Talk:Dingonek

notability

There are presently no references to non-fringe sources in this article to establish notability. I have not been able to find any so far in a web search. If anyone has some, please add them. Newspaper articles discussing this belief or alleged sightings are among the most common references used to establish notability for articles about supposed crytids. If none can be found then the article probably would not be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Locke9k (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

??? Greencircle (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

At least part of it appears to be a copyedit of the American Monsters article. 24.227.62.136 (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I went through and removed un-sourced references to a venomous scorpion tail, references to the Congo Basin (the only cited source puts the creature in Kenya), toned down the language, removed physical and behavioral descriptions not present in the source, and removed reference to the Bengali novel "Chander Pahar" (the monster in the book, translated into English as bunyip, is not clearly intended to reference the dingonek). Still, I doubt this article is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia if only one non-fringe source has turned up in the nine years since this article was first written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D20Despot (talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

It has been well over two years since this article was first flagged for not meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have therefore nominated it to be deleted under the Wikipedia Deletion Policy. - NickGrayLOL (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a source containing good information on dingonek, including historical circumstances. If you question the notability, please take the article to AfD. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite Launched

I've recently rewritten this article by way of the few descriptions of this creature from non-fringe sources (cryptozoologists). However, as you can see, this material badly requires an independent expert source—preferably an academic specializing in the region—to make sense of it. It would appear some sort of tradition about said creature exists around the Lake Victoria area, but to say so would be WP:OR, and it's just as likely that there wasn't such a traction regarding lake monsters at all until colonialists started looking for one. See, for example, Loxton and Prothero's commentary on Mokele-mbembe. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the cleanup effort. Since the article only covers the fringe theory itself and does not include any mainstream views, I've tagged it with the Fringe Theories template. As you pointed out, it's unlikely that this issue can be resolved without independent expert sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Of course, I'm still looking for reliable, independent coverage of this topic to get this all in context. It's really looking like there isn't any. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that the Maclean's article is mostly a reprint of an article by J. A. Jordan, who was the big game hunter who's account Bronson was repeating. --tronvillain (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe

May well be of interest to YEC, its also of interest to Cryptozoologists who are not YEC and folklorists. This just makes the page look very silly and very biased (not in a pro-science way either, folklore is a science).Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Loxton and Prothero have a chapter in Abominable Science dedicated to how this entity is essentially a construct created and promoted by Young Earth creationist cryptozoologists, although it appears to stem ultimately from some kind of regional folklore complex (likely similar to what's going on here). A quote: "the quest for Mokele Mbembe ... is part of the effort by creationists to overthrow the theory of evolution and teaching of science by any means possible". :bloodofox: (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As we are looking at this specifically through the lens of how Wikipedia views cryptozoology, and as this is quite notably of interest to YEC cryptozoology fans, the note is due. Or we could just clip the see also altogether. There's no reason to correlate the Dingonek which was purported to have been seen near Lake Victoria with the Mokele-Mbembe more associated with Lake Bangweulu. There's the entirety of Tanzania in the way. It's like saying Anjana see also Moss people. Simonm223 (talk)

Agreed. I wouldn't have a problem with removing the "see also" section altogether, to be honest. What I'd really like is something from a reliable, independent source on this topic as I actually don't want this article deleted, because I think it's an interesting case study. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I went ahead and blanked the see also before somebody went and did something like linked this piece of colonial ephemera to Nessie. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

More sources

I don't have a firm opinion either way on whether this should have an article, but if anyone is interested, there are some additional sources from the British Newspaper Archive:

• "Random Readings: An Aquatic African Monster" in the Clifton and Redland Free Press, 12 July 1917, p. 4, which strangely was also published word for word on 31 May 1919 in the St. Andrews Citizen (p. 4). This piece is fundamentally an article by J. A. Jordan recounting his claimed encounter.
• The Birmingham Daily Post (30 October 1956) carried an advert for this book by John Prebble which includes discussion of the Dingonek, but being the story of J. A. Jordan, as told to Prebble by him, he is presumably the source of all the information.
• Excerpts of this book were published in the Liverpool Echo ("Go to Sleep When the Lions Roar", 7 February 1958, p. 10), which shows us at least some of the book's content on the Dingonek, which can be summarised as:
  • Claims that by the flooded Maggori River his gun-bearer approached him, shaking, claiming they had seen a strange animal sleeping on the bank, which he then went with them and saw himself (his description here differs slightly from the version currently in the article, but he also describes it as "impossible")
  • Claims he shot it in the neck, after which it stood up and faced him and they ran away. When they went back it had gone but they found "mud-prints about the size of a hippo's, but clawed".
  • He claimed that the Wanderobo people knew about this creature and called it a Dingonek
  • Also claims that the Kavirondo people knew of it and called it "Luquata" and believed it was a god

Quite possibly all completely made up or exaggerated and embellished by Jordan, but make of these what you will. Similar content to what's already in the article, but I'm happy to provide further details if anyone is interested. --Michig (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Another [[1]]

Another.[[2]]Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do we have this yet [[3]]?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Searching on the 'Dingoneck' spelling finds another source, also by Jordan, from the Winnipeg Tribune: [4]. --Michig (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It also has an entry in The Chambers Dictionary of the Unexplained - a 2007 book that is very much not a fringe source. --Michig (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a fringe source depends on its content, not on its publisher. Might be fine though. --tronvillain (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

RSN discussion

I opened a discussion at Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the reliability of historical sources for this article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)