Talk:Mermaid

Template:Fishportal

Brazil and Cuba

In Brazil and Cuba, Yemanja is an orisha, originally of the Yoruba religion, who has become prominent in many Afro-American religions. Africans, from what is now called Yorubaland, brought Yemaya/Yemoja and a host of other deities/energy forces in nature with them when they were brought to the shores of the Americas as captives. She is the ocean, the essence of motherhood, and a fierce protector of children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.55.62.233 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Africans, from what is now called "Yorubaland"? WHO calls it that? I am curious, as being half Ibibio, I and everyone I talk to refer to it in English as "Nigeria".2.101.149.173 (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

The Body Found

Cleaned up this part a bit. It should probably be somewhere other than where it is as well. Kareesmoon (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Mockumentary

According to these articles, the documentaries are fake "Paranormal activity" like movies : http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/05/mermaids_aren_t_real_animal_planet_s_fake_documentaries_misrepresent_ocean.html & http://digitaljournal.com/article/351217 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.113.189 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sightings

The section seems incomplete, especially regarding the alleged sighting by the Japanese soldier. The section just says that he saw a mermaid and that was it, as if it's a cataloged species. There has to have been at some point speculation by marine experts on what he saw that he actually saw. The same goes for the Sri Lankan beach sighting. Spartan198 (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC).

The article claims sightings in Canada, Israel and Zimbabwe. No problem with the first two, but as Zimbabwe is landlocked, without a coastline, how is it possible to have an (unsupported?)sighting there. Suggest Zimbabwe be removed if the article is to have credence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.56.191 (talk) 20:25, February 4, 2014

Simple, Zimbabwe has lakes.--Auric talk 00:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Zimbabwe sighting claims are sourced later in the article. —ADavidB 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

===I would like to modify this section as follows: 1st paragraph addition of new lines to read as follows (new text is between →arrows←):

In 1493, sailing off the coast of Hispaniola, Columbus reported seeing three "female forms" which "rose high out of the sea, but were not as beautiful as they are represented".[44][45] → Fredric Ober mentions this account in his 1899 book "Puerto Rico And Its Resources" and clarifies that what Columbus was seeing was the local West Indian manatees which would have been abundant in the waters when he arrived in the Americas: "The [manatee]was abundant on the coast of Florida, and in the time of Columbus was known as the veritable mermaid. The great navigator, in fact, gravely asserts, in his journal, that he saw several Manatees of the coast of Haiti, but was disappointed that those mermaids were not as beautiful as they were represented to be!" These bathing beauties were also seen by pirates 4 centuries later.← The 1899 The logbook of Blackbeard, an English pirate, records that he instructed his crew on several voyages to steer away from charted waters which he called "enchanted" for fear of merfolk or mermaids, which Blackbeard himself and members of his crew reported seeing.[46] These sighting were often recounted and shared by sailors and pirates who believed that... ===ElizabethALarson (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)ElizabethALarson 10.16.2014

British Isles section sources

The "British Isles" section relies too heavily on Briggs' encyclopedia. Additional sources should be cited for the content here, if supported. —ADavidB 15:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

What's the use of the "explanation" section? It has no references and seems pointless. -LesPaul75_talk 01:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think someone felt a need to discount the reported sightings. I'm in agreement with the lack of a need for such explanation, added "Reported" to the parent heading, and removed the section in question. —ADavidB 03:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs adjusting

Christopher Columbus reported seeing mermaids while exploring the Caribbean, and sightings have been reported in the 20th and 21st centuries in Canada, Israel and Zimbabwe. The U.S. National Ocean Service stated in 2012 that no evidence of mermaids has ever been found.

This is a bit silly. It reads as if there is still a serious suggestion that mermaids do exist, such that the question has to be considered by some official body. I can't immediately think of what to do to fix this while retaining the information content. 86.161.61.42 (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WWII Japanese "sighting"

In the Reported Sightings section there is a part that opens:

"During World War II in 1943, Japanese soldiers saw several mermaids on the shores of the Kei Islands."

Surely this should read "Japanese soldiers reported sighting several mermaids...", since there's no evidence and mermaids are accepted as fictional creatures? As it is it sounds like a case of weasel words suggesting they're real. 82.32.3.86 (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Introduction revisions proposed

A mermaid is a legendary aquatic creature with the upper body of a female human and the tail of a fish.[1] Mermaids appear in the folklore of many cultures worldwide, including the Near East, Europe, Africa and Asia. The first stories appeared in ancient Assyria, in which the goddess Atargatis transformed herself into a mermaid out of shame for accidentally killing her human lover. Mermaids are sometimes associated with perilous events such as floods, storms, shipwrecks and drownings. In other folk traditions (or sometimes within the same tradition), they can be benevolent or beneficent, bestowing boons or falling in love with humans.

Mermaids are associated with the mythological Greek sirens as well as with sirenia, a biological order comprising dugongs and manatees. Some of the historical sightings by sailors may have been misunderstood encounters with these aquatic mammals. Christopher Columbus reported seeing mermaids while exploring the Caribbean, and supposed sightings have been reported in the 20th and 21st centuries in Canada, Israel, and Zimbabwe.

Mermaids have been a popular subject of art and literature in recent centuries, such as in Hans Christian Andersen's well-known fairy tale "The Little Mermaid" (1836). They have subsequently been depicted in operas, paintings, books, films and comics — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizabethALarson (talk • contribs) 21:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

introduction proposed revisions

A mermaid or merrow (is a legendary aquatic creature with the upper body of a female beautiful woman with long hair and the tail of a fish that sings with beguiling or seductive voice.. Mermaids appear in the folklore of many cultures worldwide, including the Near East, Europe, Africa and Asia and are related to the sirens mentioned in Homer's "The Odyssey". The first recorded stories appeared in ancient Assyriaat approximately 1100 BCE, in which the goddess Atargatis transformed herself into a mermaid out of shame for accidentally killing her human lover. Mermaids are sometimes associated with perilous events such as floods, storms, shipwrecks and drownings either prophesizing or causing such events.. In other folk traditions (or sometimes within the same tradition), they can be benevolent or beneficent, bestowing boons or falling in love with or seducing humans.

I WILL MOVE SOME OF THIS TO ANOTHER SECTION: In some stories the mermaid is meant to symbolize duality: beauty and beast, spiritual and physical, good and evil, etc. The mermaid, along with the green men and centaur and other pagan symbols were incorporated into Christian iconography in the 11th century. Some scholars argue that given the setting and surrounding context imagery some mermaid symbols should be interpreted positively as symbolizing the singing of the scripture or the Holy Church while others argue that she is a negative symbol representing the seduction of physical desire..

Mermaids are associated with the mythological Greek sirens, centaurs, the leaf-faced forest men (Green Man), and the Greek and Roman gods Poseidon and Neptune. (Wood 2010). The group of mammals that include the manatees, dugongs, and the much larger but now extinct Steller's sea cow are appropriately named the Sirenia as they are often mistaken for mermaids. Manatees and dugongs have round heads with forward looking eyes and short snouts resting on a neck a shoulders that in almost relative proportion to those of a human. INSERT PICTURE They have facial hair that they groom frequently with flippers having a bone structure similar to the human arm. The females manatees and dugongs hold their suckling infants to their chest in their flippers much like a women cradle their babies in their arms to nurse. In fact, the word "manatee" is from a word of the aboriginal inhabitants of the Caribbean islands named these friendly, slow-moving mammals "manatee" after their word meaning "breast". ADD CITATION It was likely these bathing beauties that Christopher Columbus when he arrived in the Caribbean in 14?? and noted in his journal that the mermaids "were not as beautiful as they were represented to be."ref name=Ober> Ober, Frederick A (1899). Puero Rico and Its Resources (First ed.). D. Appleton Company. p. 282. OCLC 99000077. Retrieved 16 October 2014. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |= ignored (help)</ref>

Sir CITE proposed as early as 1868 that dugongs were the biological inspiration of the mermaid mythology in northern Europe. His research shows that as early as 1406 traders were presenting dugong bodies in various states of decomposition as "mermaids" and these specimens were presented to various royal courts and medical societies as novelties or specimens for study.Some "mermaid" specimens were created by skilled taxidermists combining the dead bodies of a fish and a monkey or ape. The most famous of which, the "Fejee(sic) Mermaid" or Japanese Mermaid owned by P.T. Barnum. So convincing were these creations that they fooled some educated people in the late 1800's. [Hall, p.195] He hypothesizes that perhaps were being shippedsomewhatmay be the biological inspiration for many mermaid tales....nt Other researcher propose seals as the muse for mermaid tales SECTION STILL NOT YET FULLY REVISED - some stuff to be moved down to other sections to shorten intro ElizabethALarson (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)ElizabethALarson 10.16.2014ElizabethALarson (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)ElizabethALarson/GaiaMichigan10/24/2014

"Western Europe" subsection: should it be "Hans Christian Andersen" instead?

Revised this subsection today after noting that, despite being the best-known mermaid story (and the source of the best-known mermaid film), the description of Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid was unexpectedly brief and confusing; it also contained rather obvious PoV, dismissing the 1989 Walt Disney film as a "Bowdlerized version" of the fairy tale. Maybe I overdid the summary of the original a little, but given all the miscellany in the article I think that Andersen needed more attention.

After reviewing my revisions, I realized that "Western Europe" only contains three items: Andersen's fairy tale, the statue based on his fairy tale, and the movie based on his fairy tale. There must be other culturally significant depictions of mermaids in Western Europe; but if the article doesn't contain any, should this subsection perhaps be retitled "Hans Christian Andersen"? Or if not, what about amalgamating it with "British Isles" so that at least it contains more than one mermaid for all of Western Europe?

If so, then Anderson probably needs to go before the Mermaid of Zennor. No disrespect to her; I was a major contributor to that article as well as the painter, Weguelin, who depicted her (that's how I first got involved with this article). But many more people are familiar with Andersen's Little Mermaid, either through the original fairy tale or the Disney film, than with the Mermaid of Zennor. While the Zennor mermaid may have been local folklore, she doesn't appear in written sources earlier than 1873, suggesting that the popularity of the tale might have been influenced by Andersen (although I won't go as far as one former editor of the article, and assert that the folklorist Bottrell made up the story himself).

Any thoughts? P Aculeius (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The section starts with two sentences on Melusine. My suggestion is to add them to another section (perhaps rename Eastern Europe to "Europe"), and use Andersen's name for the remaining section content. —ADavidB 03:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I trimmed my summary of Andersen a bit earlier. Hope it's not excessive. Decided to leave the paragraph on the film alone for now, but maybe the statue could use another sentence or two. P Aculeius (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

mermaid vs siren

I was looking what "mermaid" is in Spanish. Translator gave me "sirena", which links to siren (mythology). The Spanish language article has the same leading picture and many other same pics also than mermaid, while siren has quite different pictures. Could that mean "sirena" is actually more like "mermaid" than "siren" in English? 82.141.116.89 (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Africa

In Igbo cosmology, the mermaid-like spirits are called owumiri. Belief about their function and behavior seem to be diverse among distinct Igbo traditions.<ref>http://sugabellyrocks.com/2010/12/deviantart-muro.html</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibrarianGlenn (talk • contribs) 12:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mermaid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140405000642/http://www.mpt.org/programsinterests/mpt/alexander/guide/teachers_guide.pdf to http://www.mpt.org/programsinterests/mpt/alexander/guide/teachers_guide.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130920025919/http://www.tourismvictoria.com/Content/EN/747.asp to http://www.tourismvictoria.com/Content/EN/747.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Susquehanna Mermaid: a Bounty?

Not sure how to treat the "sighting" of the Susquehanna Mermaid added to the article today. On the one hand, the fisherman reporting it only saw her from the shoulders up, and thus suggested deep doubts as to whether it was a mermaid at all; in which the unanswered questions as to whether she carried typical mermaid ephemera (comb, mirror) showed similar skepticism. On the other hand, he still reported it as a mermaid, as did the newspaper. Perhaps just as unusual was the fisherman's assertion that he would have shot the mermaid, had he not been worried about being charged with murder; and even more startling, the newspaper's suggestion that it would rescue him from financial hardship if he brought in the mermaid, alive or dead... I can't recall ever seeing anything amounting to a bounty on mermaids before, or anyone indicating a desire to kill one. Any thoughts about how to treat this addition? Perhaps something along the lines of:

In 1881, a fisherman in Pennsylvania reported seeing a mermaid surface several times on the Susquehanna River, and indicated that he would have shot her had he not been concerned about being charged with murder. The York Daily, which reported the story on June 8, offered to rescue the fisherman from financial hardship if he brought in the mermaid alive or dead, perhaps the first known example of a bounty being placed on a mermaid. P Aculeius (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the sentence as a simple "reported sighting", in line with the article's section title. While the details you mention are available from the source article, I considered them too tangential and too much weight for inclusion here. Your reworded sentence through the word "River" looks fine to me, however. —ADavidB 14:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that the suggestion of placing a bounty on a mermaid is the most noteworthy thing about the account. Are there any other examples of accounts in which someone claimed to have killed, attempted to kill, intended to kill, or offered to pay someone for killing a mermaid? P Aculeius (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps there are no other examples, though the source article doesn't say that. If we suggest there are none, that seems to suggest original research which is to be avoided. —ADavidB 21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not original research to look for similar examples, or to mention as unusual or notable an account that appears exceptional because nothing similar been identified. If others surface later, then the statement can be modified accordingly. P Aculeius (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

My belief remains that Wikipedia editors need to find reliably sourced documentation that an account is unusual or notable (or appears to be) before we say it is. There's a lot to the WP:OR policy, but the first paragraph defines it as "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Also, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." —ADavidB 03:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

A newspaper article is presumed to be a reliable source unless clear grounds for believing otherwise appears. If the contents of the article are unusual or unique, then that fact is notable. You will seldom or never find sources asserting that such accounts are unusual or unique; does that mean you cannot provide any context about the article? Of course not. That's taking the concept of "original research" to an extreme without any particular justification. In this case, excluding a notable fact (the only account we have of a bounty being placed on a mermaid; the only specific example of someone who attempted or desired to kill what he believed to be a mermaid) not because there's any reason to doubt its notability, but in effect because nobody else says that it's notable. That's self-defeating, and clearly not what Wikipedia's policy on original research is for. You do not need a source to state that a particular detail is notable in order to conclude that it is. Including every random mention of a mermaid over the last two hundred years, while excluding the notable details of such accounts, is pointless. P Aculeius (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

To the contrary, it's not up to Wikipedia editors to (independently) define a source's context. If other (secondary) sources have defined such context, we can used them as well. For us to do so on our own is 'original research'. To the extent our source article says a bounty was placed, we can include that here. Further conjecturing on a unique significance is beyond an editor's scope here. The weasel words guideline may be applicable. —ADavidB 13:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat odd wording

"While there is no evidence that mermaids exist outside of folklore"

This seems to leave open a slight possibility that evidence could arise, which is surely a bit ridiculous. It is as certain as anything can be that mermaids do not exist. 86.183.129.23 (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding pedantic, the sentence taken as a whole says exactly what it's meant to say, which is that sightings persist despite a lack of evidence. And that's all you can possibly say about folklore, particularly folklore deeply embedded in culture and history. I believe that Wikipedia:Truth applies here. This article is not a search for truth or a platform for denouncing folklore as falsehood, foolishness, or scientific impossibility. It's not Wikipedia's job to establish whether mermaids exist, any more than it declares whether God or Santa Claus exist. People throughout history have believed that mermaids exist, and evidently some people still do, or at least behave as if they do. You may not agree with them, but Wikipedia's policy of presenting a neutral point of view means that we don't ridicule things simply because some editors consider them ridiculous. You could, if you wished, take the clause as somewhat tongue-in-cheek to the extent that it deliberately doesn't foreclose the possibility that mermaids exist, although it doesn't suggest that they do, either. But either way, it's not Wikipedia's job to pour cold water on anybody's fish dreams. P Aculeius (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with most of what you say. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. There is not a single reliable source that gives even the slightest credence to the idea that mermaids might exist. It is not Wikipedia's policy give any weight to bizarre fringe theories. 86.183.129.23 (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What is your suggested alternate wording of the sentence in question? —ADavidB 14:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The sentence neither supports nor denies anything about the existence of mermaids. It doesn't "give credence" to anything, nor does it mention, describe, or in any way suggest "bizarre fringe theories." That's all your idea. The only way to make it say what you want is for it to deny the existence of mermaids. But as explained above, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. The article doesn't exist in order to prove or disprove anything. Insisting that it do so would plainly contravene the policy that articles maintain a neutral point of view. P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Aculeus, while basically you are right, but you phrased it wrongly. In wikipedia's notions, a wikipedia article may present proofs and disproofs provided in reputable sources. And in layman terms yes, one may say our article "proves or disproves" something. As a wikipedian, in discussion you have to operate in wikipedias's concepts, to avoid miscommunication. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for an article on a figure of folklore to state a position on whether the subject does or doesn't exist. Most people understand that topics about folklore aren't concerned with knowledge, history, or scientific fact, except to the extent that these matters have a direct bearing on the development of the subject. Just as articles on religion take no position on the truth or falsity of belief, articles about folklore aren't concerned with proving or disproving widely believed traditions. Revising the language of an article in order to indicate whether the subject is or is not real would be to inject an impermissible point of view into what is supposed to be a neutral article. Wikipedia doesn't tell people whether to believe in God, Santa Claus, or Fairies, nor should it. It's perfectly acceptable to note whether a widespread belief persists, whether there have been notable hoaxes or literature about the subject, and what people have believed about it through history, including noteworthy debates about the nature of the thing (such as whether it exists). But we cannot state uncategorically, "these traditions are true and those are false." It is perfectly appropriate to describe a thing believed to exist in language that presumes that it exists, or to describe a traditional belief in language that does not foreclose the possibility; but it cannot reach the point of declaring that the thing does or does not exist as a matter of truth, merely because passionate advocates of one side or the other wish it to be so. P Aculeius (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr. for a simple reason: there is folklore about real historical things and about real animals, like Wolf, Hare, Fox. Anyway, this chat is moot, see my remark below. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This sentence from the introduction correctly summarizes article content. And in article it is referenced. If you have a different kind of opinion, please provide reference. Otherwise this chat is just socializing, not work on encyclopedia. Case closed. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• This discussion has totally missed the point. The sentence is just as silly as when I first pointed it out, and for exactly the reason that I explained. It's like saying there is no evidence that cheese naturally exists on the Moon. Well, obviously not, but the mere fact of stating it opens the suggestion that it is a plausible thing to consider. If you folks cannot understand this, then I cannot help you any further. 86.169.184.200 (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)