Talk:Ogopogo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biased

If you are going to use a politically correct term like "[First nation]", then don't add a 'color' term like white right next to it. Socially engineered bias much?

Chaplin video

COMMENTS ON THE CHAPLIN VIDEO: The erroneous argument that beavers always keep their head at water level during a tail splash whereas the animal in the Chaplin video does not was taken straight from the t.v. show "Unsolved Mysteries." A similiar argument would be assuming that all dogs keep their head in a certain position when wagging their tail. Comical, to say the least. For this reason I have deleted this line from the page. Also, to even suggest that the animal in the video could be anywhere near 15 ft long is an insult to anyone with an IQ over 50 (Comment added 11 december 2006)

Ok, I removed the sentence, "while a beaver's head would be either be level to the water or already diving prior to a tail slap," since this states that all beavers's heads are either level to the water or diving prior to a tail slap. This is patently FALSE and a weak argument at best. See the comment above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I also find it very odd that Chaplin was also able to take another video of it the very next day. Hmmm....and no one else has been able to do this?

Recent Sightings

Are there any recent sightings? Punk18 06:48, 24 June 2006

BC

• What I want to know is, why does BC hog all the cool monsters, like Ogopogo and Sasquatch? What about equalization payments? Shouldn't BC ship some of its monsters to other provinces? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this for serious talk about the article? We (living near Okanagan Lake in Oliver) get the cool stuff because we are located near the Pacific ocean, sure Newfoundland an the Eastern provinces are near the Atlantic but the Pacific is way cooler for stuff like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.129.239.143 (talk) 21:01, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Song

Why is there no reference to the Ogopogo song, from which the name originates?[1] Totnesmartin 20:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Add it if you like, just please put it after the footnote since the reference doesn't talk about the song. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Name

I see that "Mee-Shee" is on the list of names for this creature. "Mee-Shee" is not a real name, just a nonsense word invented for the fictional movie "Mee-Shee the Water Giant." As such, it should not be included here. Also, "Niataka" should be spelled "Naitaka." Shall I make these edits? User: Aelia

Does the name mean "The remorseful one"? i've just read that in a book, but the book doesn't say where this information comes from. Totnesmartin 11:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Christopher W. Morin

I can verify this Morin claims. I saw them with my peepers.

Final Fantasy Ogopogo?

From where does the assertion that the Final Fantasy IV incarnation of Ogopogo "enjoys sex with humans" come? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.246.75 (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"culture"

I think the "In culture" and "In Popular culture" sections ought to be merged.. they seem redundant to each other. Micro01 (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Endangered species listing?

Has the ogopogo ever appeared in an official list of endangered species? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Only real animals are listed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that? This is an animal suspected of being real, but they're not sure. Might they not err on the side of caution and make it illegal to hunt an animal that, if it exists, is found only in this one lake? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't change the lede again to make fringe views more acceptable. Believe what you want, Wikipedia deals with facts, not fantasy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I was making it what is called "NPOV". An "NPOV" would be that the existence of this species is suspected by some people but not established. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You may have intended that, but that is not what you did. Your edits made it appear that the animal exists, but there is not enough evidence to prove it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My intent was to make it appear that the animal is suspected of existing, but there is not enough evidence to prove it or to study the animal. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a fringe view. The mainstream view is that the ogopogo does not exist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the "mainstream" view seems to be that no one knows for sure if ogo exists or not. I don't think there is a large consensis for 'real' or 'fake' in the general population, most of the citizens I and my people have asked concerning this issue either don't know if it is real or not, or don't really care. Fringe indicates a small percentage of people with mostly socially unaceptable views. That is not the case here. I'm with Michael Hardy on this one. 96.54.72.207 (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I very much contest that assertion. I'm not sure what you're definition of "mainstream" is, but in my experience, Ogopogo is a fondly-held myth. I have met no person from the region that seriously believes it could be in the lake. If you feel public opinion supports your view, provide some evidence of that, i.e. polls, opinion surveys, studies. The Interior (Talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. No real scientist thinks this is anything but a badly misunderstood English settler/colonizer version of a Native American myth. You won't find a single Reliable reference to cite otherwise. I wouldn't trust those "some people" around anything flammable. 50.111.2.50 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

This article was full of unsourced statements which had been tagged as needing a citation for 2 or 3 years. I have removed all of these statements, leaving only referenced statements and the popcult items, which are sourced by the books, films etc. they describe. All additions to this article need to fulfill core Wikipedian policies such as verifiability and the need to use reliable sources. Further, our policies on fringe subjects and giving information the proper weight need to be upheld as well. None of the statements I have removed should be re-added without a reliable source to support them, and any additional information needs to be backed up with citations as well, if we are to keep this article factual and presented from a neutral point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ogopogo/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

As a BC Project page, the page is better rated as a B than as a Start quality. KenWalker | Talk 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Cryptozoology Hijacking and Article Composition

I've just removed a ton of undue emphasis on cryptozoology, an obscure pseudoscience that dominated this article. Wikipedia has straightforward policies about this stuff, namely WP:UNDUE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. This article also featured quite a few dead external links. All in all, it would do well to be rewritten with secondary sources composed by folklorists (folkloristics). There's no reason to lean on poor quality sources with this stuff, nor to treat it like a Pokémon just waiting to be found somewhere rather than another water-dwelling entity from the folklore record. The stuff about First Nations peoples is also interesting and needs a serious examination. From what I'm seeing, chances are it's not being represented here correctly. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

But the people of Kelowna NEED their monster!  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.2.50 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Rewriting page

View Rewrite and the Talk page

I'm currently rewriting this article in a Sandbox page. I'm aiming to finish by the end of May. If there's anything you want added, let me know. AspenSavannah (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. I see that you're a member of Wikiproject Cryptozoology. Are you bringing in cryptozoology sources into your rewrite? (Please see discussion above.) :bloodofox: (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm very academic. There are cryptozoology sources, but also folklore & skeptical sources. I think you'll like the results. AspenSavannah (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

A recommendation: stick to the folklorists and skip the rest. This is an entity from the folklore record, a topic on which folklorists are authorities, whereas cryptozoology approaches fall well within WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:UNDUE, and a host of other related policies. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you post a pointer to your re-write here when you're finished. Full re-writes made without input from other editors frequently get reverted in toto until they can get consensus on the talk page, and you'd be able to avoid that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, after reading your sandbox version, I insist that get your version vetted before posting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: using cryptozoology sources, Wikipedia's not neutral when it comes to objective reality, so giving equal validity to the idea that Ogopogo exists isn't something we can do. Where these types of articles usually go wrong is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a large section of WP:SENSATIONAL "sightings" that are treated credulously or at face value. Like two boys who say they saw a fire breathing monster. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The fire breathing monster may need it's own page & it was about creating a story to attract tourists. AspenSavannah (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

In the 1942 newspaper containing the fire breathing monster claim, the story in the column above it casually mentions Nazi planes machine gunning a town in East Anglia. Ironic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

At the top of the section are pointers to the rewrite & it's talk page. Keep in mind that it's still in the early stages and a lot of what's there are notes. My personal view is that Ogopogo is about attracting tourists. AspenSavannah (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Cool Aspen, looking forward to reading your rewrite.Sgerbic (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The rewrite is taking longer than planned, but I'm still slowly working on it. It's still a mess, with notes and unfinished paragraphs.

For disclosure: The Ben Coxworth article, that exposes the Rocky Mountain Terror as a hoax, references an old web page of mine, Alberta Lake Monsters, and mentions me by name, Kevin Stewart. I had no input into the investigation other than what's mentioned in the article. AspenSavannah (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The first draft of my rewrite is finally done. It didn't go as plan & it's an expansion of the name section. I think it needs it's own page. AspenSavannah (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Aspen. A little feedback for your draft:

• Fringe sources: Wikipedia has strict guidelines on pseudoscience (WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE), including WP:FRINGE. Currently you're using two fringe sources: Karl Shuker and George M. Eberhart. Both need to be replaced with reliable sources: think academic presses or works produced by reputable journalists. For an etymology, you'll definitely need to turn to a historical linguist.
• Bullet lists: Articles full of lists become lists. Right now you have a lot of items in bullet lists rather than in prose (see MOS:LISTBASICS).
• Lead: The article's lead should be a summary of its contents (WP:LEAD).

Once you've tackled these issues, I can provide further feedback, if you'd like. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see the new etymology I've just replaced the fringe source with here, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

new edits keep being reverted for no good reason

Beyond My Ken kindly explain why the following is being reverted: + * 2018: In June, the Escape (TV network) re-broadcasts the September 14, 1988 Unsolved Mysteries story and video footage with new host Dennis Farina narrating the interviewing of multiple witnesses that shot home video of Ogo Pogo. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Because the program is listed already above, and there's no need to indicated every time it is re-packaged and shown again under a different title. I should have thought that would be obvious. Also, don't put your comments into the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

yo,yeah, ok. I added that as well [1988]. so different issue. but that was a different host. so the updated broadcast seemed relevant w/Dennis Frarina... and also the most recent show of this...Let us eat lettuce (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Different host, same content, no new entry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

the re=broadcast of the original footage is significant yo don't u c?

No, it is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Fringe Source and Google Maps Link

While the whole article is certainly a mess and needs to be rewritten, the article features what I'd consider to be two glaring problem sources:

• A link to cryptozoologist Karl Shuker's blog
• A Google Maps link

@Beyond My Ken: disagrees. Some observations; First, Shuker, like other cryptozoologists are not reliable sources for any data, and we shouldn't be linking to his personal blog for any reason (the blog exists to promote a pseudoscience). If it's notable, we can find another source or it. Next, a Google Maps link? Come on. Again, if it's notable, there's another source for it. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree that cryptozoologists are not scientific sources, however, the fact that's being sourced in this instance is the origin of the name, an historical fact and not a scientific one, and Shuker, as someone who's immersed in the history of cryptozoologist (and in his professional life is a zoologist) should be considered a reliable source for that non-scientific piece of information. In any case, I have taken the claim out of Wikipedia's voice and specifically assigned it to Shuker.

Regarding Goggle Maps, I believe that a discussion on WP:RSN determined that it is a reliable source, at least for some things. I'll try to find that discussion and link it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

See this discussion. There are others, but this seems to be the most pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Any way you slice it, Shuker is not a reliable source, and he's certainly not historical linguist (historical linguistics). If it's a historical fact, then we can find a reliable source that makes the claim, not a pseudoscience proponent. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I've just replaced the fringe source with a reliable one. As usual, it's never as simple a matter as the fringe sources would have it. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Tag placement, unsourced information

User:Beyond My Ken, you participated in the RfC that showed clear community consensus for the placement of article cleanup tags at the top of articles. This is community consensus and cannot be overridden by your personal opinion.

User:Beyond My Ken, there is a Wikipedia policy, WP:V, that says you cannot restore challenged information without a source. Do not restore it. Additionally, the RfC about examples in popular culture requires that these sources discuss the significance of each example in popular culture. Bright☀ 10:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Guidelines are not policy and cannot be be automatically invoked, because they are not mandatory. They are subject to consunsus interpretation as to usage, which is what I've asked you to discuss here -- not the generalities about the tag, but its applicability to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken, your personal opinion is not mandatory, and until you can establish consensus for placing cleanup tags at the bottom of articles and placing images above level-2 headings, you are edit-warring against consensus. Bright☀ 08:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

disinformation by malignant quoting

"Skeptic Benjamin Radford notes that “these First Nations stories were not referring to a literal lake monster like Ogopogo, but instead to a legendary water spirit.”[1]"

I can't find this quote online at the source. But I found the full one somewhere else :

"It's clear, however, that these stories were not referring to a literal lake monster like Ogopogo, but instead to a legendary water spirit. Though the supernatural N'ha-a-itk of the Okanagan Valley Indians is long gone, a decidedly less fearsome — and more biological — beast, whose exact form is a matter of debate, has replaced it." https://www.livescience.com/42399-ogopogo.html

This falsified quote was added in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ogopogo&diff=prev&oldid=671366235 by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sgerbic This user seems malignant, look at these articles he wrote and tell me he is not vandalizing with his quote cut in half. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/vandalism_on_wikipedia http://www.csicop.org/si/show/is_wikipedia_a_conspiracy_common_myths_explained

(note that both the Benjamin Radfort quote cut by Sgerbic and his articles are on the same source website.

Ogbaba (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of a partial quote is not "disinformation" nor is it "malignant". You may want to review MOS:QUOTE and our other editorial policies. It's obvious the use of the quote was intended to make a distinction between Okanagan Valley Indian legends and monster sightings attributed to this tribe. The second half of the quote was likely omitted because it refers to Radford's opinion that contemporary sightings were probably of a water fowl or beaver, rather than a lake monster, which is cited further down in the article text. - LuckyLouie (talk)