Recently a wave of edits have introduced sources from cryptozoologists and other fringe proponents. I've removed what I've noticed ([1]), but we need to be vigilant about what sources are being added to these article spaces. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
- What’s our policy on in-text links to YouTube videos? Since they’re not considered WP:RS, I’m not sure we should be showcasing them in the article text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
- I'm also wondering the same. The first video is apparently a news source (https://globalnews.ca/okanagan/ — presumably, but we're blocked from accessing the user's channel itself), but the second is just some person on Youtube. The second one definitely needs to go, but the first one? Not sure what the policy is.
- More broadly, the article currently places a lot of emphasis on "sightings" rather than analysis of the cultural and context, which is a big red flag, IMO. We need a lot less about claims of people having seen an entity, and a lot more material from experts (if it's out there). :bloodofox: (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
- What are you talking about. They’re almost all from a book by Benjamin Radford, who is already quotes in the lead. Give me a break. ~ HAL333 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Sources exterior to the "almost all" are the issue here—please verify whether a source violates WP:FRINGE before introducing it into an article. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
- While Global News is a reliable source in principle, as the real news division of a national television network, we still have a rule that for copyright reasons, we cannot link to reupped YouTube copies of their news reports — YouTube is not itself the holder of the copyright on that content. If you can't find a copy of that news report on global.com itself, then no other copy on any other website may be linked to as a replacement for it. There are essentially no valid reasons to ever link to anything on YouTube as a reference for any Wikipedia content: if the video wasn't created by a real media outlet, then it's invalid under our reliable source requirements, and if it was created by a real media outlet, then it can't be used on "YouTube is not the holder of the copyright" grounds. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
- I’d remove the video links from the text and put them in EL. I agree that the restructuring of the article to emphasize or function as a repository or catalog of “sightings” (such as is being done at Tahoe Tessie) is not an improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
It appears that recently this article has seen a significant amount of synthesis, introducing sources such as this one that make no mention of the subject of this article. The newly introduced "moose" section also contains sources that make no mention of the subject, for example. All of these sections that use sources that make no mention of the Ogopogo need to be removed. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
- That source is a cite to the statement that otters are "Capable of swimming at up to 6 miles per hour". I moved the moose source to cite the fact the source mentions.--Auric talk 17:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
- If the source doesn't mention the Ogopogo, this is synthesis. I'm removed all sources that do not mention the article's subject. Please do not add more. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure if this is related but in Loch ness in Scotland United kingdom your animal sounds like the same thing some people also say this creature doesn't exist maybe all these animals are some how related 86.24.8.222 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}