Talk:Kelpie/Archive 1

"Kelpie" = Internet nuisance?

A "Kelpie" is also used in certain internet subcultures as a reference to a childish or immature person who harrasses people in online communities, forums and messageboards. See also internet troll

Citation? Tearlach 12:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Revision due to possible copyvio

I should have guessed from the archaic phraseology that the main section came from somewhere. Here: the Kelpie page at www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk. I've rephrased and trimmed in case of copyvio. Other sources disagree with the specific about kelpies only being associated with rivers. Tearlach 18:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Kelpie/Each Uisge

Suggested they are merged as the same thing, the saltwater, freshwater distinction made below is not found in the books I know. 138.251.202.128 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Another distinction that is often made is that the each uisge inhabits the sea and lochs, whereas the kelpie inhabits running water (streams, rivers). Whichever version you go for, they are most definately two different creatures, so I do not feel a merge would be appropriate. Lianachan 22:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Kelpie and Each Uisge are quite different supernatural beasts. To grossly over simplify - the Kelpie is associated with fresh water, and the Each Uisge is associated with salt water. Lianachan 14:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Further to that, I'd like to add that not only are the Each Uisge and Kelpie distinct, they were only a couple of examples (albeit probably the best known) from an impressive selection of aquatic supernatural beasts - including little discussed ones like the Tarbh Uisge (Water Bull) and an impressive selection of malevolent female water sprirts. I expect this aspect of Scottish folklore stems from the considerable spiritual and ritual significance which our ancient Celtic ancestors here assigned to water - votive offerings left in lochs, the fine Pictish tradition of execution by drowning, etc... I think it's likely that the folklore is kind of shadow on our subconscious, a folk memory. Has this theme been explored anywhere? Lianachan 15:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Note also the Pictish Beast and Loch Ness Monster (at least the water beast in the Vita Columbae). It is noticable that in the Gaelic world the Each Uisge is associated with Scotland, and that similar beasts are prevalent in both Lowland Scots and Northern Isles tradition, but rare in English or Norse tradition. I think we've got a central feature of Pictish mythology here. Note also that this is entirely natural, as Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor said, Scotland (north of the forth) is a land of lakes. The unbelievably huge number of lakes in Scotland has obviously shaped Scotland's ancient myths. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, but those lakes would be lochs ;-) But yes, I agree entirely. Lianachan 00:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

re-titling this page

I propose retitling this page to complement a re-title of the Australian Kelpie page. The rationale is that the Kelpie is unique to Australia (no matter how many countries now have them), thus the title "Australian Kelpie" is tautology. And in any case, there exists the possibility that there may be an Australian water spirit which grabs people and drowns them. Oops -- that just may be a bunyip...

I understand there will always be a conflict between the water spirit described here and the uniquely Australian sheep-dog, however I believe that some shrewd disambiguation can lead to either the "Kelpie_water-spirit" or the "Kelpie_dog". Gordon | Talk, 23 April 2006 @08:42 UTC

New Heading

I have added the heading History and Mythology so the contents isnt towards the bottom of the page. If someone can think of a better structure/organisation feel free to change, but the top text before the first heading should be one or two sentences. Not the majority of the article. skorpion 05:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just not kind at all!

The end of the first paragraph reads, "Commonly know as spirits of the dead, the kelpie itself was not kind at all."

What the heck is that supposed to mean? It sounds like vandalism, or just a plain mistake when somebody was editing, but I'm not sure which, or what it's supposed to say. Any ideas? 75.211.139.39 (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It was added by User:72.173.63.143 ; see this edit: [1]. I think it's pretty clear that 72.173... was trying to say that the kelpie is a malicious ("not kind") creature. That said, I've rewritten that to be a bit more encyclopedic. —Lowellian (reply) 07:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

In this edit [2], User:MasamRay added to the article:

It is possible that the name "kelpie" derives from a manifestation of the creature as a Shetland Pony covered in seaweed.

No citation is given, and this sounds more like wild and unfounded speculation than actual fact. Dictionaries I've checked suggest that the etymology is uncertain, but possibly from Gaelic words for cows/heifers/horses. "Kelp", on the other hand, is from Middle English. Therefore, I have removed the above sentence from the article.

—Lowellian (reply) 07:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Water Horse

Discussion for merge of article to this article. Water horse article is unsourced fancruft page created by User: Azure12, the lead basically admits that this is an article for one of the nicknames of the Kelpie. The only new information here is the hoax section which should be added to the film's article as part of its online promotion, the rest is mostly taken from existing articles or original research. Fixer23 (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

My thinking is that to avoid the article being recreating yet again, we need to do a (minimal) merge and redirect. Some of the material in the fancruft article can move over to the article on the movie, if not duplicative, and some (again if relevant and not duplicative) can go here, then blank the article and create a redirect. I hate to see these "obvious" titles be deleted into redlinks because inevitably someone just recreates them later. Saw this happen a couple times, it's a pain to have to watchlist a redlink.  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 21:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatKord (talk • contribs) 14:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't be merged. water horse refers to more than just kelpies.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Someone alerted me to the fact we have Each uisge and Kelpie as separate articles, which doesn't make any sense to me either. Therefore I propose to merge Each uisge into this article. Neither is likely going to be massive on their own, or even put together. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - these are different creatures and it makes absolutely no sense to merge one into another. The generic article is water horse. We also have Ceffyl Dŵr. A possible restructure to amalgamate all under the water horse umbrella could be considered but I see no pressing need. See also the various discussions above. TerriersFan (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Then please explain to me how they're different cause I can't see the difference, except that one has a Gaelic/Welsh name and the other hasn't. Wherever cailpeach comes from, I cannot find any traditional sources that actually use it. Wherever kelpies appear, Gaelic uses each-uisge. Amalgamting Ceffyl Dŵr into this page as well is fine by me, I wasn't aware of the page. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think as they're different creatures they should have their own page. More can be done to link the pages though I think, such as 'see also' sections to list other names of similar beings. Maybe there could be a 'water-horse' disambiguation page listing the various possible names, because sometimes someone might be searching for a mythological water-horse, but not know the name.VenomousConcept (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Again, I'd be grateful if someone could explain how they're different cause it's not obvious from the pages - which is in fact why I came to look at these pages in the first place because someone left a question on my talk page. Just saying "they're different" isn't helpful. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have no opinion either way, other that to point out that most fairy lore is kind of like this.. it blends and merges and it's really hard to tell where one fairy creature ends and another begins. There are LOTS of waterhorse creatures with sometimes subtle and sometimes huge differences. A few more: Glashtyn, Buggane, and Ceffyl Dŵr, not to mention all the non-horse shapechanging water spirits, like the Fuath and Finfolk. I lean towards opposing a merge, given the number of fae that are almost the same, but not quite, who all have (and should have) their own articles. I'm not going to even begin to unravel the whole Brownie/Hob/Pygsie/Nissie/Tomte/Grogan/etc ball of yarn, since they're all small domestic fairies who are helpful around the house. May as well be the same critter, but they're not. That's the nature of Celtic folklore.lunaverse (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per Lunaverse's comment above. Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As requested, the difference is that the Kelpie is a fresh-water creature only, inhabiting rivers and streams and fresh-water lochs, whereas the Each Uisge inhabits mostly salt water (the ocean, salt-water lochs, some fresh-water lochs). In addition, the Kelpie has only equine appearances (horse or pony) reported as either pure black or pure white, but the Each Uisge has both equine (horse or pony) and human appearances. Finally, there is the choice of prey. The Kelpie has been shown in folklore to prefer children, and when it eats its victims it leaves the heart and the liver both. The Each Uisge leaves only the liver and does not display preference in folklore, being an indiscriminate killer. Additionally, the Ceffyl Dŵr would be a different creature also by its habitat (mountain pools and waterfalls) and can also fly, depending on the local lore, where the Kelpie and Each Uisge cannot. MadadhDubh (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The horse...

"The horse's appearance is strong, powerful, and breathtaking." This statement is void of any significance; this is a mythological creature. this article needs serious cleaning.FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure it's a mythological creature but describing how it's portrayed in mythology seems fine to me. TerriersFan (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The wording is ... unlucky though. It makes it sound like fact. It would probably raise fewer eyebrows if it said "In stories, it is generally described as a strong and powerful horse" or something. I agree about the need for cleaning... but that applies to most of these mythology pages, they seem to attract editors who don't take sources that seriously. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

OK; I have amended the first sentence to "In mythology, the kelpie is described as a strong and powerful horse." to set the context for the section and make it clear that it is (probably ;-) ) not fact. TerriersFan (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)