Talk:Giant squid

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Giant squid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cephalopods (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:WikiProject CephalopodsCephalopods Marine life (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life Cryptozoology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 30, 2011 and September 30, 2014.

Archives

Archive 1

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LegendOfWook. Peer reviewers: Jennpark.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Giant squid in culture section has been moved to its own article, Giant squid in culture. Manufracture 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4756514.stm

Could the giant squids be somehow a danger to humans?

I also wonder about that. They're so huge, but do they eat people or big animals? Paweł ze Szczecina 18:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to imagine a scenario where they could be a danger. A healthy, active giant squid could probably damage a person's skin with its suckers, or maybe kill by drowning -- but a giant squid in shallow water or at the surface would not be healthy or active. Ben-w 20:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the killed thousands every year, mostly school children and bikini surfers. 67.160.174.24 (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible that a giant squid might come to the surface of the water, (at night), in search of an easy meal, especially in the middle of the ocean where food sources might be few and far apart? Thor Heyerdahl in his book "Kon-Tiki", wrote about seeing large squids on the surface, while he was sailing across the Pacific. While the "Pearl" story has doubters, the "Britannia" story is accepted as fact by those who have studied it. The scars on Lt. Cox's leg leave no doubt the survivors were attacked by a squid, and the people who were saved agree at least one sailor was pulled underwater to his death. I will admit, (for the sailors), it was a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but, I am sure it happened. 204.80.61.10 15:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk[reply]

My understanding is that the Giant Squid cannot survive in shallow water, day or night, and would have no reason or inclination to come to the surface for food; every single specimen encountered at or near the surface has been dead or dying. Ben-w 16:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While a human is unlikely ever to be sharing the same depths as a squid without the protection of a submarine around them, these squid have a large cutting beak that could take a man's arm off in short order, and their tentacles have teeth and hook in them which could cut you up pretty badly (badly enough to bleed to death quite quickly.

I don't think that a would stand much chance of getting away without serious injury if it was actually grabbed by one of these creatures. perfectblue 18:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what i have seen and read, there is no way that a gaint squid could be active on the surface at all, their body is so heavy that it would have a hard time lifting its limbs out of the watermuch lesss drag a human off a ship. if a person were to be swiming at their natural depth, which at this point isn't really possible, then a giant squid would prove to be a danger, those long arms that were for the most part incapable of breaking the surface of the water would be quite strong and powerful in its natural habbitat, so between the toothed suckers that would tare into human flesh very easly, the large, powerful arms, and the strong beak i would wager that any unarmed human would be out classed drasticaly, and even if it was armed with a bang stick or spear gun, the fight would most likely be heavily in the squids favor. plus being on the squids home turf would give it other advantages, such as visiion, the squid is designed to see and hunt at those depths, any person would have to have some type of light sorce which would shine out ike a becon to a roving squid. on top of that, the squid is very fast compaired to humans in the water but for the most part, no, the squid poses no danger as we don't go for a swim at 200m below the surface, and it doesn't stand a chance on the surface, a human would have to swim into the squid and likely pass out due to the ammonia in it's blood in order for it to do any damage at all.--Manwithbrisk 19:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are various accounts of the passenger liner, 'Britannia', being sunk in the Atlanic Ocean, by the German marine raider, 'Thor', on March 25, 1941. As the survivors clung to the sides of the crowed life rafts, one of them was pulled underwater by a giant squid. When a Lt. Cox was grabbed by the squid, he managed to fight it off. He did carry the scars of the attack on his body to prove it had happened. 204.80.61.10 18:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk[reply]

That is interesting because the only passenger liner bearing the name, RMS Britannia was decommissioned in 1880. Also, the Royal Navy did not have any active naval vessels with the name Britannia during that time either. So this story seems to be in significant doubt. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Thor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.26.18 (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Britannia was sunk by THOR in March 1941: http://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?135786

It has been reported, (in various places on the internet and in books), that on May 10, 1874, a giant squid dragged the 150-ton schooner "Pearl" underwater, off the coast of India, in the Bay of Bengal. There were survivors from the "Pearl", and there were eyewitnesses in nearby boat, (the "Strathowen"), that was not attacked. The story sounds plausible, as the people who reported the incident were considered to be credible. The number of people who claimed to have seen it, the specific location given, the exact date metioned, the detailed recalling of the incident, and the actual name of both ships stated, all have to be taken into account. In consideration of all the corroborating evidence given, it probably did occur. More than one hundred, thirty years later, it has not been proven to be a hoax, (although, there are some doubters, since there is no known record of a ship named "Strathowen"). A lot of people have the opionion that it probably did happen, or that it could have happened. Here is a detailed reference souce: http://thesrilankananchorman.com/client/NewsDetails.aspx?ID=233 204.80.61.10 16:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk[reply]

This is undoubtly a fairy-tale of a monster story. The largest giant squids are only about 300kg in weight, they would even have huge problems to sank a rowboat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.224.108.96 (talk • contribs) .

No one actually knows how large Giant squid can get, the largest carcases found range from 60-70ft long from tail to whip. However there has been evidence to suggest anything up to 100ft long, from beaks and claws found in sperm whales during the whaling eras, to photographs of a squid (species unknown) but from the refrences in the photo if it was indeed a giant squid it would have been around 100ft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.171.235 (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in the article for colossal squid: The Colossal Squid is also believed to have the largest eyes in the animal kingdom (even larger than those of giant squid). as opposed to giant squid: Giant squid possess the largest eyes of any living creature —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.217.45 (talk • contribs) .

The colossal squid almost certainly has the larger eyes. [1] Mgiganteus1 00:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching a program on the national geographic channel last night about the study of the colossal squid in new Zea land. to put into perspective a giant squid has an eye around the size of a dinner plate. the colossal squid has an eye the size of a soccer ball. so the colossal squid has the bigger eye. national geographic colossal squid video--Egomo (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are either playing huge soccer or eating off of tiny plates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity is there any shitroy of skeptics? Did any famous biologists have a say about Giant Squid? SargeAbernathy 04:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I apologize if I misunderstand your term "shitroy", but I would like to know whether you are asking wheher or not Architeuthis spp. exist, or is this simply sneaky vandalism. I beg your forgiveness if I've misunderstood your query. If your contribution is legitimate, I apologize once again. However, some clarification is called for. Many teuthologists make a living studying squid, giant and otherwise. These animals are certainly real, albeit very hard to confirm from live specimens visually. Wowbobwow12 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-One more thing: give me some time and I can provide several names of giant squid teuthologisits. Wowbobwow12 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve O'Shea, Clyde F. E. Roper, Kir Nesis, Mark Norman, C. C. Lu, Nancy Frost, Jean Cadenat, Eric Hochberg, G. C. Robson, Martina Roeleveld, R. K. Dell, David Heppell, Peter Boyle, Joyce Allan, Wolfgang Zeidler, France Staub, etc. Mgiganteus1 21:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up, tonight on Discovery (at 8 est) they are showing a giant squid caught on video for the first time ever. There might be some info we will want to add to the article. A.K.A. Liar-lord 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no new images. The images that will be shown are the ones from 2004. Mgiganteus1 00:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, thanks for the info. Discovery lol. Konman72 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone verify this picture being of a 7m giant squid (picture no. 3)? Guessing from the picture alone I find it more likely being of a 7 cm squid-infant. --84.209.8.237 09:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can;t verify it but it certainly looks like a Giant squid to me. Konman72 10:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I change the date to September 30, 2005 (from September 30, 2004) on the top as the squid article mentions it as that date. I think this is the corrent date. Revert if I am wrong. Utdelirium 12:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct date is September 30, 2004.[2] Mgiganteus1 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading Monsters of the Sea by Richard Ellis (also read his The Search for the Giant Squid) and it says the largest squid on record was fifty-five feet in length, a bit larger than what the article has. GreatGatsby 05:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The long tentacles of this speciemen were much over-strechted, in fact this animal was only about 11m when it was still alive. Actually, the largest giant squid specimen ever found was 59.5 feet long (unsigned comment)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/photogalleries/giant_squid/photo4.html→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 13:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ellis's book mentions not just one, but three 55-foot giant squid being caught. To me it's a little dismissive to assume that they're all the result of the tentacles being stretched too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.6.21 (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Also, If the giant squid was dealing at least some damage to sperm whales, 55 feet in length would make sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.59.189 (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if the giant squid has an ink sac? An article here states that "the giant squid has only a small ink sac" but another site states that "There is also the possibility that the giant squid don't even have an ink sac, which is often the case with deep-dwelling squid". Anyone have more definitive data? Maximoff77 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Yes, they do have an ink sac[reply]

Yes, but this specimen had highly overstrechted tentacles and was only about 11m when still alive.

Does anyone know the weight of them?

Don't hold me too my word as i've never read many factual books on giant squid but i think they must be buoyant as they occasionaly wash up on beaches and with the depth which they live at it seems unlikely that they could have got there anyother way.....BTW...does anyone know if they have swim bladders..?? my guess is not as they aren't fish but why else would they float..?Necropolis123 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) A 25-foot giant squid was 200 pounds[reply]

They float because the ammonia in their skin makes them less dense than the water of the ocean, they actually have to swim in order to keep themselves down, this is why we have many dead bodies washing ashore rather than sinking to ocean floor.

what color and what is there appearance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.237.32.79 (talk • contribs) .

Gee... It was only recently photographed, and all the information is pretty much already in the article.... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent additions to the taxonomy section. Kudos. Ben-w 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page archive: "Adam Siefkas, Ph.D., is credited with having revolutionized the study of the giant squid."

- without elaboration, this doesn't seem relevant. I suspect the presence of one of the good doctor's admiring pupils. User:Palefire

I suspect you are correct, and I'll remove that line. - UtherSRG 11:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Plus: 1. Google only has results from Wikipedia. 2. Text now claims he is a researcher at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, yet that College does not have any kind of marine biology program. 3. There's no scholarly articles available on EBSCO by Adam Siefkas 4. There's no evidence that such a person actually exists.

Jackk 10:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it for now. Mgiganteus1 12:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the frenzy surrounding the filming and capture of a (briefly) live specimen, I've been motivated to visit this page and the Colossal Squid page. Both pages claim their subject has the largest eyes in the animal kingdom. So which is it really? I think we need some measurements on both pages. --Boradis 23:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above. Mgiganteus1 11:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN article Researchers catch giant squid claims that "Giant squid … are the world's largest invertebrates." However, I recently saw a Discovery Channel show on Sperm Whales. It claimed that only the larges and oldest male sperm whales would tackle an even bigger squid. This squid supposedly lived in the depths of the Pacific along the Antartic ice shelf.

Who is correct? Will (Talk - contribs) 07:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Colossal Squid is larger in terms of weight, mantle length, and probably total length as well. Mgiganteus1 11:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the first footage of live giant squids ever captured on film was in 2001 and was shown on Chasing Giants: On the Trail of the Giant Squid, a Discovery program which followed Dr. Steve O'Shea's capture of a live larval giant squid off the coast of New Zealand. References to the Japanese footage should really include an adult modifier to make this clear, and so I have changed the page accordingly.

Please merge any relevant content from Archie (squid) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archie (squid). Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:09Z

This article is in need of improvement to its bad layout. In the Giant squid#Size: section there is an image overlap, and in Giant squid#Timeline: there could be much more effective use of those images, rather than boxing in the text as is currently done.

I had previously made some reorganization attempts, but these were reverted, so I will leave it up to discussion.

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last yr i saw a video on the news showing a medium sized giant squid attacking a lure. It seemed that the tentacles lit up with bio-lumisence. It then seemed to circle the lure, tentacles out, to try and blind it. has anyone else seen this, maybe could be new section? compare with the japanese stills showing it taking lure. video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLEgneP9Bxo Iciac 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different (and much smaller) species, the Dana Octopus Squid. Mgiganteus1 23:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it disturbing that one man managed to re-write the books on 'squid size' despite no evidence? Claims of tentacle-stretching seem absurd. Dr. O'Shea appears guilty of 'recentism'...starting history from himself and dismissing the past work of others. This article needs more balance.R Young {^yakł_talk} 07:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve O´Shea showed that the tentacles of many giant squids were really overstrechted. You can strech the tentacles, but not the mantle of a squid, so you can determine the original length of a squid with overstrechted tentacles if you know its mantle-length. For example the alleged 18m speciemen, whose mantle length was only those of a speciemen of about half this size.

Giant or colossal squid? This thread says colossal, not giant. Anchoress 20:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The circumference of these suckers is lined with sharp, finely cerated rings of chitin." Checking the link on "Ceration", and by the context of another sentence below it, I'm guessing this should read "sharp, finely serrated rings of chitin" instead. Anyone?

Fixed. Mgiganteus1 14:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pburto 04:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are way to many images. I'm about to take half of 'em out.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 00:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am rewriting the sentence that says that Steenstrup "mistakenly spelled Architeuthus" for Architeuthis. I think it is unfair to say that he was mistaken, because:

1. Steenstrup coined the word. He couldn't have mispelled the word because the word did not exist before he invented it. If later other people changed the spelling from Architeuthus to Architeuthis, that would be another issue.
2. In fact, Steenstrup was probably very informed when he decided to call the giant squid a teuthus rather than a teuthis. Aristotle in his ancient History of Animals did distinguish among the molluscs the teuthis (or calamari) from the teuthus, which was "much bigger than the teuthis" and could measure "as much as five ells long".[4] Thus teuthus was probably a more adequate name for the giant squid than teuthis.

HYC 10:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has had a lot of vandalism lately, at least a couple times a day. Most of these edits are by new users. Anyone else want to get the page protected? Iciac (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC) >Yes, I have seen a statement saying bobobobobo... and I can not find it in the edit this page section to remove it. Trifoot[reply]

A giant squid carcass, which has the world's largest eyes (10.8 inches), has been captured off New Zealand. Thought it should be mentioned to the editors. There is a video of scientists examining the body on CNN. 98.21.140.109 (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely 1873 not 1673. It was described in 1875. Typo? Slainte Notafly (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be old, but it may be of some use: http://www.bigpond.com/news/technology/content/20080603/2263456.asp Iciac (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the February 8, 2009, episode of American Dad, a key plot point had Francine Smith get an article published in "Ocean Digest" magazine, ostensibly about the Colossal squid. In fact, the left page of the magazine had a chunk of text from Wikipedia's Squid article and the right page had this passage from the Giant squid article: "Although strandings continue to occur sporadically throughout the world, none have been as frequent as those at Newfoundland and New Zealand in the 19th century. It is not known why giant squid become stranded on shore, but it may be because the distribution of deep, cold water where squid live is temporarily altered." - Dravecky (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles doesn't seem to say at what depth the squid live, unless I have missed it. It only says that a squid was filmed at 900m. Does anyone know the answer to this? Westmorlandia (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised the article was missing this information. I've added a quick summary in Giant squid#Range and habitat. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to information I've obtained from an animal biology course the species for a giant squid is "dux" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.97.34 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a definition of the difference for people unfamilar with squid and octopi. Think of gators vs crocs, turtles vs tortoises, toads vs frogs, dolphins vs whales vs porpusi. Many people do not know how they are different. 173.175.54.131 (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a discussion for higher level articles, such as octopus, squid, or cephalopod. Giant squid are only one type of squid out of hundreds. mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some information to the article regarding some video evidence that appears to have gone unnoticed by everyone else here.  I see nothing about it here or in the article, which strikes me as extremely unusual, given how groundbreaking the evidence is.

When I saw this video, I came straight here to see if this material has been added to the article: to my dismay, there wasn't a single word about it.  How the heck can video footage from such a documentary expedition, analyzed by top scientific experts, not be a credible enough source for Wikipedia?  It deserves mention, in some form.

The episode of MonsterQuest in question is season 1, episode 3, found here in it's entirety.  What it reveals is amazing and very exciting: a strong possibility of a living Architheuthis, dwarfing all previous size estimates: the video expert that analyzed the footage gives an estimate of 108 feet in length.

I don't understand how to cite things using the complex Wikipedia formatting and rules these days, so I did the best I could by providing the video link.  I leave the wiki community to clean it up as needed. --Terminator484 (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the feeding habits of the giant squid lists deep sea fish as part of their diet, yet the article cited only mentions squid in the gut contents. There is no mention of deep sea fish. This needs to either be deleted or a new source added that shows fish as part of the diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cday41 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not good with Wikipedia but I like giant squids, here is the link, you Wiki editing types should know what to do with it. http://dsc.discovery.com/show-news/giant-squid-captured-on-video-for-first-time.html -116.49.155.211 (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! I've added this information to the article. -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Giant Squids make any kind of noise? Or are they completely silent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyondtherainbow1 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100 feet long. http://www.lightlybraisedturnip.com/giant-squid-in-california/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.204.190.62 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Giant Squid's scientific name is Archituthis dux — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.15.250.65 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Giant squid. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.underseavoyagerproject.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=69

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Giant squid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/28451
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004233759/http://www.nhk.or.jp/pr/english/press/pdf/20130109.pdf to http://www.nhk.or.jp/pr/english/press/pdf/20130109.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130109094955/http://www.nhk.or.jp/ocean/giantcreature/ to http://www.nhk.or.jp/ocean/giantcreature/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121212150837/http://dsc.discovery.com/show-news/giant-squid-captured-on-video-for-first-time.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/show-news/giant-squid-captured-on-video-for-first-time.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giant squid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11852&postcount=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205061750/http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/squid99.html to http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/squid99.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/ahoy-squiddy/554954/

See here, the new theory is relation to the squid mentioned under that heading is that it may have been injured while its food was been taken from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.231.140 (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any information on what a giant squid vision is like? I know that many organisms in the deep-sea do not have great eyesight, but given the size of its eye, I was curious if it is effective in the darkness. Kylietso (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on giant squids, i simply do not believe that the statue needs to be followed up by obscure japanese politics. Most articles would only go so far as to mention the staute, most statues are also made from embezzled money, but that's not mentioned in other articles. the politics behind it is irrelevant to the topic of giant squids. Readers can look into the statue if they want, and they should, but a short addition like that tends to sway people's opinion to a specific, pre-determined conclusion because nobody is actually going to read into it. It's just negative and off topic on an article about giant squids. Neldonax (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and removed it. As I noted in my edit comment, it's also listed in Giant squid in popular culture, which is linked in the same section. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The bases of all the arms and tentacles are arranged in a circle surrounding the animal's single, parrot-like beak, as in other cephalopods" is tagged with citation needed. What part of this needs additional citation? It seems rather evident to me. Duckduckgoop (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in 2019, the once-detailed list of live giant squid videos (at the time 4 had been made) was removed, with the reasoning that there was already a page for them, which is justified, especially given that more observations have since been made. However, this was done by turning all the well-attested recent observations into footnotes to the very uncertain MonsterQuest observation (while the original observer said it's most likely an Architeuthis, he noted that he could not confirm it as such), which has undeservedly received all the detail as the alleged first live giant squid sighting. At the very least, I believe that the 2012 NHK video deserves further mention on this page. Geekgecko (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]