe seems to be just as frequent. — mark ✎ 10:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhino-like?

i think it's possible that mkele-mbembe is a rhino/dinosaur something in between. I was reading a artikel about ndoki and they hade interviewd some native people and they have described it as an rhino whit a long neck and have a very long horn. so it's possible that we are dealing with a new species of rhinos. (unsigned)

Something "between" rhinos (mammals) and dinosaurs (reptiles) cannot exist, but an unknown variety of rhinos might. Are there any references to this aritcle?--Niels Ø 13:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the quality of the comment. I think it's a kid. CFLeon 08:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, Heuvelmans (On The Track Of Unknown Animals) talks briefly about reports from the Congo suggesting an aquatic rhinoceros (aquatic in the sense of hippos), but my copy was stolen years ago. He was writing years before the m-m controversy flared up in the '70s, and I don't think he even mentions the name, although there is a chapter about 'dinosaurs' in Africa (even mentioning the 'Kangai Rex' fake photo). CFLeon 08:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, there's been a lot of debate and rethinking lately about whether dinosaurs actually were reptiles, and even whether or not they were cold-blooded. I believe this debate has been particularly spurred by the discovery of fossils that indicate some species of dinosaurs had feathers. Offhand, I can't link to any specific sources, though they shouldn't be diffcult to find with a good Googling.

Rhino-like? "...a long flexible neck and with a tail similar to an alligator's." Wikipedia Lol, that's one strange looking rhino :)

Aside from the question of whether dinosaurs were really reptiles, it's entirely possible that an animal could have some physical traits of both a sauropod and a rhino, without being closely related genetically to either. Creatures with little or no common ancestry can develop similar traits if both live in environments where those traits are beneficial. — Red XIV (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please how could it look like a rhino its much bigger than a rhino and it has a long neck and long tail so it has to be a sauropod up to 36 feet long by 20 feet tall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.110.142 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Mokele-Mbembe" is a generic, loose term used to describe most African cryptids, and many spiritual fictional beings that have nothing to do with the actual dinosaur. When natives admitted to a rhino being Mokele-Mbembe, they were referring to EMela-ntouka, which is a new species of rhino. Elasmosaurus (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mokele-mbembe is a giant amphibious monitor, that's all. What kind of reptiles are somewhat able to compete with mammals plus crocodiles and grow to large sizes : monitor. What kind of reptiles looks like old representation of sauropods : monitor. What kind of reptile would dare to attack injured hippopotami: monitor. What kind of animal has a pachyderm like skin and is long-tailed : monitor.Longfinmako (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed one important detail, all known monitors are carnivorous, while the creature reported in the depths of the Congo is clearly a vegetarian. Perhaps it is a giant form of marine iguana, which is herbivorous.

movie?

Wasn't there a movie from the '80s about the mokele-mbembe? I thought it was called Baby but it didn't come up on IMDB.

Yes, that´s correct! I just added a reference to that movie. (Danielos2 17:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Why is there no longer any reference to the film on this page? It's called Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend. IMDB link here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088760/ (KariCastor (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Recent expansions

I think the many new expansions to this article is excellent, and I agree completely with all skepticism. However,I think some of it should be rewritten as it sounds a bit too dogmatic and biased at the moment.--Danielos2 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient that the writer (Redmond O'Hanlon) just happened to "find" that the creature was a "fabrication." He sold lots of books, I bet. --IT'S A LION! (really) 20:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he must have. People here rush out to buy books saying that something they've never heard of doesn't exist. Really, think about what you're saying. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Needs Lots of work! On my list to do now

Article Needs Lots of work! On my list to do now. I agree article is very NPOV, I plan on fixing that, though I've got to fight the POV to go the other way, though I have done with my Mokele-mbembe site, mokelembembe.com, by just providing facts. A lot has gone on in the last couple of years with Mokele-mbembe research and that all needs to be added, need to added to my own site, have to do both at the same time. Still more questions then answers for me on the whole subject.

--Mokeleman 09:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of work is an understatement. Anyway the following section is encyclopedic:
"According to science writer and cryptozoologist Willy Ley, while there are sufficient anecdotal accounts to suggest "that :there is a large and dangerous animal hiding in the shallow waters and rivers of Central Africa", the body of evidence :remains insufficient for any realistic conclusions to be drawn on what the Mokèlé-mbèmbé may be.[27]"
It may be what some science fiction writer said, but aside from him being self-contradictory (a: there's sufficient :evidence; b: there isn't). I would advocate removal of said piece, or a complete rewrite. Perhaps something along the lines :of there being a lot of anecdotes, but there is no evidence whatsoever. Assuming this is even actually supported. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, "Mackal judged available evidence as consistent, writing ...", is this even still in accordance to ::contemporary reasoning. An animal of the supposed size would require a tremendous amount of food. The proposed habitat may ::not be large enough to support such an animal, especially not a breeding population. Sources need to be put in ::perspective. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Page Back to Mokele-mbembe

I'm going to put in a request to change to make Mokele-mbembe the main page and to have Mokèlé-mbèmbé. Mokele-mbembe is what Mackal used in his book and that how most people reference it, and how I reference it, as least in English, so need to go back to the standard.

--Mokeleman 10:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED. I actually didn't notice that Ganeshk had relisted, but the request was a week old and seems pretty clearly reasonable and well-founded. The reason was posted here for a week without attracting objection, which seems as good as a formal poll. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Mokèlé-mbèmbé → Mokele-mbembe – Mokele-mbembe is the more accepted standard of spelling. The page Mokele-mbembe already exists, but it should become the main page and Mokèlé-mbèmbé should redirected to Mokele-mbembe. Relisted here for discussion. Ganeshk (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Portuguese??

Frau Ilse von Nolde, who asserted that she had heard of the animal called "coye ya menia" (Portuguese for "water lion")

Say what? Flapdragon 01:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible OR

I removed this new bit as they look like original research: (possibly out of defense) Totnesmartin 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's too much unsourced stuff here without adding OR as well. Totnesmartin 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mokele-mbembe's spelling and meaning?

Where is the spelling Mokèlé-mbèmbé from? Lingala doesn’t usually use this type of spelling. There either is no accented characters (popular spelling) or accented characters sometimes with some special characters like ɛ, grave accent is rarely used if not ever. If the accents are somewhat representing some kind of spelling à la French, then mokɛle-mbɛmbe goes against Lingala's vowel harmony rule, with both /e/ et /ɛ/ in the same word. If the accents represent tones, then the right spelling probably is mokelé-mbembé, mokɛlɛ́-mbɛmbɛ́, mokɛlɛ́-mbembé or mokelé-mbɛmbɛ́. The Kawata dictionnary in Lingala has an entry for mbɛmbɛ́, meaning snail or slug, one for mbémbé, meaning supplication or lament. Mokelé is egg, mokɛ́lɛ́ is blacksmith, and mokɛ́lɛ torrent/stream of water. I'm not sure how the meaning “one who stops the flow of rivers” fits in. --moyogo 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're just going by what we see in books and websites. Is there a Lingala-to-English phrasebook or something available? And would it help with Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu? Totnesmartin 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, can't find anything close to it. But Ngúma monɛ́nɛ is litterally big python, ngúma = pyhton, monɛ́nɛ = big, although in classical lingala it's ngúma enɛ́nɛ. --moyogo 00:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The illustrated Lingala-French dictionnary of Adolphe Dzokanga only has the spelling Mokelemembe, pl. Mikelembembe, for Dinosaur(s) (the dictionnary uses the African reference alphabet so the word is with /e/ not /ɛ/. --moyogo 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the spelling might not be using the African reference alphabet, not all words in the dictionary are using it unfortunately. The book was self-edited so there are some issues. However, the spelling Mokele-mbembe is probably more correct in Lingala than Mokèlé-mbèmbé. --moyogo 06:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non scientific work

This page is nothing more then a list of expeditions. It should be about the Mokele Mbembe itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DinoBird (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Evolution

I removed this statement from the introduction, as it is not supported by sources:

If it happened to be a dinosaur, its existence would defy the evolution theory.

Miraculouschaos 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you did. This statement makes no sense. Then the coelacanth should be impossible as well. _90.214.110.174 (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, obviously the work of a desperate young-earth creationist. If this creature is real (and I have my doubts) it is simply a living fossil, a relic sauropod living in conditions that managed to preserve its primitive features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mokele mbembe appeared in issues 6 and 7 of Punisher War Journal v1 (Wolverine crossover). 189.158.24.50 (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)g_z[reply]

This article needs serious help

I have tagged two obvious instances of problems in the lead, but there has been minimal attention to factual accuracy, NPOV, and sourcing for this article. Please help improve the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk) 17:39, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

In Universe

The "in Universe" tag is specifically about fiction. It links here [1]. this is not an appropriate tag for a non-fiction based article irrespective of whether the subject matter is thought to be real or not.Niet Comrade (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. The other tags are fair, but that one was just silly. Zagalejo^^^ 18:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Earth Creationism

I note there's nothing in this article about the role of cryptozoology in Young Earth Creationism and vv. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I find that very annoying. I put a slight reference to that in here, but some vandal removed it. It wasn't the best source, however. Poorly written, and a real disgrace to creation science. It was at least something, though.Hawkrawkr (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we've been over this before. Wikipedia is not the place for discussing young-earth creationism. Wikipedia articles contain information currently within the realm of accepted science, which young-earth creationism is not. I respect your devotion to your beliefs, but this just isn't the place for them. There are many other sites that would love to hear your opinion, try Conservipedia for instance. Also, just to correct your point, the Mokele-mbembe does not disprove evolution, which many creationists claim. Not only is there a startling lack of evidence for the existence of such an animal, but even if it were real it would be just like the coelacanth, a living fossil relatively unchanged for millions of years. Its existence doesn't prove that evolution is false, but simply that when preserved with the right conditions a primitive organism can bypass it. Evolution is an accepted fact of life, I'm not forcing you to accept that, but please don't argue about it on mainstream scientific grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information

Why isn't there more info on MM itself? The list of expeditions and info on them is nice, but I would like more info on legends surrounding the actual creature, or _something_ about him. Anyone else feel the same?Hawkrawkr (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Don't get your hopes up, the "Beast Men" special on Nat Geo isn't too informative either. I'm watching it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.242.79 (talk) 06:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small writing error? "underground cave" -> underwater cave?

As per subject: Small writing error? "underground cave" -> underwater cave? As caves are by necessity under ground. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long list of expeditions

It dominates the article, and is poorly sourced in many cases with cryptozoology forums and Discovery Channel TV shows being cited plus pop culture mixed with primary sourced books by fringe authors. Needs a complete overhaul. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apatosaurus?

I have heard frequent claims that Mokele-mbembe may be a descendant of Apatosaurus. This, however, is very unlikely. Apatosaurus is not known from Africa, nor is any other known diplodocoid. Furthermore, Mokele-mbembe is said to be the size of a large elephant, far too small to be an apatosaur. Instead, perhaps Mokele-mbembe could be a titanosaur. There are titanosaurs known from Africa, and many were within the size range of Mokele-mbembe. That seems more probable to me, assuming the animal exists. Perhaps this could be noted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mokele-mbembe&oldid=482740212"