Talk:Bloop/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removed marijuana reference

Moved from the article: Bloop is also a slang term for marijuana popularized in the San Francisco Bay Area. -- Stephen Gilbert 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. Reference

I removed the reference to the blooper enemies of SMB, due to the fact that they appeared before 1997 and the bloop itself.

Not to mention 'bloop' being a generic sound-effect word. Good call. --Masamage 02:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating

This is fascinating. I gotta improve this article somehow.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 01:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular Facts

If your going to remove an entire section let the talk page know first. Wikipedia is not a place to uncover the truth of a matter. We're here to highlight facts, not resolve mysteries (Crossmr). KriticKill (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Spectrogram

Spectrogram image with Y-axis 0 to 50 hz looks like absurd and nonsence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.231.67 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You have my attention Mr. Annonymous. Why is a spectrogram image with that kind of Y axis "absurd" and "nonsence"? 72.230.11.240 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bloop and Slow Down proof enough?

Bloop and Slow Down were both heard in 1997 and both in May/June. Both nearly in the same region. Both sounds were never heard again. This can't be a coincidence. Both sounds surely originated from the same source. Isn't that proof, that is has to be an animal? Slow Down was heard several thousand miles away from Bloop. So whatever the origin was, it moved (or better swam) several thousand miles between both sounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.204.26 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Proof of what? What Animal? Science allows for things to be unexplained but there is nothing that meets any measure of scientific proof for a source identification or the nature of the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.14.206 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the most crap method of organizing facts and/or postulations I have ever seen in my life. Wikipedia, please stop this before the feces clogs my synapses. This page states directly below the edit window that encylopedic content must be verifiable. It is verifiable that in "Call of Cthulhu" by H.P. Lovecraft, the location of "sunken R'lyeh" is at 47 degrees 9 minutes south and 123 degrees 43 minutes west. It is verifiable that the estimated emanation point of the Bloop is at 50 degrees south and 100 degrees west. It is verifiable that these two points are, in the larger scheme of things, relatively close to one another. It is verifiable that many people have made the speculation, however ridiculous, that the noise could be Mighty Cthulhu himself. Therefore a reference to Cthulhu bears on an article about the Bloop. In conclusion, people who enjoy attributing the word "retarded" to things they don't agree with, should perhaps take a spelling class or two before they involve themselves in arguments with people who possess brains, lest they themselves be perceived as such. - Nucka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.4.122 (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"In the larger scheme of things" "relatively" close? Your twisted grammar notwithstanding, I think arbitrarily declaring that one of the locations of the 'bloop' and the FICTIONAL location of Rlyeh are 'close enough' to warrant mention is an extremely weak argument, and still unsourced and unnotable. Maybe if a Lovecraft-pastiche novel was published linking the two events it might bear a mention, but otherwise it's just silliness on par with "AYBABTU" or lolcats. BoosterBronze (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I like this map to show their relative positions:

Slow down Position: [1]

Bloop Position: [2]

Has it ever happened again?

Because if it's only ever happened once in history that's not really likely to be biological is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It has appeared multiple times during the summer of '97. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.109.104 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh...quite obviously he meant "did it happen again after that year". Since the "bloop" is not just a single thing from one point, but the instance of the "bloop" over that year. 119.11.16.241 (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

No, after '97 it has not been heard. Chrisrus (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Train etc

Has anyone proposed any theories for the other unidentified sounds available on the NOAA website? --71.189.165.175 01:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Chrisrus (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why slowed down?

The article doesn't clarify for the sake of laymen why the sound has to be sped up to be heard. If the original sound is, say, 8 minutes long, and only sounds like a "bloop" when you play it in 30 seconds, why would you assume that it was 30 seconds of animal blooping and not 8 minutes of background noise? Does the oceanic layer it was recorded in dampen the sound waves so that the sound is slower than it should be or something? 174.46.172.13 (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, these clips are provided by NOAA, so they made the choice. However, my best guess at why it's provided in 16x sped up form is: 1) These sounds are very slow "sweeps", and not significantly noticeable when played at 1x speed, and 2) it saves on bandwidth costs. 24.205.42.102 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, "If you want to listen to it in real time you'll need a low-frequency speaker capable of recreating sounds at around 50hz. Play the file at a sampling rate of 2756 Hz to hear the true Bloop sound. -series8217, mar 30, 2008 talk" ----

We should have a variety of speeds, so people with different speakers can hear it as best they can. Then we should just explain that not everyone can hear all of them and why. Chrisrus (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Humans can't hear anything lower than about 20 Hz. Bloop includes that frequency in its upsweep. It would be meaningless and broken to play the sound at its original speed. For the layperson, it is better to hear it at a familiar speed rather than sit there for a minute or two waiting to hear something which is barely perceptible. It would effectively be silence. My hard drive is louder. Anyway, there's a new link now with the original data to listen to. Listen for yourself and see what I mean. :-) Kothog (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

SOSUS

I read something on CNN about Bloop and it mentioned that the sensor system is known as SOSUS. However, this article says something slightly different. I was just hoping someone more knowledgeable about the topic than myself could try to figure this out. 24.136.45.122 19:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SOSUS was the name of the NAVY buoy network the NAVY used. SOSUS was located quite a bit further north than Bloop.. You can see more information about SOSUS here: SOSUS Brief Summary by the NOAA Kothog (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Fox quoted accurately?

Where in this article http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/102ns_001.htm is Dr. Fox paraphrased as saying that the biological hypothesis is reasonable? Chrisrus (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course, yes. My sincere apologies for not being completely clear. The prior note I was trying to improve on was the poorly-written Skeptoid piece which has basically nothing to do with science and itself has poorly-cited sources, when it bothers to cite at all. At one point it instructs the reader to Google for his sources, themselves. Yikes. Anyway, in the Nova linked article, the writer says, "Fox's hunch is that the sound nicknamed Bloop is the most likely to come from some sort of animal, because its signature is a rapid variation in frequency similar to that of sounds known to be made by marine beasts." And therefore does Dr. Fox paraphrased that the biological hypothesis is reasonable. Perhaps embedding the quote itself in the article would be a better way to indicate this rather than what I did. I will note, however, that neither my comment nor the paraphrase itself is a direct quote from Dr. Fox. On the other hand, it is pretty clear: he thinks it's biological. Kothog (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the part you were referring to?:

“….Fox's hunch is that the sound nicknamed Bloop is the most likely to come from some sort of animal, because its signature is a rapid variation in frequency similar to that of sounds known to be made by marine beasts. There's one crucial difference, however: in 1997 Bloop was detected by sensors up to 4800 kilometres apart. That means it must be far louder than any whale noise, or any other animal noise for that matter. Is it even remotely possible that some creature bigger than any whale is lurking in the ocean depths? Or, perhaps more likely, something that is much more efficient at making sound? In my mind, the suggestion of huge ocean creatures raises a vision of giant squid. There are no confirmed sightings of giant squid in the wild, though dead ones have washed up on beaches, and whales sometimes bear telltale sucker-shaped scars. "We don't have a clue whether they make noise or not," says Fox…”

Yes, that is the part I was referring to. However, your other assertion is incomplete. Not only have archeteuthis dux been caught, filmed, and examined live, a new variety of squid called mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni (a.k.a. the colossal squid) has actually been caught and is currently on display in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. The suggestion of huge ocean creatures most likely excludes cephalopods because no cephalopod known has any gas sacs capable of generating such a noise, and we have never measured large squid making such noises. It's not an impossibility, but it is an improbability. Course, everything about the Bloop is an improbability, so I suppose it's not that much of a stretch to imagine such a beast. Kothog (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with a source

This source from CNN [3]. I'm not sure its actually talking about this bloop. including an unidentified "bloop" that crops up from time to time They seem to be talking about a recurring unidentified noise. This article is talking about a specific noise of unknown origin which seems to be during a single summer 4 years before this was written. Its written in such a way to indicate the "bloops" they are referring to are ongoing, not a past incident. I also removed another reference which was word for word copy of a previous one. I'm also clearing out the fictional sea monsters. While jokingly speculated at in the articles it doesn't seem to be any kind of serious consideration by the scientists.--Crossmr (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not completely accurate. When the Director of the National Geophysical Data Center at the NOAA says he has a "hunch" it's an animal, and when the sound was recorded multiple times over the span of at least two summers, and when the original article you apparently excised cites the same Chris Fox at the same NOAA, we can reasonably conclude that it is the same thing, and that it is being seriously considered by real live scientists. Is this not so? Kothog (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Eltanin impact crater and the bloop?

Has anyone looked at this? http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/bt39l/six_creepy_unexplained_audio_recordings_from_the/c0offpx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.197.183 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Audio file description

Who posted the awful .ogg file? Whoever did that doesn't even understand the concept of sampling rate. The .ogg file currently available for this article is a farce. The "chattering" sound is from the sampling algorithm used to "slow down" the sound while retaining the frequency. This is not at all what the bloop sounds like. It sounds like a very low frequency bloop. The description on the NOAA site and the wav file there is CORRECT. If you run a fast Fourier transform analysis on the wave file hosted on the NOAA site, the spectrogram is identical to that shown in the NOAA description besides being 16 times higher in frequency. I will upload a proper version of the file and link the article to it. -series8217, mar 30, 2008 talk

I fixed the file. It is now the 16x version from the NOAA site, simply cropped to the "bloop" sound. If you want to listen to it in real time you'll need a low-frequency speaker capable of recreating sounds at around 50hz. Play the file at a sampling rate of 2756 Hz to hear the true Bloop sound. -series8217, mar 30, 2008 talk

The audio file was described as being 16 times its original speed. This was incorrect; the file hosted here was taken from BloopWatch[4], where it is claimed to be a 16x slower version of that found at the NOAA Vents page[5]. NOAA claims to have increased the speed of the original 16x, so presumably the audio file used in this article is at the original (true) speed, although the pitch has clearly been increased. (I've done my own testing of the original file; when slowed 16x, the resulting "bloop" falls well into subwoofer territory, as the spectrogram suggests. The file here is much higher.)

I have corrected the description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've "uncorrected" the description, since the .ogg file lasts 10 seconds, just like the "16 times sped-up" ones of BloopWatch. The "realtime" ones last 2 minutes 45 seconds. So the .ogg file is sped up. There is no reason to assume that the sound hosted here, before conversion from .wav to .ogg format, was taken from a different source than the reliable one it is claimed to be on its description page, which is the website of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory of the NOAA, and not BloopWatch.  --Lambiam 00:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's original speed and cropped. Will ^(talk) 00:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The more bold the claim, the more compelling the evidence need be. Original speed (16 times slower than the NOAA file) barely registers even on my subwoofer. I doubt sincerely it's original speed. Tar7arus (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you not look at the frequency spectrograph?! It is exactly correct if you slow down the sound by a factor of 16. Run a Fast Fourier Transform on the file (most wave editors should be able to do this, or you can import it into MATLAB and do it there) and look at the frequency power spectrum. Do this at 44100hz and at 2756hz. You will see which it is correct. The high frequency in this file is around the lowest that common subwoofers will reproduce. You need to be able to reproduce sounds which are even outside the human hearing range.. the frequency of the sound is one of the reasons this is so intriguing. An animal would have to be very large to produce the frequency of sound, not just the loudness level. -series8217, mar 30, 2008 talk

I've spent a considerable amount of time analyzing this sound file (and others at NOAA), motivated purely by a personal interest in the subject, only to have some pompous asshat swoop in and, with a barely-interested gesture of his royal scepter, undo my well-founded edit and saunter off with his nose in the air and his kingly robes flowing behind him. Most editors don't have any desire to engage in an edit war, and cranks like Lambiam know it. These people are perfectly happy to lay in the tall grass, monitoring Wiki articles, waiting for an edit to revert. Those of us who are motivated by personal interest alone will never prevail unless we become motivated also by a sense of turf, and are willing to monitor and defend our edits. I am not so motivated. This is why Wikipedia has failed as a serious reference, and will continue to fail unless these Wiki-thugs are reigned in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No original research. If you've spent considerable time on it, get your findings published somewhere and if its important it will likely end up, cited, in the article. 67.160.174.24 (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bloop

I'm not going to pretend like I fully understand this thing, but I came here looking for information, and a good clip I could share with others. The current clip is only 2 seconds long, and, well, it's just crap all around. What am I supposed to say if I shared this: "the clip on the Discovery Channel I heard was pretty cool, here is a really, really crappy 2 second version of it: 'blup-blup-blup'. Yeah, that was it in all it's 2 second glory." Seriously. There's a line of common sense of when an audio clip becomes useless. 66.25.254.123 (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me better clarify that: it wouldn't be so bad that it's so short if the whole file wasn't so short as well; a clip containing the sound's natural "fade-in" and "fade-out" would be much better than the current instantaneously cropped one. 66.25.254.123 (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Need some dates

The article needs some clarification with regard to the dates that the Bloop was recorded in 1997. Some sources that are linked state that it occurred in the "summer of 1997". This is unsatisfactory because some of the sources also state that the Bloop occurred at a latitude of 50 degrees South (it is not good style to use seasonal references from the wrong hemisphere). The sources that are linked appear to be secondary references (New Scientist, CNN and the like) that appear to be quoting the same primary source. What's needed are primary references such as science papers so we can obtain any dates and incorporate them into the article. A good primary reference may also have other information that would allow the article to be expanded. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 11:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, summer for which hemisphere? To address your larger point, I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that no one has written any scientific papers about the Bloop. The closest thing we have to a primary report is the webside of the agency. You are right about what you say, but I don't know what to do about it. Oh well....Chrisrus (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The second recording linked may have a datestamp embedded in the filename itself. 1997253230100. That's either the 25th of March, or the 5th of February. Or something else. Neither time is summer, but then this is a second recording. If 23:01:00 is the timestamp, then it's more likely the 25th of March. Anyway, it's an ambiguous primary source but it is a primary source. The primary article is the David Wolman interview with Dr. Fox. That is as primary as you're going to get without getting something written by Dr. Fox himself, or the people who collected the data. SUMMARY of my point: Two more primary sources: on bloop.rune.ca, and second primary source the David Wolman article. The only mention of 'summer' is on the NOAA, that I can see. Therefore it is likely that it is summer according to the U.S. Kothog (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! Will you be editing the article with this?Chrisrus (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... A few more thoughts: First, February is summer at The Bloop's location. Next, the stamp would have been applied with the date of the computer where it was received, so where was that? Third, you're right, it's as primary as source as could be imagined, because it's part of the referent of the article, a recording of a sound. Finally, why don't we just ask Fox directly? It's worth a try. We can't cite personal communication with him, but we can use it to understand the material we can cite. I've already contacted Dr. Lobel in this way, asking that he clarify his statements on this matter, which seem ambiguous: he can be cited by those who believe it's "probably biological" as well as those who scoff "far to loud for that to be possible". But I don't want to distract you from MY MAIN POINT: You are on to something, Kothog, stay on the trail! Chrisrus (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this sort of analysis belongs in the article proper. The format may have been a stamp of the original listening post or a stamp on some NOAA computer at unload time. I'm leery of pestering for more information, but perhaps I do have some goodwill (fulfillment of an I'm-not-a-quack promise) I could trade on. I'll pester them for more information. I do not think Dr. Lobel's comments are contradictory, for what it's worth..! Kothog (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd Article

Some of the wording in this article is ambiguous or incomplete; it would be nice for the original author to go back and do a re-edit. For instance, this is from the article: "The Bloop, although it sounded like a blue whale, originated 4,800 km away, seemingly ruling out any known marine animal."

4,800 km away from what? I can only assume they meant the sensors that recorded the sound. Why does it rule out any known marine animal? Is it too deep? Too far from shore? Or does it mean that because the sound was so loud from so far away, it must have been something bigger than any known animal? I can only assume. This is an extremely ambiguous statement.

Some of the question about the trivia section discussed above would have been answered as well if it was mentioned WHY this is significant. Of course, as is stated in the discussion above, probably every single location on earth has been mentioned in a book somewhere before.

But how many books have mentioned a specific longitudinal location of an ancient sleeping sea monster, and then, in real life, a mysterious noise is recorded underwater, which some scientists speculate may be from a huge animal, very close to the same position named in the book? I think that's very relevant. It should have been explained in the article.

It can't be explained. Aside from the proximity, it's pure coincidence. Honestly.. the Lovecraft work was fiction. So either some sneaky Sub guy was pulling our collective legs, or it was a colossal (no pun intended) coincidence. :-) Kothog (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

50 S 100 W compared to 47 S 126 W: approx. 1000 nautical miles apart, i.e nowhere near, not "very close" (roughly 2000 Kilometers distant). It is as remarkable a coincidence as someone writing about strange lights in the sky over the southern tip of Italy and then something unexplainable being recorded over London a few generations later. Put a 2000km wide circle on the globe and you're bound to find something to 'tally up' in the covered area, especially if you add several decades either way as an extra dimension, and then include works of fiction as another. 81.178.114.172 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are by the numbers correct. Modified article accordingly, for improved accuracy. However, this is the ocean we're talking about. From the human, surface perspective, this still isn't that far off. What other nearby points of interest even exist down there? LOL. Kothog (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, 50 S, 100 W this was heard from. What a coincidence. How deep is the ocean at that spot? I'll bet you that nobody has ever explored the ocean at that depth, which may lead me to believe that there IS, in fact, something down there we don't even know that exists. Either this thing is a GIGANTIC, life form that can adapt to VERY cold water, a tiny creature that can emit very low pitched sounds, some sort of event that is triggered by something in the earth, the ruins of a lost city, or simply something we just don't know.--71.253.97.210 02:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is unexplained, nothing more. No reason to fantasize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.217.86 (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think inclusion of the Lovecraft trivia is irrelevant on it's own, but if there are any mathematicians out there I would like to know the odds of a fictional monster and a unidentified noise from a organism no one can identify (confirmed by scientists and governments) existing roughly 100 miles apart from each other.

separating bloop from fiction

Thanks for your recent edits. The only thing I wanted to say is that we don't have to say so much about the story, only that it was a place he described where a giant sea monster lives or awakens or whatever. Like, for example, do we need the name of the place, or is that a detail they can get at the link?

Thanks again! Chrisrus (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hrm. Conciseness is probably a better thing because there are in fact so few facts about it. Strange how pared-down this one has become compared to the massive expounding done on far less in other articles. It's tough to convey why it is that the story actually relates to the Bloop without giving a short synopsis of Cthulhu-the-monster. I try not to assume everyone has read it. I think, given the massive attention and linkages that people have made regarding the two, a bit extra (especially compared with the other questionable pieces) might have been helpful. Kothog (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

More pages for different unidentified marine sounds?

On the NOAA website, they've got a few more sounds that don't have a page. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to create pages for these? Valadar917 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do! Why not? Chrisrus (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

i think it would be a good idea the one titled Trane and the one titled Julia are really interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.193.182 (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comet Hale-Bopp and Bloop

Is it possible that, if Bloop is indeed animal in origin, that it was affected by the "Great Comet of 1997" Hale-Bopp? On March 22, 1997 the comet made it's closest approach to Earth. Does exist a recorded correlation between this comet's approaching and other animal behaviour? Maybe Bloop was in some kind of sleeping state for thousands if not millions of years and the comet somehow affected it's senses, waked it up for a while and in the end it fell asleep again. Or the animal lives so deep in the ocean that it never was heard before and it was allured by the comet's approach. I really think there could be a coherence of some sort between Bloop and Hale-Bopp. Both 1997, both at the same time... Anon 02:17 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.221.249 (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What are the dates on which The Bloop was recorded? Chrisrus (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it was in June 1997. Hale-Bopp was seen best on April 1, 1997. But it was still visible in December 1997. Anon 02:34 GMT +1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.221.249 (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it is stated above that Bloop was maybe heard on March 25, 1997. There is a section here about dates. Hale-Bopp had its closest approach to Earth on March 22, 1997 and it passed perihelion on April 1, 1997. That is very intersting. Anon 02:59 GMT +1

If you have found the dates of The Bloop and can cite it properly, please add it to the article. All we have it "several times". Where did you get this date, "March 22, 1997"? Chrisrus (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I got March 22, 1997 from the Hale-Bopp Wikipedia entry. Well, it was never really clarified by NOAA when Bloop was heard. They said summer 1997 but above it is speculated it was on March 25, 1997. I am new to Wikipedia. Could you please add it, if it can be added? Anon 03:11 GMT +1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.221.249 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. Please see the article on rationality. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cloverfield Reference

I removed the reference to Cloverfield ages ago due to a lack of cites. In that case, it was a viral "game" that was never actually identified. I've been to the slusho.jp website and I see no reference to Bloop; nor in any of the other links returned by googling for "cloverfield bloop". Just lots of people speculating.

Rather than consuming inordinate additional amounts of my time looking for a reference for you, I instead thought that perhaps you could track down specifically where you read the link, and its importance, and re-add your modification with references? Thanks potential super awesome editor whose edit duplicates a removed item from two years ago! Kothog (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a lot more to the slusho thing than you seem to know. I can't find the stuff now, but a quick look for "Cloverfield viral marketing" or "Cloverfield arg" should tell you it. 24.154.119.139 (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's all self-referencing now unless you can find the untanglement.. as for me, after staring at the Slusho for a half-hour and searching through all the links I could Google, the convoluted nature of it escapes my patience to unwind it. :-) Please do consider completing the task and enlightening us.. Kothog (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture

You want to know why critics say Wikipedia gives too much weight on popular culture? Articles like this. Who gives a damn if it's in a few novels? Who cares about the correlation between Cthulhu and the Bloop? I would really like to just completely remove the popular culture section.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 21:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your point of view, but the Bloop itself really isn't a very significant thing. Notice, for example, that only one of the other sounds has an article. So the way I see it, one of the most significant things about it lies in the fact that it has inspired so many fiction writers to feature it in their novels and such, while the Cthulhu stuff and such make it notable for having been the subject of so much interest and wild speculation. Many readers hear about the bloop on someone's blog or some such and come here to get the facts. For example, they can find out that, the truth is, the Cthulhu location is really no where near the bloop location. It therefore serves the reader and the cause of rational skepticism to let them know that there is nothing to such nonsense. I therefore hope that this information not only not be deleted but in fact further edited for improvement, such as giving this information proper weight and further clarification. Be WP:BOLD! Chrisrus (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand. I actually want to research this further, I'd rather know about the sound itself. But thanks!--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 22:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is another entire section about this on this discussion page, and I believe it is referencing work you contributed a while ago; a tag to convert the section to prose rather than keep it in list form. My opinion about Pop Culture references is that a proportional number of them can provide additional appeal to the article, differentiating it from dry works like Britannica. We can go pure scholar, or we can acknowledge that the majority of people who reference pages (especially this one) are not scholars and give them some authoritative clarification, much as Chrisrus implies in his response. For the fact that a huge proportion of other WP articles contain Pop Culture references, and for this, and the reasons I stated (at great length) in the above original Pop Culture section, I am reinstating the extremely short and unobtrusive list of Pop Culture references the next time I reverify this article unless there is an objection. Kothog (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Paranormal and Cryptozoology tag removal

How does the Bloop fall under either the cryptozoology tag, let alone the paranormal tag? Absent cogent argument to the contrary, I will take the unusual (for me) step of going beyond my usually-contemplated minor edits and remove these tags myself. To push it into the realm of pseudoscientific study is to push this otherwise fascinating little mystery into the realm of bigfoot and the loch ness monster, the "evidence" for which is indistinct melted footprints in the snow, endless streams of faked videos, and claims and sightings that have no substance to them whatsoever. I refuse to allow this beautiful little mystery to be co-opted by such categorisations. If we allow it to be so, no scientist worth his salt will bother answering any queries, let alone actually devoting useful thought to it. Then we'll never get a bloody answer! Kothog (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, folks. I appreciate it. Tags removed. Kothog (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I ENTIRELY dissagre. Cryptozoology is not merely "ndistinct melted footprints in the snow, endless streams of faked videos, and claims and sightings that have no substance to them whatsoever". Cryptozoology does and has contributed greatly to out undertsanding of zoology before, with the discovery of species and fossils previously thought to be myth. Honestly, what seems more strange, the duck billed platipus, or a homind/primate living in north america?

Also Based on dr. fox's quote in the section above, it DOES link to cryptozoology.

I would also like to point out that both of us seem to have a bias here, based on the way you worded the above, and I will freely admit that I have a bias for cyptozoology. Regardless, your assumption that "no scientist worth his salt" would belive in cryptozoology is close minded, overly skeptical.

However, the paranormal tag should be removed. There is a difference between a unknown phenomena, animals yet to be discovered, and the supernatural. I am going to add the cryptozoology tag back, because regardless of my our your feelings on the matter, dr. fox's quote still relates the two subjects. I apoligize if this goes aganist any polcies, I normally also keep my contributions to minor edits.24.154.119.139 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between cryptids and Bloop. Cryptids have zero credible, accepted evidence that supports their existences. That's why they're called cryptids: Bloop on the other hand is an underwater noise which was recorded by the NOAA, the evidence for which is undisputed. Nobody disputes that the NOAA underwater buoys recorded a noise. Therefore, there is no controversy: the evidence itself is accepted. By Eberhart's classification, Bloop does not therefore fall under the cryptid label. Also, classifying it as a cryptid removes it from serious consideration for professional scientists. What reputable scientist do you know would go looking for Bigfoot? We should draw the line here: Bloop is simply a noise, the source of which deserves further study. Kothog (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bloop Sound File

The sound file attached to this article in no way sounds like the bloop as heard to the naked ears. It indicates that it is sped up 16x, and thus is of no scientific, let alone encyclopedic purpose. The original can be heard all over the web and DOES sound like a bloop. The ongoing latter noise isn't of as much interest. 121.217.175.69 (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Agreed. How do we fix it? Chrisrus (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There now. I rebuilt the OGG from the original NOAA sample, uploaded it to Wikimedia (irritating to use that site for the first time, no wonder it took this long) and fixed it. Kothog (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Note however, as Kothog has said in the uploaded file and the NOAA website mentions, the original has in fact been speed up 16 times. I'm guessing this is the version 121 is referring to above that's all over the web. I'm not sure what's up with this file File:Bloop.ogg but from the sound of it, I'm guessing it was slowed down to the proper speed and some of the extra sound at the end and possibly beginning cut off even though this was note noted in the text (which in fact suggests it's still sped up). Actually there's some discussion Commons:File talk:Bloop.ogg. It seems not only was the sound slowed down without it being noted, it was slowed down incorrectly. Actually I see [6] and the edit history of the description. It was correctly noted but when the file was reverted the description was not. Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So here's the whole deal. The NOAA recorded a noise that human ears can't perceive. It was in the 10+hz range. Human ears can't hear that. So, the NOAA sped it up so humans can hear it. That is the 16x original WAV on the NOAA. This sped-up file has lost basically all of its original detail. 15/16 samples are basically discarded or averaged together, plus or minus some sound filters. Then, years and years later, the NOAA released a RAW sound file that hadn't been sped up, and that's the file on rune.ca. It's not clear if that is a different one, or the same one that the NOAA processed and sped up. EVERYTHING ELSE, including the .ogg I uploaded, is a derivative. There's no point in the other Bloop.ogg. Slowing it down is pointless and you're just listening to bad sound software audio artifacts.. like fuzz on an MP3. If you want to "hear" the real noise as near as possible, try listening to the one on rune.ca. For all future seekers who want to try to "hear" it, many headphones and speakers can't even reproduce it. The best you can hope for is a HiFi stereo and putting your hand on it at the right time to feel the vibrations.. Kothog (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Gee, that's too bad. I think most users are bound to be as disappointed. But thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 05:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dates

I'm beginning to dispair that we will ever find the exact dates of the Bloop. Surely the experts have this information, but it apparantly never occurred to the authors of these articles to ask them exactly when it happened, of if they did, they didn't see fit to include it. Maybe one day someone will publish a better article and we'll be able to add them. Any thoughts/suggestions? Chrisrus (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

E5150

I listened E5150 and noticed that on 1:02, 1:05 and 1:08 there is a resembling sound, probably made with an electric guitar. Nikolas Ojala (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely not this. Kothog (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Metal fatigue.

The sound is very similar to metal fatigue - a sunken ship (ironclad, maybe an early steel frigate) being moved around by the currents. However, there are a couple of "knocks" after the second bloop which could be indicative of a couple of boulders moving; which mechanism did this, I would not like to speculate.Angry Mustelid (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We know the rough area this happened in, shouldn't there be records of metal ships that sunk in that area? I was also thinking if we knew which ones we could go back and study metallurgyurgy of them, and more specifically the audio properties of those types of metal breaking apart? (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We know where it was detected. The unfortunate thing is that very-low frequency sounds can travel very long distances with very little degradation (think whale song) so the search area could be within a thousand (or more) square miles of the given location. That would include Cape Horn which is well known for it's harsh sailing conditions and may include hundreds of shipwrecks - of differing types - so narrowing it down would be difficult.Angry Mustelid (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this article would better serve the reader if it were clearer that the sound was much, much louder than the sound of a sunken ship settling or some such. It should compare the db's to something of comparable loudness, such as a massive explosion. Chrisrus (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely not metal fatigue. Kothog (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What size creature are we talking about?

The creature believed to be responsible for this noise is said to be larger than any living whale, but just how much bigger are we talking? 2 times bigger, 3 times bigger?

Big enough to be the final boss in a video game!

--71.131.251.244 07:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that´s big...--Threedots dead 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I hear it'd also have power ratings of over nine thousand :O Wardrich (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a gigantic crustacean with a hostile attitude! Flip it over its back and attack its weak point for MAXIMUM DAMAGE!!! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Think Cthulhu big. In order to create sounds such as this, the monstrosity would have to be about that size. If you do not know what/whom Cthulhu is, the phrase "A mountain walked, or stumbled" sums up the creature's size. High Deity (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate and unfounded extrapolation with very little, or at best a shakey logical foundation. If you're even serious. Kothog (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

About one and a half times the size of a blue whale. I found here: http://www.dearbluelobster.com/2008/01/bloop-crustacean-phenomenon.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbbeto (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just Devil doing a bass solo :) 91.153.228.113 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Blue Whale can be heard 500 miles away. The Bloop was heard 5000 miles away. Go figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.204.26 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

According to that if we consider that it is a mass equivalent analogy, it must weight about 1 million kilograms and it's length should be at about 60 meters. The mass analogy is directly related to its volume (geometric increase) and length analogy is numerical progress. Btw I really suck in maths so instead of doing calculations I just made an intuitional comparison of a large minke (10 meters, 10 tonnes) to an average blue whale (25 meters, 100 tonnes). Math experts do not devour my soul please!--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you can't just just multiplie it. There's only a variety fo size you probably could define. It is not just one scale named "big animal = loud noise". There are several things that influence all this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.227.241 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be that a blue whale call was amplified by something, but i have no idea of how sound works underwater. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cthulhu

Would it be unencyclopediac to put a big red box on the article which states, "Yes, we KNOW about C'thulu. Don't add it." ?

In all seriousness, does this count as vandalism that can merit long-term semi-protection? This article is unlikely to grow much, and I'm eventually going to expand it--there are more sources, and its on my to-do list on my user page. But the C'thulu thing is just nonsense. Lawrence Cohen 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cthulu thing is retarded. The supposed relationship between Cthulu and the Bloop is far from encyclopedic. If its just a coincidence, don't add it. If H.P. Lovecraft meant for Cthulu and the Bloop to be connected, then there's a slight chance we could put it in. But for right now, I think its safe to assume its a coincidence. Besides, the supposed location of Cthulu is prettu far away from the Bloop, atleast from the information on the previous revisions that I've seen.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the sound was heard on multiple sensors that were over 4300km apart, a 2000km or so difference in location(when the 'roughly 50 S 100 W' is obviously a very vague guess) really isn't that large. Also, I severely doubt a dead man could have 'meant' for Cthulhu to be related to a noise that occured long after he died. 71.102.31.14 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely agree with you except for the distance thing, and yeah, it is a very vague guess. That's why I oppose the mention of that in this article.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 23:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty stupid. But enough people keep ramming it in that I'm still going to search for sources when I have time, just to satiate my own curiosity if nothing else. :) Lawrence Cohen 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was obviously either Cthulhu or Cloverfield. Or a battle between them. --NEMT (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sticking the "Life Is Full Of Possibilities" reference back in. It was last seen in the Nov 16 07 revision. How do we cite to a recorded media source that isn't on the 'net? One Mississippi (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it wasn't REALLY Cthulhu, but the correspondence is better than the distance given above makes it sound. R'lyeh was an entire continent, or at least a very, very large island.Vultur (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I do find it bizzairy amusing that C'thulu is the only explanation ;) 81.79.210.120 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your right, of course, but it is a big part of why this article is here at all. I mean, why is some random noise like this notable enough to have an article? Most of the others don't. The fact that this has captured the imagination of so many people is such a big part of it's notablity that, if wild specuation didn't happen, this article might never have been written. Chrisrus (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the superficial connection to the Cthulu mythos in popular perception, a random noise bringing up the implication of an animal by far larger to anything we have ever known or even thought possible is pretty intriguing in its own right.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war

While you're right about what scientists PROBABLY think, you're just saying so yourself without citing anything. The truth is, there are several citable ways to clarify for the reader that it couldn't have been biological, though it doesn't sound like an earthquake or a volcano or any such known thing.

First, it's way too loud. There is no way any living thing could make such a loud sound. It'd have to have been many times bigger than the biggest known animal, so it couldn't have been an animal.

Second, it only happened in one year. No animal makes a sound only one year and then never makes the sound again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magicicada. Your argument is invalid. Also coincidentally cicadas happen to be the loudest invertebrates known to man.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Individual cicada's may make a sound once and never again, but as a species they make the sound repeatedly. Chrisrus (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

From the article: Magicicada spp. spend most of their 13- and 17- year lives underground feeding on xylem fluids from the roots of deciduous forest trees in the eastern United States25. After 13 or 17 years, mature cicada nymphs emerge at any given locality, synchronously and in tremendous numbers. After such a prolonged developmental phase, the adults are active for about 4 to 6 weeks26. The males aggregate into chorus centers and attract females for mating. Within two months of the original emergence, the life cycle is complete, the eggs have been laid and the adult cicadas are gone for another 13 or 17 years.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And then they come out and make the sound again, over and over. Chrisrus (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We know it wasn't an earthquake or volcano nor an animal. We don't know what it was, but I've heard speculation that it might have been some kind of chemical reaction that released a lot of gas, like that lake in Africa that turned over that one time.

The point is, we don't know what it was, but we know what it wasn't. And one of the things it couldn't have been is an animal. We have enough citable material to write it this way. But you can't just write in words to the effect of "the only people who beleive that are cryptozoologists, not real sientists" when that's you talking, no source we have says that. I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I sympathize, but you're going about it the wrong way. Chrisrus (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/13/bloop/ this artical says a marine biologist at Boston University thinks the sound is probably biological in origin88.97.6.98 (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• To reiterate, Dr. Fox of the NOAA himself has a "hunch" it's animal in origin. Dr. Fox is not a cryptozoologist.. It is unscientific to state flatly (in this case) that the Bloop is not animal in origin. I mean you can state flatly, "My breakfast table didn't eat me this morning," and be certain enough in your statement and your presence that you are correct. Plus the fact you're in front of other people is proof enough it didn't happen. But in this case? We don't know what it is, but actual scientists keep saying it's probably biological. Use a little creativity: how could it be biological in origin but as loud as it was? Some kind of echo chamber effect at the deep sound channel? You simply can't say it wasn't animal in origin. Kothog (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Secondary Unnecessary In Popular Culture Section Justification

it is the WP:BURDEN of the person adding or returning content to provide reliable sources. in addition, WP:TRIVIA sections are discouraged particularly when based solely on Wikipedia editors "Lookey lookey I seen it here" collection of primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There is also a burden on the one deleting content which has been carefully organized, discussed at great length, in multiple edits, to participate in the rationale for why the material was included originally, and not make arbitrary decisions to remove material which has already been carefully modelled after Wikipedia's own well-edited articles, which have also been linked and (apparently incorrectly) sourced in said discussions. Please stop removing the material, you are being arbitrary and are neglecting the huge discussion that resulted in the inclusion of the material you deleted. I have added the Trivia tag for now, but don't just axe it again when you've already been specifically asked to address the points in the discussion page before doing so. This is not a case of "perfection by removing everything that can be removed." Specifically, see Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Substantive_changes before removing the material again. In other words, you have not achieved consensus of the primary editors who have taken ownership and responsibility for this Wikipedia article... give us a chance to clean up the section before turning this article into a dry boring repository of rote facts. Please see Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content which has been referenced before in this discussion page. I'd like to request you leave the material in there while I build proper book-form references. Kothog (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the hot-headed response. I have corrected the more objectionable language.. Kothog (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

it is the simple removal of non and poorly sourced non-encyclopedic TRIVIA- not substantive changes. It is the WP:BURDEN of those adding or returning content to provide sufficient sourcing and show encyclopedic value. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Standard policy in the face of objection is to achieve consensus, and be civil. In the face of a large preceding discussion, and pointer to said discussion, it's uncivil to ignore it and insist that a section which mostly satisfies the In Popular Culture sections as described in WP policies I already linked, should be eliminated.. it was carefully (but admittedly badly sourced) edited and refined over a span of many years, and it is uncivil to use terms like "lookey lookey." At the very least, I will expand the Cthulhu reference into its own section. A Google search shows that an enormous number of references and articles form a link between the two. We must provide an authoritative pointer to truth in the face of all the silliness, So no, it is not just a simple removal. Unless you would like to take responsibility for this article and watch it for the next 5-10 years, in addition to performing externally published research to recover and publish actual data, your job isn't to kick over our sand castle. Please provide suggestions to coach us into conformity with WP policy and tell us how to get the section into conformance: we're happy to do the work. You don't need to. Kothog (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible Search

It seems to me that a rational thought towards investigating this, especially since it was heard several times in a local area, would be to possibly send something to search the area? Did no one send anyone or anything to the place to see if they could find anything? Has the area been searched since then?

As for being an animal or something, I don't know. You'd think we'd have heard it again, it has been almost a decade. Whatever it was, and assuming it hasn't been repeated or anything, we can assume it was some special event that hasn't occured since, or before(or at least in the past of the sensors involved).

Besides, the scientists only had a rough estimate of where something might be. Based upon this they would have to find the appropriate funding for an expedition, which would be almost impossible. On top of that, the ocean is, as you know, enormous. The chances of coming across something, even if it´s bigger than a blue-whale, are slim at best.--Threedots dead 15:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, funding for such an expedition would be almost impossible to secure unless there was some certainty of a result. At this point it would take some less controversial evidence at the very least. As stated above we haven't heard anything on it recently that would indicate the sound was picked up before or since. Perhaps if the sound itself could be picked up again, or for a longer period of time the capital could be allocated for such a venture. As it stands right now, i think it would take either an eccentric billionare or a combined effort of people like us to launch an investigation. A shame really, this is one of those mysteries that drives me crazy. That being said I'm somewhat torn on whether or not we should actually go looking for this thing. If it is as big as it's believed to be and located in such a remote part of the ocean it might be a better idea to let sleeping monsters lie....so to speak. --Ravynsvoid (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Better? BETTER? No, nevah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.247.239 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

there could be another source (i think) for the bloop and the other sounds: Explosions on the other side of the earth. in 1997 and 1998 there where several "tests" for researching the crust and upper mantle of the earth in eastern Kazakhstan at the nuclear test site @ 49°55'N 79'°04' E what is allmost (around 67 km away) on the opposite side of the bloop ... maybe someone could get some data and compare them. source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/fhkc85dcxuup9hmh/ -- MG127 178.25.176.40 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gas bubble?

I've listened to the Bloop recording and it hardly resembles a biological sound. In fact, it sounds like a very large air-bubble escaping its former confines. I've seen some recent Scientific studies on The Science Channel that energy companies are researching alternative energy sources (Methane) and that some of these sources could derive from the ocean floor. So, it would be possible to build a theory that these noises are gigantic methane burps eminating from the Earth's crust. --Bourbon King 20:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Bourbon King--Bourbon King 20:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that scientist are very aware of gas rising from the bottom of the ocean. The sound file that has been made available has been speeded up also, and I think scientist have an idea of what makes that sound biological and they base their assumptions on some other information concerning oceanic life. The sound could be from bubbles, but perhaps bubbles caused by an animal. And I think Wikipedia is no place to build up new theories about the phenomeon but to inform about existing theories.

Oh, it does sound a bit like a bubble. But keep in mind that the various recordings you'll find on the net are sped up at least 16x. I've heard a slower version, and it doesn't sound like anything at all. Remember, these are very low frequency recordings. Radix 15:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, on the NOAA link, it says that the recording was sped up.

I'm fairly cetain that scientists may have considered the revolutionary "maybe it's a bubble?" theory. So on one hand we hand we have presumably well-funded and educated specialists with experience in the field and the correct instruments, and on the other we have some guy who downloaded a sound file from the net. Ummmm.... (Falcore)

Geez! Guy has an idea and you jump all over him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.174.24 (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As of today, these well-funded and (supposedly) well-educated specialists haven't drawn to any conclusions, as the article points out they are OPEN to any suggestions which tells me that anybody's guess is as good as their well-funded ones. That hardly merits them as "gifted" in my book. LOL ---

"Anybody's guess is as good as their well-funded ones." Wrong! These people know more about what's going on down there than a random "anybody." They're aware it IS something different, but just because they don't have a clue of what it could possibly be it doesn't mean their opinions are as valid as any other. You can't try to make a grand unified theory if you don't know anything of physics, and just because physicists are battling to find one for years it doesn't mean theirs are just as good as yours would be. So, a good theory is backed up with data and knowledge, and these people have it, so their theories are better. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 05:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From reading the article there's hardly much of a theory listed, nor explained in the provided links. All they say is that it's bigger than any living whale, but not how much bigger. Sounds pretty vague at best, not really a theory.--71.131.251.244 07:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not bigger; just louder. Kothog (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

When I listened to the sound my thought was precisely "Why don't they think this is a massive gas pocket escaping?" (played back at 16x) While our theories may be less valuable than those of NOAA, I still think this is a question worth having an answer to. —Darxus (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Furthur Trivia Section

I'm removing the Furthur Trivia section, which states "The geographic coordinates of the sound were, interestingly, somewhat close to those of the lost city of R'lyeh from H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu stories." To me, this is completely errelevant, as there are millions of fictional works, and probably every coordinate on Earth has been described in at least one of them. MickeyK 22:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can definitely see your point, but it does seem relevant to some people (v. the dedicated Bloop page) so I think it's worth mentioning, especially as mere trivia. I've changed the wording somewhat, if that helps. Lusanaherandraton 04:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

They're really not that close, though... 82.166.53.176 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please leave it. That made me so happy I could plotz. (On the other hand, just how close was it? That'd be good to know.) --Masamage 04:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorta goes along with the article because Cthulhu is supposed to be very, very large. 69.255.21.213 01:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There are millions of fictional works, but this is Lovecraft we are talking about. Plus its kind of a fun bit of trivia. 58.7.0.146 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, hi. Not sure if I'm doing this right. First time contributing, I'll get an account later. Anyway, since it was asked, I checked my copy of the 'Call of Cthulhu' story (from 'The Best of H.P. Lovecraft', 1982 Ballantine Books). The exact quote is 'and in S. Latitude 47[degrees] 9', W. Longitude 126 [degrees] 43', come upon a coastline...' Not knowing much about geography, I have no idea how close that is to the bloop.

Thanks! That's very useful.

50 S 100 W compared to 47 S 126 W? *researches nautical miles about* Well, that's a small but countable number of miles/kilometers off. But then, how big is R'lyeh? :)

Since the subject matter is so mysterious, it's fun to know stuff like this. It would be worth working out exactly how far off the signal is, though, and putting that instead of 'somewhat close'. Much more informative. --Masamage 02:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that he died in 1937, I'd say he was pretty close! Kamikaze Highlander 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The monolith-esque city of R'lyeh was large enough to house Cthulhu and many other minions and star-kin. I believe it would be quite the site, had it existed. (For enthusiasts as myself, I hope against hope in favor of its reality) High Deity (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

R'lyeh is BIG. It's said that the "city" that is seen in the story is only a tiny portion of it: "I suppose that only a single mountain-top, the hideous monolith-crowned citadel whereon great Cthulhu was buried, actually emerged from the waters." So, at least a really large island, and in "At the Mountains of Madness", it's implied to be an entire continent: "all the lands of the Pacific sank". Vultur (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Lovecraft wrote before 1997, when the Bloop was found, Rlyeh isn't a popular culture reference.--72.91.100.116 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The pop-culture is the urban legend about the Lovecraft book. APL (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The link is stated here: [BloopWatch] People are coming up with this on their own, without reference to the Wikipedia article. Beyond that, in the history of this talk page and of the original, you can see people editing into the article references to Cthulhu. It appears it's entered the popular imagination.. Kothog (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

request for comment

Does the Bloop#In_popular_culture section contain content that is appropriately sourced and properly encyclopedic in nature?

comments

• The content is not encyclopedic nor properly sourced. Three of the items The Loch , Fluke, or, I Know Why the Winged Whale Sings, The Swarm, are sourced solely to the primary sources in which they appear and contain no encyclopedic content other than a Wikipedia editor saying "Lookey lookey! they have the Bloop in here!!!!!!!!!!" The other item is sourced to a blog and a potentially reliable source, but the only content in the potentially reliable source is merely "Some Lovecraft fans suggest the noise comes from Cthulhu," - non encyclopedic content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

in addition the "bloop" in The Loch is in the Sargasso Sea and not in the Pacific, so it may be about "a bloop" but not about THIS "bloop". and in the extremely long plot description of The Swarm it does not even mention the Bloop in the plot so it cannot be very important to the book. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Its poorly-sourced form is not under dispute. The information itself is encyclopedic for some entries because it is such a widely-spread and widely-noted fact. The book references might appropriately be axed. Please wait before unilaterally destroying part of the effort of > 5 years again until we have a chance to either correct the section to meet the guidelines of WP "In Popular Culture" including proper book references or transform the Cthulhu explanation to its own section or linked subarticle. Kothog (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

so you just want another 5 years to find sources? -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that everything is always about service to the reader. That is all. As I see it, the fact that the Bloop has inspired so many novels and such is probably the most significant thing there is about it and therefore one of the most important things there is to tell them about it. Other than it's effect on popular culture, there really isn't anything notable about the Bloop. It's a pretty dull, obscure, and meaningless thing that doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything important. What makes the Bloop worthy of our readers' attention is the fact that it has caught the imagination of so many notable people. Otherwise, without a popular culture section, it might not even pass notablity guidelines.

Having said that, it's also equally important for our readers to come away from this article with the knowledge that these fantasies are just that; people's imaginations running wild; and that there are so many more plausible explanations than magic dragons or whatnot that are far more reasonable if mundane explanations for the sound. The problem is how we present it.

As far as the sourcing goes, if we just say with blue links to well-cited articles Shfamous McNovelist wrote the wildly popular novel The Mysterious Bloop in which the bloop is imagined as a giant sea gerbil, with real blue links we can check, then that's enough. Because if there is any doubt, we can just click on the blue links and if there is sufficient WP:RS citation there, we don't necessarily have to repeat those citations here. If those blue links all prove to be real novels and such by authors notable enough to have extensive articles on Wikipeida about them and so on; if our sentence here is a fair summary of the article there, let's keep it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

as far as sourcing goes, each article does need to have the sources on that particular page. WP:CIRCULAR (sources that may at one point exist in another article may be removed/replaced/the linked article may end up being deleted - the sources need to be documented here.)-- The Red Pen of Doom 06:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

as far as its importance via cultural impact, that analysis requires backing by third party sources and not just your opinion WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not reverting anything that checks out via by blue linking. If it bothers you, your're not wrong to delete, technically, but I'd only recommend trying to transfer those citations from the linked article to this one. That would be preferable to deletion, but you're right, those are the rules and so I won't be able to stop you. But also, I wanted to say before, the Cthulu thing is the reason many readers can be expected to end up here. Such readers would be served by learning that there isn't really anything to it because, just to name one reason, the coordinates are not, as is so often repeated in the blogosphere, anywhere near each other. It's an oft-repeated falsehood that Lovecraft gave the coordinates of Cthulu in his book and it turned out that the Bloop was in that same place. We can serve such readers by debunking that idea; they're nowhere near each other other than both being in the souththern ocean. Then this article will have helped readers to understand the truth vs the rumors and the readers will have been well served. Chrisrus (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not original research to add to an article about, oh, I donno, the star-nose mole, that a famous poem by Robert Famouspoet was titled Ode to a Starnose Mole. That's just adding notable facts about the mole to the article. It's normal here on Wikipedia, I'm sure you've noticed. I don't know if the article about the Indian Mongoose metions Rikki Tikki Tavi, but if it doesn't it should and if it does it's not "original research". How is it original research? Bleh. Chrisrus (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN - it is original research to place items in an article to imply conclusions not specifically made in the original source. so if you are placing a list of "books inspired by the bloop" to show that "the most interesting thing about the bloop is its inspiration of ideas", you are indeed violating WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. So you are arguing that all "In Popular Culture" sections in all articles in Wikipedia may be removed on WP:SYN grounds? Not just the one in this article? Or is this "in popular culture" section different from the rest in some way? Chrisrus (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, most of the "In popular culture" sections do not meet the threshold of appropriately sourced encyclopedic content, they are generally just lists of trivia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You say "...most of ...", which implies that there are some that do not. Why does this one fall into the former category? You seem to have anticipated this question when you said what you did about lists of trivia. But The Bloop is a pretty trivial thing, is it not, just in and of itself? If ever there was an article that needed an "in popular culture" section, wouldn't it be this one, if only to meet notablity standards? Chrisrus (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This falls into the "not" because there is no context/third party analysis to show anything about the impact in/upon popular culutre, other than "here it is". see Wikipedia:Popular_culture#Good_and_bad_popular_culture_references.

And your premise "If ever there was an article that needed an 'in popular culture' section, wouldn't it be this one, if only to meet notablity standards" is a little bit backwards. The coverage about the topic* in third party reliable sources determines notability. If the coverage about the topic* in secondary sources is about how the bloop has impacted popular culture, then those sources about how the bloop impacted are indeed valued in determining notability. But notability isnt determined backwards.

• and I want to be clear that what i would be looking for is someone talking about how the bloop has appeared in popular culture and not just a primary source of a script with "Mary the Marine Biologist heard the Bloop and couldnt believe her ears". So it would be a movie review that says "This is yet another marine disaster movie where Mary the Marine biologist hears the Bloop and goes to track down the anomoly. And what is it this time? A herring with gas." -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point I want to clarify that I didn't create, add to, or edit any of the section in question. I'm just saying that the section serves the reader and is not sythesis to find and transfer such facts about the bloop to the article.

Separately, the grounds you mention from WP:Popular culture, which has nothing to do with WP:SYN, it's a completely different reason and you shouldn't conflate the two.

So, do you agree that Rikki Tikki Tavi should be on the article Mongoose, for example? That article doesn't quote some paper by the Oxford Dean of Literature and Cultural Anthropology or some such on the importance of the mongoose in popular culture or some such as you describe, none of that is in the article Mongoose. It just says "here, this is a fact: this important notable story by an important author about a mongoose exists: you the reader may do with that information what you may or ignore it.

This kind of essay you describe as your criteria for a popular culture section or item, something from an anthropologist on the role of the referent in popular culture, does not seem to be found that I can see at WP:popular culture. Maybe you should not be arguing this case here, but at WP:Popular culture, that this criteria you are "looking for" be adopted into the guidelines clearly, as it doesn't seem to be there now. As of the moment, that's not a criteria that we use on Wikipedia in any of very many articles I can see. People on all sorts of articles just inform about the existence and describe notable works of fiction and such that feature the referent of the article in a prominent way. You could specifically show me how the WP:IPCEXAMPLES support this section's deletion on "trivia" grounds, and still win the day and I will allow you to delete the section, but as yet your argument and the criteria described by WP:IPCEXAMPLES differ as I read them.Chrisrus (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

the fact that a lot of other wikipedia articles currently suck is not a very good reason to allow another one to remain in bad condition. If you are able to find articles that passed the Good Article or Featured Article status that have "In popular culture" sections that just consist of lists of movies where someone mentioned them, you would have an argument I would consider.

Re mongoose. No I dont think it is an improvement of the mongoose article to add an "In popular culture" section that consists solely of "Riki tiki tavi had a mongoose in it." However, I bet it would be easy to find secondary sources that discuss how the mongoose in RTT has had an impact on culture/society and that potentially would be beneficial addition to the article. although it is more likely to be relevant to the RTT article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would just ask that you take your anti-"in-culture" section campaign to some other article which doesn't lean on it so heavily. Its realization in the popular imagination is the almost only interesting or important thing there is to say about the Bloop, and doing any more than factually informing the reader about the individual novels and such would be a case of WP:SYN, we can only say that the bloop has been featured in all these novels and such. Chrisrus (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, we are NOT doing a reader any favor when all we have to say is "its here and its here and its here" particularly when some of the "heres" are not actually about the bloop. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I thought you were against the whole thing entirely. If they all aren't, in fact, notable popular culture appearances of the bloop, please let's delete. Chrisrus (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The in popular culture section appears to be just an indiscriminate list (2 of which are unreferenced) which adds nothing to the article except being a possible WP:COATRACK, I would agree with it's removal. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bloop:Cthulhu link would be a coatrack if in fact the items in fiction completely obscured the barren nature of the original subject. The *facts* about the original subject are few, however it was the result of scientific analyses and measurement, and was featured in more than a handful of science related articles, and television shows (factual in nature) and thus meets notability IMO on its own. However, the seeming coincidence to a layman's untrained eye re: nautical distance from R'lyeh is something that it is the duty of an encyclopedia to clarify and potentially dispel. The "Yrr" book reference should absolutely be deleted. The other two can be clarified. I have one more item to add to the article actually, since William Shatner recently did an entire segment about Bloop on his Weird Or What show.. It was factual but speculative. I suspect it also belongs in this disputed section. The books in question are linked either by popular imagination perhaps (falsely, but check out the number of Google hits) or by direct usage in the plot. Since there is no other Bloop in existence anywhere, the use of The name and nature of the sound in a fictional work is enough to conclude that this is indeed one and the same "creature". I will make some corrections and fix the references as soon as I have more than a minute to myself, assuming someone doesn't beat me to it. And no, I don't need another 5 years to do it.. Kothog (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This is ridiculous. One gets to expect that many RFCs are in response, not solely to differences of opinion between intransigent styles and interpretations of materials and of WP functions, but sometimes because of tantrums over trivialities. But this is going overboard. We could have written a couple of sizable articles with less trouble and better goodwill than this spitfight has consumed, or we could have edited a couple of dozen, I bet. That is what WP is supposed to be for, remember? The substance of the cultural section in Bloop certainly is fairly trivial so far. Great, big, hairy deal. The claims made in the section are no doubt accurate, or reasonably so. So maybe someone, somewhere would consider some of them significant. The volume of the material definitely is trivial, both in the space occupied and in its unassuming position in the article; though I had read the article, I had so little noticed the section that I had forgotten it was there. If I actually had wanted to know those things I would have wanted the section to be present so that I could have followed the leads. We don't have time or incentive to read and memorise every word of every article, nor justification to remove every word that someone finds uninteresting. If the facts are straight and reasonably in context, and in the right article (rather than in a forking situation) then IMNSHO they have earned their bit occupancy. As things stand, one would need positive reason to justify removal of this section. WP (or FTM the Bloop article) will not fall or stand by its removal or its retention; vague discomfort about its inclusion is not enough. A lot of handwaving about which WP pillars it is pulling down is not nearly enough. For heaven's sake let it go for now, leave things alone and give it a rest. If it turns out to matter desperately, we will notice and then we won't need any RFCs to settle the matter. Meanwhile, some of us have better things to worry about. JonRichfield (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I can tell you want to end this discussion, but I'd just like to note one more thing. Few new facts will about the Bloop itself will ever make this article very long. Science is probably finished with the bloop. Much more likely, however, I wonder if you agree, are more such appearences as on the "Amazing Mysteries" cable TV shows and such. So there may come a day when the anthropolocial significance of it overtakes the prodominently placed technical data. I say that because some have excused this section on the grounds that it not get too big, but I don't see why it would be so bad if that's what it turned out to be. Chrisrus (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, at least till we make substantial scientific progress in the field, but it will take some serious self-discipline to ensure that in the end we provide worth-while material for the reader who compliments us with his attention. This is far easier in technical matters where we get disciplined by refractory realities when we stray too far from good sense. JonRichfield (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that from TheRedPenOfDoom to especially Chrisrus to JonRichfield, I sincerely appreciate the attention and discussion. I have been attempting to maintain and clarify basically only this article in the last like.. 5 years or so, and while this clearly shows my inexperience in WP styles (I was surprised to learn that blue-linking isn't enough for reference, but it certainly makes sense ow that I think about it,) I do take the maintenance seriously and have preserved it from pro-cryptid co-option and large amounts of vandalism. I even rebuilt the example soundfile in the box. This is my favourite mystery to tell people, and since I aspire to rationality, keeping it factual is important. In the end, I personally only have a stake in the nautical distance de-mythification. Thank you all again for taking such an interest that the talk page is this voluminous. I actually view it as a sort of justification for its importance in WP: people feel strongly about how genuine mysteries like this are presented in WP, and I think that's great.. Kothog (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... Blue-linking refs. A sore point with me. Look, a blue-link is not a valid ref when all you are doing is in effect saying: "It must be true because it is in WP". However, when you are writing about say... Bloop and you validly and relevantly wish to refer to a point which is not the primary theme of the Bloop article (say sound physics or thermoclines or the like) and you need a ref, then blue-linking to the article(s) that do deal with those subjects and do include valid external refs to sources, would be valid. Furthermore not only would such blue-linking be valid, but it would be invalid for you to repeat the refs in that article. For one thing, the other article might well be updated and next thing you know, we have refs out of step with each other, some of them hopelessly out of date or misleading. So if anyone blasts you for blue-linking as a ref, check whether the criticism is justified before knuckling under. JonRichfield (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! The frustrating thing to me about this article is not our fault, it's because of the fact that there is plenty of glaring omissions in the sources: especially the dates. It annoys me that we can't tell the reader when the bloop happened; what calandar dates. I think we should start a campaign for experts to publish something we can use about this topic. In the meantime, however, I think it'd be great if we mentioned each notable TV program or popular non-fiction book that talks about it and what they say about it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's tough to see how the current In Pop Culture items could be justified under the criteria from WP:POPCULTURE, but I could see the value of a short section specifically about the urban legend that it matches up with something in Lovecraft's works. Instead of an "In Pop Culture" section, why not have a "Cthulhu Urban Legend" section? APL (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Another frustrating thing is the fact that the existence of the "Cthulhu Urban Legend" is hard to cite. When I tried (a long time ago, maybe you can succeed where I failed) the only thing I could find were a bunch of blogs and forums that don't pass WP:RS. It'd be great if you could find good citations for the existence of the legend, but maybe it's not reasonable to expect that an urban legend like that have to be cited by WP:RS. Chrisrus (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's on BloopWatch, where the guy claims to have made the connection on his own based on the CNN article from 2002 and basically original research. Kothog (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's good; that's progress. But I'm not sure if we can make a statement like "There exists a popular belief that the Bloop and Cthulu are linked." I don't know what it would take to cite such a statement. Chrisrus (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that this is a case of circular feedback loops of which Wikipedia is a part. If that is so, then making sure that the facts about it are known would be an act of correcting past mistakes. I can find no other references that don't reference WP, or BloopWatch. Kothog (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

I do not think the current list should be expanded into a prose paragraph or even changed, for the following reasons:

• Many other articles contain short, sentence-based lists including Cheshire Cat and Wikipedia's own Wikipedia in culture page. The information in those is presented in tabular format and includes timeline-like datestamps to help organise them into a consumable list. Therefore, lists of things, in sentence form, and separated by something other than straight English grammatical constructs, have good precedence.
• There are no chronological orderings which would be appropriate.
• The list is currently very small; however, each item is radically unrelated to the others in topic.
• Parts of the list are already in significant prose form.
• The section was mislabeled with an article-wide tag. Still, for the sake of effective communication, I will assume the editor who put it there meant it to apply just to that specific section.
• Expanding it into a prose paragraph (or four) would impede readability relative to the current list because none of the items are conceptually linked except by the fact they provide fictional explanations for the Bloop; thus, a paragraph would just be a free-form list of its own, with fewer boundaries and would be less concise.
• For these and other more minor reasons, I disagree that this section should be converted into prose. Eventually, perhaps the Bloop will warrant a whole new section for a lovely tabular list of cultural references with accompanying short, sentence-based explanations.

I am therefore removing the prose tag. Please, if you disagree with me, rather than reinstating the tag, convert the list into prose that is as accurate as the current list and also acceptable to you. Kothog (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I find your reasoning very convincing. The person who put the tag made no case for it, and merely said "prose please". These ideas are not really about the bloop but notable fiction in popular culture, and it seems to me that most articles do this with bulleted lists. Chrisrus (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The guy who put it there is crushingly prolific in Wikipedia and so I gave his opinion a lot of weight. But I just can't see how prose could do it better. Thank you for the vote of confidence, that's much appreciated. Kothog (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In Popular Culture section restored. The article is much less dry with it there. This talk section has been here for 1.25 years now and there have been NO objections in that whole time, no matter how many times I requested feedback in the change descriptions, and in here. I'm glad it's back. Kothog (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

'Citations needed' tagging

I put the citation tags on the pop culture (trivia) references, having not previously read this section of the talk page. The tags were probably the best way to voice my concerns, which come straight from the WP:POPCULTURE essay:

“ However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be notable if the subject responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference. ”

If the consensus is to maintain such a list, then there needs to be some editorial oversight to ensure that listed items are accurate, relevant to the subject and notable. Otherwise, it becomes a WP:COATRACK for every trivial mention of the word bloop, including conspiracy theories, personal blogs, Facebook pages, etc. – MrX 18:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I want to keep them, but why not just cite them? Chrisrus (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

NOAA Updated their Bloop Page -- Bloop is ice

Check out the link (thanks to Lexein) at the NOAA page. It's been updated and now states with finality that Bloop is consistent with icequakes! It'll be interesting to see how that one pans out, I'll try have someone post an actual reference for that. It seems to me that it is a contradiction to their own Dr. Fox' earlier position. Perhaps they're willing to share why. Kothog (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Which link? Chrisrus (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

[NOAA VENTS page about Bloop] That one! And it turns out the mystery is solved! Ha ha ha.. I'll update with more information soon! It was ice after all! It didn't happen prior because the big bergs didn't really smash the ground so much prior, but there are piles more data they're collecting, and there're a pile more Bloops! Kothog (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Category

It seems like the "unidentified sound" category is still a useful one for this article.

The article is about the Bloop's history as much as its current scientific status. This article's notability is the fact that (for a long period of time) it was an unidentified sound. People interested in the phenomena of unidentified sounds would be interested in this article.

Categories are not strictly descriptive, they're organizational.

Compare with the category Out Of Place Artifacts. In fact, most of the items in that category are no longer considered by experts to be OoPAs. All but a couple of them have been explained. But we don't remove them from the category, because their notability derives from the fact that they were once out of place artifacts, and so, from an organizational stand-point, they still belong in that category. APL (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree - This clearly falls under the "Think or Know" category, and since they do not know it has to be think which means it remains "unidentified" (unless there is a citation to to contrary)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 16:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(To clarify, my argument was not that the sound is still unidentified. Only that it's notability stems from it's previous status as an unidentified sound. Just like George Washington is no longer president or general, but his article is in those categories.) APL (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Mermaids: The Body Found

Begin a major recent programme referencing the Bloop and its supposed connection to "mermaids", should it be included? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Mermaids: The Body Found is not that recent, and that article does not even mention bloop. But I can add the reference at [7]. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Trivia, last time

See this edit, in which Kothog, who edits little else besides this article, this section, claims that there is consensus on this talk page for this horrible selection of trivia. The trivia here is nothing but insignificant mentions and some other tripe, including an originally-researched claim that it's "close" to some location in a 19th-century novel, just to indicate the level of encyclopedic discourse, and what can only be described as a combination of trivia and spam in the link to the SCP Foundation Web Site, whatever it is. I mean, I've seen some trivia in my time, but this beats almost all of them. I'll let it stand so you can see how trivial it is, even though it totally rubs me the wrong way. So here's what I propose: we take care of this once and for all. In the above-linked diff, Kothog claims consensus--well, there isn't. There's a bit of discussion, but nothing like consensus. So I invite every interested party, including previous participants, to settle it. Names I see on this talk page who have discussed this matter include Chrisrus, Crossmr, Lawrence Cohen, MrX, Architeuthidae, TheRedPenOfDoom, JonRichfield, APL. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for caring about an article I've been an editor of for something like seven years. The last discussion about this exact same issue spanned multiple months and arrived eventually in a "leave the section, axe some references" result, commented on by multiple people including experienced editors, and argued at great length. I would like to invite you to peek at the older histories again. I've rewritten, edited, written, linked, and agonized over, almost every single word in this little article. I rebuilt the linked sound file from scratch. I am as far as I'm aware, the only one who's had direct contact with the old researchers at NOAA including Dr. Fox himself, the reporters writing the old, linked stories, bioacoustics professors at various Universities across North America, and the new NOAA researchers who fairly conclusively solved the mystery: Bloop was an icequake. I have copies of the software they used to analyze the recordings, provided directly from NOAA software engineers. I have copies of *other versions* of the sound files attributed to Bloop. This particular topic has been a personal obsession of mine since before the article about it even existed. I'm the one that kept it out of the silly cryptid ufologist purview, and I along with Chrisus have been doing or at least verifying, the majority of the factual corrections in this article for the better part of five years. RedPen went away and stopped pushing his case. I'm disappointed that I keep having to argue to keep in the most interesting parts of the Popular Culture section. fwiw, I have Bloop-related information, copies of shows, links, stories, articles, clippings, NOAA communications, NOAA contacts, software, and bioacoustics experts informing my edits, and I've *already* clipped huge amounts of unscientific nonsense over the last five years. Even so, I, personally, think the Popular Culture section is precisely what *makes this article interesting and noteworthy even though it was likely part of what pushed Bloop into Popular Culture to begin with.* Kothog (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

In agreement with Wikipedia practice, common sense, with WP:TRIVIA, with WP:V, and with Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, I propose that the trivia section (or whatever it's to be called) will contain only entries that are rigorously verified with reliable secondary sources as to correctness and relevance (just that "it is mentioned" isn't enough: it needs to be established that it matters). Drmies (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

For exactly all the reasons that have already been argued and bikeshedded to death, I *do agree* that there are a two entries which can and perhaps should be removed. Specifically, I think the horror game, and docufiction references can be removed. Thus, I'll be happy to do it myself. The other and older entries, and especially the ones that survived the last argument should stay IMO. Thanks again for your interest and attention. Kothog (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it amusing how there are three sources for this six-item list, and they're all for one. I Swear, it's like someone's holding the most famous answer to a higher standard than the genuinely dubious. Beyond that, no opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

People kept demanding and demanding and demanding that that specific reference be removed; people demanded cites for single word assertions. :-( So.. there's some cites. Kothog (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The "In popular culture" section explains why this sound, unlike most others of it's kind, is noteworthy. If it weren't for references to it in literature and popular TV shows and such, The Bloop might not be notable enough for an article. Chrisrus (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

And perhaps it isn't. Meantime, per WP:V, everything here needs a good reference. WP:IPC might be worth a look. --John (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You are not, IMO, contributing in good faith considering most of the IPC discussion has happened already and decision was to be inclusive. Please address the above posts. Yes, we've already read the WP:V and carefully scrutinized the various IPC, ***and*** included links to same in the extensive discussion of the IPC section. Please be less slash-and-burn given the light weight of the article. Kothog (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In particular, you should look at WP:SOURCEACCESS Kothog (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the advice. The fact is, in our terms this material is worthless and you have very few contributions outside this area. Does anyone with more experience think this worth keeping? If not I will remove it again. @Drmies: --John (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't delete the article. If you do, readers who want to know the facts about this famous sound will not be served.

Perhaps you'd like to link or create WP:WORTHLESS to define these valid grounds you seem to refer to above.

Please don't treat users like Kothog in this way. We appreciate users with wide-ranging and narrow histories. Everyone does what they will and that comment did not respond substantively to his points. Chrisrus (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

John, I have been *extremely* neutral on this topic; I have enforced a scientific approach to it and hacked out the enormous amount of other cryptozoology-community material as Bloop itself has a valid scientific sourcing, the data for which is (almost) fully available to the public. My re-introduction of IPC links are for flavour and user interest only. I personally have eliminated significant numbers of the IPC references, which can be seen by my extensive editing history on this specific page. I have eliminated dozens of bull-crap links and absurd nonsense injected by people who actually do have agendas; since the issue was solved in the non-monstrous sense already, I was among the first to have edited this fact into this article. I would be perfectly happy to defend my edits. They do not form a pattern of "promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas." What am I promoting? What agenda do I have? What am I advocating? My extensive history in this specific article should make it clear that my only real agenda is accuracy. I have promoted no independent theories. I have not included any advertising (that isn't incidental to source material, but in any event I and everybody I even remotely know receive absolutely nothing in compensation.) My extensive.. 15-year or so editing history that has, apparently until now, been in perfectly good faith, I have absolute no problem defending. With respect, with most of even my minor edits where I have sought to eliminate certain links or especially IPC items, I have sought consensus. I was cautious. In this interaction, again with respect, the malign and/or commercial intent you are ascribing to me has now wasted a good.. hour or so of my time sitting here contemplating my response. Your use of impugnment to hammer down what would otherwise be a simple attempt at consensus is heavy-handed, and contrary to the WP policy you yourself are saying I am in violation of. If you are interested in re-opening consensus decisions, given the extensive (and IMO completely unnecessary) discussion and thought that's already gone into it, it seems to me to be respectful of work that's gone before to at least address the concerns cited. For what it's worth, I specifically refrained from publishing the extensive email histories I have with the reporters and scientists themselves (including Dr. Fox and Wolman,) the additional sound samples of the same event, the results of the analyses of same I've done, the comments with NOAA bioacoustics experts I have, the additional links and stories about it, the software the NOAA sent me that they use for analyses of same, and then referencing them all in this article to flesh it out further just for user interest. I did this explicitly because of people I anticipated like yourself who in my opinion were going to take issue with the fact that I seem to be the only one of a tiny handful of people with a Wikipedia account interested in the material and ascribe hidden agendas and conspiracies to me. It is to my great chagrin that this has happened regardless of my rather extreme efforts to avoid it. Kothog (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The SCP Popular Culture Link

Please discuss the matter further here with reasoning before re-deleting the link in question. Your reason cited was that it was not notable, and since this shows clearly that the official policy of Wikipedia notability requirements applies to the article and not the article's contents as per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article I believed you were using the term in its colloquial sense. I no longer think that; please see the aforementioned link and let me know what your objection is to that link in Popular Culture; in addition, please view the other discussion on this page about the Popular Culture section's existence, and the resolution thereof. Thank you for taking an interest in the page I and about two others have been curating for a decade; let's come to a consensus.

In the event that there is too much material that I list, above, please just quickly peruse: Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content; I assert that our list here is small, non-exhaustive, and is a small but representative cross-section of examples of Bloop's existence in fiction and culture--thus my comment in my edit that the website's traffic and apparently massive community give it enough weight to prevent its inclusion from being considered pointless trivia. Kothog (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the violence of the lambs link is far more worthy of deletion based on weight criteria.. Kothog (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there is no actual link to an article to Wikipedia within this line, this is effectively an external link, an external link to a fiction site (video game fan fiction?), which is not at all related to the article subject. Also the sentence In the SCP Foundation Web Site, Bloop is generated by SCP-169 also known as the "Leviathan." means absolutely nothing to the common reader unless they happen to know what this website is all about. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So, rather than correct it, you simply deleted it? That's.. not constructive. I will correct it and re-add it. Your comment in the edit summary and this comment suggest you haven't done the cursory investigation that would reveal basically instantly what's going on. Kothog (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content as Kothog suggested, I have removed the SCP reference again.

" If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources."

I can't find any third-party evidence that SCP's mention of the bloop is significant in any way. ApLundell (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

With respect, nearly all of the entries for this suffer from the threshold of importance you are ascribing to inclusion in the IPC. I'd also point out that references to one of the most popular websites by traffic there are are IMO of interest to a broad cross-section of people who are interested in what Bloop is to begin with; also, the fact that there are currently, exactly three entries out of the literally dozens of others that had at one time been addedt the IPC list and this mean means that it is not exhaustive, not indiscriminate, and not simply passing references to same. We have spent exactly this much effort arguing with folks exactly like yourself, extensively and at great length. It is pointless to have this much material in the talk page except as proof that the list is excruciatingly, painfully, obviously discriminate. I have included links which show the pervasive (in the scope-limited sense) influence amongst people who are discussing, arguing, and publishing related material. SCP's popularity can be inferred from its traffic rankings. We're not going to get academically-pure secondary references here, for basically anything related to Bloop because of its limited nature to begin with. Kothog (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Alexa places SCP's rank at 30,736. I guess it's an exercise to the reader whether that counts as "one of the most popular". But it doesn't matter, SCP's notability is not in question here. It has an article, so we can assume it's notable.

The question is whether SCP's mention of the bloop is relevant to people's understanding of the bloop. The default isn't that we list it for the heck of it. The default is that we don't.

Anyway, lack of references does not imply that we can guess at notability to pad out the article. Sometimes there just isn't much to write about a topic.

... and speaking of lack of references, except under specific conditions, forums and wikis do not count as reliable sources. So I've gone ahead and reverted that. Sorry. ApLundell (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

People like to see how a topic has influenced a culture. The only way to do that, in cases like this which have not been subject to significant academic study, is specifically to point at those influences. There is no other way for a topic of such narrow academic study as Bloop. When I say its limited nature, I'm explicitly referring to the lack of academic study on it and about it, specifically, in the time leading up to NOAA's explicit assertion that it was an icequake. In the intervening time period, the possibility of a weird unknown creature hanging out in the ocean has been a significant motivator to imaginations and creative output. It is the prevalence of this topic in peoples' minds which I assert has been a significant influence on culture. We are not listing SCP for the heck of it. We are listing it after significant discussion, significant debate, and significant axing of other material which is perfectly validly out of scope and/or too difficult for hopefully well-meaning editors to locate by reading the book in question. Unfortunately.

Anyway, not sure what sort of scale you're referring to, but #30k on a global internet equates to something like 680,000 visits in a 30-day period, or 105k unique visitors in a single day..? That's more than the population of some countries in a single month. Kothog (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that the other two are dubious. Fact is, the bloop was, as you say, a pretty limited thing. It didn't make much impact on popular culture. ApLundell (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with ApLundell. This should not be included. --John (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's the problem, then. We now have exactly two entries in a list on an article about a noise which ended up being the primary subject of an Episode of Weird or What; with multiple articles written about it; with the former Director of NOAA's NGDC at one point asserting it was possibly an entirely new species of animal never-before heard, and it managed to capture enough of the world's imagination to be included, in one form or another, in multiple novels, YouTube videos, websites, collaborative-editing sites, and so on. In the past, the movie Cloverfield had a social media campaign that appears to have attempted to co-opt this specific webpage, but in any event, there was an entire flash game written with ties to it. It appears that you are both using Wikipedia's own lack of information and references to decide on whether it has had an impact on Popular Culture at all, when in reality most of these links were removed and the self-evident proof of same deleted because reading novels and watching shows was too onerous for people to verify assertions. So here's the problem: since I am now one of the few people in whom this information resides, what do you suggest I do to inform people of these facts? You are both being extremely high-threshold uninclusive, and in this case, especially after John was busy attempting to assassinate my character, unfair. The article is minor, and without the social phenomenon of the way it's managed to capture the imagination of the public (else the multiple articles, novels, and TV shows that were created about it or in relation to it wouldn't have been) then it becomes a minor scientific footnote according to WP, which would be a shame given the significant creative output it's spawned. Do you have any suggestions? Kothog (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's only your contention that this is a problem. If you had wider experience on Wikipedia you would know that this happens all the time. If you ever had time to read WP:IPC that might help you. --John (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm just a casual user, dude, I'm not an SPA. Please stop. Kothog (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but the problem you're describing is pretty much how Wikipedia is normally supposed to work. Simply being mentioned is not an impact on pop-culture. (If that were the rule, think how many articles would have to say "An Episode of The Simpsons mentioned [article topic]".)

Nobody is doubting that things mention the bloop. And we're not fighting you because we don't believe you. We do believe you. ApLundell (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

All of this makes sense, all of this is reasonable. What is not reasonable is the aspersion that I am an SPA that has a pattern of "promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas." Given the fairly unbalanced amount of effort I've put into the topic, and the seeming obviousness of my edit history (to me) this accusation was incredibly insulting. It's one thing to constantly point me at the section I quote at other people. Okay, fine. But to assert I have some kind of commercial agenda? About a solved topic of scientific curiosity, where the only evidence is that I primarily edit the Bloop article? Come on, man, he led with an attempt to troll me into bad behaviour. Kothog (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

'Suggestion :' Add a sentence to the lead that says something like "It briefly captured the public imagination appearing in novels and television specials.", Cite that statement with the novels you mention (complete with page number references and very brief quotes if possible, all in the cite), and the article about the mockumentary.

Then completely nuke the Popular Culture section.

That probably feels inadequate to you, but Wikipedia is not really designed to be a link-dump.

'Suggestion 2 :' Create an external web-page that is a link-dump of creative works related to the bloop. (Not on Wikipedia.) Then add it to an "external links" section at the bottom of the page. I can't promise that nobody else would remove the link, but if the question came up, I would argue for its continued inclusion. (Unless someone made a better site with the same information, of course.)

'Long Shot:' You say it's spawned a "significant creative output". If the output is really significant, surely some reputable source has discussed this output? We could summarize that source in the article. (Looking at the output using our own judgment to deem it significant is 'original research'.) I can't find any such source, but you have better knowledge on this topic from me, maybe you're aware of one.

ApLundell (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

In Popular Culture sections are the norm. What you're asking for is unorthodox and your objections are not clear. Normally, we just have an "In Popular Culture" section and people don't come along like you're trying to do and demand it be removed for some unclear reason. Furthermore, this particular referent rightly talks about the popular instances about the bloob because it's notable partly because of the confusion caused by the media based on some problematic statements by some experts causing other experts to clarify and so on the story in the article explains all about the bloop. This excited some authors and such and some art were spawned by the effect of the bloop on popular imagination.

This article is good and important because what happens is that people watch some kind of show on the discovery channel or see online somewhere facts about this topic and come here to get the actual facts and how it got blown up to be more mysterious than it is, but there is still a scientific mystery of sorts that's less dramatic but interesting to tell here, too, and who knows maybe it might be important to know that the sea makes strange sounds that bear investigation.

I really don't get what your objection is or what you're trying to do but I appreciate it if you are trying to improve the article but if what you're really trying to do is to destroy it then go start a deletion discussion because here we discuss article improvement and nothing more. Chrisrus (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

My objections are very clear : "In Popular Culture" sections are not random collections of things that mention the topic. (Regardless of how notable those things are on their own. )

"In Popular Culture" are for listing popular culture references that become notable enough that their notability (not just their existence) can be established with sources. It's not enough to prove that William Shatner talked about the bloop on tv. Can we prove that anyone cared that he talked about it?

This is all explained in detail in the guideline Kothog himself asked everybody to read : (Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content)

If the subject's notability (or part of it) stems from how pop culture reacted to it, that should be explained in the prose of the article. And referenced, of course.

This is "the norm". ApLundell (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This "In Popular Culture" section is significant within the topic of the Bloop because they illustrate the fact that the Bloop is somewhat famous and notable.

If a show is popular and the person making the assertions is a famous movie star, that's significant in that many people might get disinformation from that and that's how they ended up here in the first place.

For example if William Shatner goes on the Tonight Show and talks about the Bloop, it's a notable within the topic of the Bloop because it supports what sources say about that the Bloop being famous.

So unless an item is small time, items in this in popular culture section serve to support, illustrate, or give examples of the part of the story in the citations about how the Bloop got famous.

The same with the inspiration of notable novels and such.

If a notable author says in an interview published in a notable place that they were inspired by stories about the Bloop to write or produce a notable work of art, then that's significant because it's an illustration or example of the Bloop being more famous than other such sounds. Chrisrus (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If the notability of the topic really derives from the pop culture references that should be discussed organically within the body of article, not just dumped in a list at the end. ApLundell (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

capturing the public imagination. Chrisrus (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

IPC for Weird Or What

I've (perhaps temporarily :) re-added the IPC entry as an actual note in the article itself. The show itself does, in fact, quote experts who discuss the theories and offer quotes and opinions. I'm curious though. Even if Weird or What didn't present academics offering their opinions, in this article Face_transplant#Popular_culture User:John left fictional entries intact whose primary focus was the topic of the article. In specific, John left the movie "Face/Off" listed but there are no secondary sources. If there are exactly three topics in the episode, one of which is Bloop, why does this (even as a cultural rather than academic) not similarly qualify? Kothog (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

If it should turn out that face transplantation is not just the actual real world procedure itself but also a notable feature of notable novels and movies and such, then the article about it should say so. Chrisrus (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

no date/time - not science

Where is the data collected by other organizations? Only NOAA heard it? And they somehow neglected to mention the date(s) and time(s)? Every other NOAA observation has a date and time, and yet nobody can factually state when the recording was made? Does anybody else find this somewhat suspicious? Has the date/time been censored? Has the crucial clue been scrubbed from the public record?

60.241.100.51 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I doubt anyone else maintains a grid of that type of underwater microphones across the oceans, so how would anyone else have?

However, the lack so far of a specific date for the bloop is odd and has been mentioned on this page before, scroll down. Chrisrus (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The solution

Two creatures of the deep meet up (as such beasts do occasionally), discuss things including seabed-sonar analysis disrupting DeepSeaTV and decide to puzzle the scientists - one does Bloop and the other Slowdown.

Perhaps it is time for an archive page to be created? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - and attempt at mild humour. 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Not convinced

I’m not convinced by the official explanation: icebergs don’t make that sound. Dinoboyaz (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

And you're saying this as an iceberg expert? Or, are you just assuming icebergs don't sound like that? Dpm12 (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Changes to lead section text proposed 30-JUL-2018

The lead as it currently stands states the following:

In 2002 it was said to be consistent with large marine animals, though it was also consistent with the noises generated by icequakes in large icebergs, or large icebergs scraping the ocean floor. By 2012 NOAA concluded that the noise was ice-related.

I've placed the {by whom} template to highlite the first problem with this statement. Where it states that it was "said to be consistent" comes from an assertion made at one time by one individual, Christopher Fox. The organization he worked for has since publicly stated that the noise was and still is ice related. The second problem is underlined in red, where it states that Fox's assertions were also consistent with icequakes, when by 2012 it was asserted by NOAA to be only ice related, not "also" related. These two instances of text introduce ambiguity into the lead section where none should exist. This ambiguity should be removed. The claims made by Fox are already present in the main body of text, where they should remain. I propose that the lead be rewritten to say the following:

Bloop was an ultra-low-frequency underwater sound detected by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1997.By 2012, earlier speculation that the sound was consistent with large marine animals was replaced by NOAA's description of the sound as being consistent with noises generated via non-tectonic cryoseisms originating from glacial movements, such as ice calving, or through seabed gouging by ice.

I'd like to know what other editors think about this proposal and I invite them to leave their comments questions and concerns here. Thank you!  spintendo  02:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Expanded edit summary of changes made 22-SEP-2018

1. Rephrased lead: I have implemented the lead shown below.

   Bloop was an ultra-low-frequency underwater sound detected by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1997. By 2012, earlier speculation that the sound was consistent with large marine animals was replaced by NOAA's description of the sound as being consistent with noises generated via non-tectonic cryoseisms originating from glacial movements, such as ice calving, or through seabed gouging by ice.

   This re-worded lead removes the ambiguity of the previous lead section (shown above in my previous comments from July) and makes it clear which explanation is accepted by those at NOAA.
2. Re-ordered elements: I have swapped the positions of the ice-quake and animal origins sections. The ice-quake explanation is now at the beginning of the article's main section, and the animal explanation section follows it. General consensus among NOAA (as evident by their own explanation of the event) is that the sound is ice-related. Other research has been done on the sounds generated by ice-quakes and seabed gouging which demonstrate that similar sounds have been and continue to be detected by these arrays. The weight of the article's ice-quake origin-information should outweigh that of its animal origin information, as this is the consensus of the scientific community, and the article should reflect that consensus.
3. See also section: The wording of the link in the See also section was changed to reflect the Bloop sound as being located within the Formerly unidentified section of the List of unexplained sounds article.

 Spintendo  03:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

date and time of recording?

These hydrophone recordings are supposed to be a scientific endeavour, and yet the most basic information such as the date and time of the recording(information which might be crucial to solving the mystery) is missing from all reports. 101.184.145.131 (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The only date given was summer 1997. The hydrophones which detected the sound were deployed in 1996.  Spintendo  11:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I was delivered a copy of one of the recordings and it has full datestamp and other details in it; the sample's name contains the string "1997253230100". I will assume for now that implies Mar 25. They told me that there were multiple recordings of it but only one was showcased on their old website. Kothog (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

sound example needs replacing

The included sound sample is a few seconds long before the bloop can actually be heard. In the youtube clip, the bloop sound is heard on and off over a longer time frame starting about about 30 seconds. The wikipedia sample included NONE of the bloop.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.132.21 (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No. The YoutTube clips are not correct, and of all the Youtube clips I've seen none sound anything like the NOAA samples. They're extremely low bitrate. There is no better samples. Kothog (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Expanded edit summary 27-NOV-2018

• The lead statement has been altered to omit "extremely powerful" per MOS:IDIOM, as the correct term used here when referring to sound strength is "amplitude" rather than "power".
• The speculation described here always revolved around what type of animal could generate this level of amplitude. The similarities in frequencies were never at issue. Thus, since origin was the main issue and the words consistent with were never applied to both amplitude and frequency, the text was changed from "By 2012, earlier speculation that the sound was consistent with a large marine animal was replaced by NOAA's description of the sound as being consistent with noises generated via non-tectonic cryoseisms" to read as "By 2012, earlier speculation that the sound originated from a large marine animal was replaced by NOAA's description of the sound as being consistent with noises generated via non-tectonic cryoseisms."

 Spintendo  09:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure that was Dr. Fox's wording but don't care enough to check. Thanks for helping maintain this article! Really appreciate your help. Kothog (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

ShouldnÄt there be more and more Bloops if it was ice?

I mean there is a climate catastrophe going on and the polar ice caps are melting at a record pace. If this was a 2cryoseism", there should since have been lots more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cancun (talk • contribs) 10:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)