Talk:Paul the Octopus

Neutrality and accuracy

1) There is no basis in fact to state in the introduction that the octopus correctly predicted anything. This is obviously not scientific, but akin to astrology and numerology, since using an animal for divination has no basis in any factual or rational field. So, stating as fact that the octopus "predicted" this or that in the first sentence (!) without a qualifier ... this is ridiculous.

2) Ahmadinejad did not criticize the octopus itself. He criticized the West for using the octopus to "promote western superstition and propaganda". Please use primary source translation instead of a false and incorrect translation of a tiny fragment taken out of context by the Telegraph, which is practically considered a tabloid in the UK! Please, for the love of diplomacy and neutrality, let us stop abusing WP to bash unpopular leaders! Wikipedia is the Switzerland of the Internet, so let us behave accordingly. Thank you! Laval (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

can you be any more uptight about this? It's just a silly season pop culture item. --dab (𒁳) 07:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone (else) think "the West" is really using the octopus to "promote western superstition and propaganda"? That's as crazy as thinking the octopus can predict sports event outcomes.

—WWoods (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is about Ahmadinejad. The phrase really think does not apply here. It's just random polemics. I can only assume that as an arid country, Iran suffers from a journalistic slow season even more than other countries. --dab (𒁳) 08:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that pretty much the whole entire news story from start to finish (as it was reported in the mass media) was "a silly season pop culture" item, done tongue in cheek, but... (and this is very important) Wikipedia is not The Onion! We are an encyclopedia.

We do not publish jokes, we only publish serious articles about jokes, as per WP:HOAX. We have a duty to the public to report items in a factual way, despite the fact that the media used this as an entertainment item, and did not care at all the fact that they were encouraging superstitious people to believe in such things.

I disagree with the notion that Ahmadinejad's comment was random polemics. I have to say that I agree with him. You would be amazed how many people actually believe these kinds of ridiculous superstitions. The uncritical reporting of it for entertainment purposes (but without a disclaimer) only encourages people to embrace magical thinking. In the West we desperately need more logic and critical thinking, not less of it. This is especially true in Wikipedia: we are an encyclopedia: we are here to inform people, not to entertain them with joke stories for the silly season.

Invertzoo (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you as well agreeing with Ahmadinejads claims about the high hold virtues of Iran? The huffington rebuke is not a joke bt a well aimed public reaction on a dictators propaganda. The german WP includes the remarks about Ahmadingsdas lack of humour and the question wether killing inoccent ppl is based on higher moral ground than predicting football games. Think its appropriate to proceed similarly here. Polentario (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Western should be put in quote marks. The octopus was essentially drawing lots and using lots to predict the future (cleromancy) dates back to Israel in the time of Joshua, whether or not it's human or anything else. 92.7.181.64 (talk) 12:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

OK, it seems that we have vandalism on table of Paul's predictions, and also, someone added false "fact" that Paul will be "prophet" for World Cup 2018.

He'll be dead by end of 2011., simply because octopuses live 3-4 years.

Please remove that false statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AurgelmirCro (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely most people feel that saying "It is sad, but we have filmed the octopus" is unsympathetic? It can't be proved otherwise, can it? 92.7.202.13 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Size and Weight of Paul

Does anyone have information regarding the size (length) and the weight of Octopus Paul? this info could be put in the infobox. Unfortunately, my searches were unsuccessful.

Btw, really saddened to hear about his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.11.216 (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fey said that...

The quote refers to Daniel Fey, not 'Fey' as in camp way. 92.7.178.39 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

and the point is?

I do not understand what is the point of having Paul listen in obituaries. I mean he was an octopus, not human. Isn't it a little too pointless? Norum 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Then again, why do we ignore people until after they die? The obituary is a strange old world as it is. 92.7.181.64 (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"This article is about an animal who has recently died"

ROFL, for real? You guys have that banner for dead animals? You cannot be serious... 24.189.87.160 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's actually the usual {{Recent death}} template, which has just been modified to allow other words to be used in place of "person". Reach Out to the Truth 04:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How many years does it take to hatch an octopus?

We read at the very beginning of the article

    Paul the Octopus (reportedly hatched January 2008 - 26 October 2010) [1][2]

which is very unclear, because it sounds like it took two and 3/4 years to hatch Paul. But in actuality the second date is the date of Paul's death.

I submitted a clear fix for this, but it was reversed by some nobly intentioned (but IMHO unenlightened [so as to avoid saying misguided]) soul. Very well, have it your way, but at least restore the en dash (that was there before my edit), instead of just inserting a measly (and very incorrect in this context) hyphen. Toddcs (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Predicted"

The prolific usage of the word "predicted" is not acceptable in the context of the article. This gives too much weight to the supernatural interpretation of the events and maintains a clearly biased, non-neutral article. We can say Paul selected a box corresponding to the later winner of the match, which is neutral but still clearly indicates what happened. "Predicted" implies a full understanding of the events in question and additionally an understanding that onlookers are expecting him to select a box corresponding to the team that will win. Some guy (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree. But perhaps, as previously suggested, the events seem to have been interpreted as a special form of cleromancy, which may or may not necessarily have to include any "understanding" on the part of the entity performing the divination? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you find it unacceptable. Perhaps if you write to the major news sources who covered the events in these terms in the summer, they will amend their coverage and issue corrections. In the meantime, we follow the sources. --John (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, pen in hand, thanks. Um, I was trying to ask where the "prediction" might reside - in the mind of an octopus, in the mind of an observer, in the mind of a news reader, in the mind of a wikipedia reader? Hmm, yes, we'd better follow the sources, "follow the flags". Ha! as if a wikipedia reader might decide for himself!? Whatever next? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's intentional misuse of Wikipedia policy. We don't write tongue-in-cheek articles. We are supposed to be aware of non-neutral tone in newspaper articles and prevent it from entering our own articles. I'll point out again the article on Jesus doesn't say he "is the son of god" in the lead, although this is one of the most widely reported things in human history. Some guy (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Moved from something I posted on John's user talk: If you go to the article on Jesus you will note the article does not start by saying "Jesus is the son of God, who died to save humans from their sins and was resurrected three days later". Even though this interpretation of the events of Jesus' life is widely reported, we present the information in a neutral matter. It is not neutral to say that Paul the Octopus predicted the outcome of football matches; this goes beyond stretching the definition of the word "predicted" and it presents a particular supernatural interpretation of events as fact, even though it is just as easy and still quite remarkable to say what happened in neutral tone. Again, we don't simply adopt media circus terminology because "that's what the sources say"; news media will run with any fun story and use tongue-in-cheek reporting for humor value. We do not write tongue-in-cheek articles on Wikipedia.

Also please read the comment by Invertzoo, dated 20:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC), a few sections above. Some guy (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I already did, thanks. See archived discussion too. Bear in mind too that we can't meaningfully enact a local consensus that would override WP:V and WP:NPOV. We follow the sources. I'm not an expert on the Jesus article but I'd imagine its editors, too, try to follow the sources. Do you have sources for the wording you wish to add? --John (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus starts with Jesus of Nazareth (c. 5 BC/BCE – c. 30 AD/CE),[3] also known as Jesus Christ or simply Jesus, is the central figure of Christianity. Christians view him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament and as the Son of God,[6] who provided salvation and reconciliation with God to humankind by dying for their sins, then raising himself from the dead.[7][8] which seems pretty reasonable to me. There's always Talk:Jesus if you think that too is unreasonable. --John (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice the wording "Christians view him as ", which is the equivalent of "which were widely labelled as predictions". The article discusses what people say about him without presenting it as absolute fact. This is how this type of article should be written. The discussion you cited is people saying what I'm saying against people saying "the article should be funny and people should know that", which is not how we write articles. It is also not a conclusive discussion, there is no consensus at the end. Some guy (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No. See WP:WEASEL. You need to find people saying verifiably what you want our article to say, then cite it, as the Jesus article does. Failing that we need to follow the existing sources. --John (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't follow articles that are tongue-in-cheek. Some guy (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh? Where is this written down, and where does it say the sources currently on the article are tongue in cheek? We can't "balance" what you see as the non-scientific nature of the phenomenon with WP:WEASEL words, NPOV doesn't work that way. We follow the sources, and we balance with other reliable sources. Where are yours? --John (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(←) You're trying to abuse the guidelines and follow sources inappropriately to present unscientific informtion as the truth. There are a variety of sources cited in the article which support the view that the octopus was not "predicting" anything, but by saying 'Paul predicted this' in the lead you give undue weight to a single side of the 'issue'. Some guy (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Then present the sources that promote the wording you wish us to use. --John (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong results in tables

The tables with the results of European Cup 2008 and Word Cup 2010 should be corrected. Paul always chose one box out of two where box 1 represented team 1 (usually Germany) and box 2 was team 2 the opponent. Either the complete teams should be mentioned as for the final of WC 2010 or the results-column should be corrected especially for EC 2008 where it does not show the exact results from Germany's view as team 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.113.206 (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the word "predicted" be used?

Should the article use phrasing referring to the events as predictions, for example "Paul's predictions were designed [...]" and "These predictions were correct [...]"? Some guy (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• No, not exclusively: There ought to be at least some discussion as per Prediction#Vision and prophecy and Divination. Second-hand assumptions of what is "tongue-in cheek" need to be put aside - some newpaper readers may well believe this is prediction, even some newpaper editors? It seems ironic that any encyclopedia has to report events on the basis of tabloid headlines where some element of belief is involved. Wikipedia articles usually state "it was reported that" or "it was claimed that" or using `sceptical quotes'. I think this case may be more problematic, however, as the accepted popular use of the word of "prediction" is rather wide and rather fluid. Narrower terms, such as cleromancy, should at least appear somewhere in this article? But what has been done for other oracular animals? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Better to avoid using the word predicted, unless it is used as in phrases like "understood to have predicted", or used with scare quotes, or unless the word predict is very carefully defined in the intro with a link to Divination and any other relevant articles. I would argue that this article is one of the extremely rare occasions where we should use the 5th Pillar: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" and "the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule". Either that or the article is doing more harm than good, appearing to endorse supernaturalism and increase scientific ignorance in readers who don't understand that the context is supposed to be humorous. By the way, I was the editor who added in:

"Some sources indirectly expressed doubt about the octopus' abilities.BBC News, when they reported this news story, used scare quotes when describing the abilities of the octopus: "psychic", "prophesy". Reuters also used scare quotes: "oracle octopus"."

There are additional similar sources that can be added. This paragraph was reverted by User:John, who seemed to strongly oppose its inclusion for reasons that I don't understand, since it was properly sourced (see talk page archive under the heading: Mention of use of scare quotes by journalism sources). I reinstated it some time later. Invertzoo (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• See WP:V and extensive discussion in the archives. We follow the sources, and if we need to balance we do it by finding other sources, not by using scare quotes or weasel words. --John (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, are these "other sources" real or hypothetical? I don't think you'll find many - mainstream editors either "joined in" with the joke or did not bother to report? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The absence of sources with a particular POV is a good indicator that Wikipedia should not report that POV. If on the other hand sources can be found supporting what you want us to say, I am all for adding it. --John (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The three of us have already debated this above; let's try to wait for some more outside opinion. Some guy (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think we have to differentiate between a newspaper article and an encyclopedia article. Our WP:RS and WP:V policies were not meant to withstand tongue-in-cheek news articles such as this one. When a reliable source reports a cute story in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, translating it into an encyclopedic article is very tricky because an encyclopedia is not supposed to accommodate "cute" or "tongue-in-cheek". The solution here is to emulate the reports of the more serious news organisations like the BBC and qualify the predictions by adding quotes. Otherwise we run the risk of turning a good chunk of Wikipedia into a tabloid-type almanak. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Since the article has extended explanation of "Paul's apparent success", I don't think any reader is going to come away with the impression that Paul really was either divinely inspired or a soccer tout. So putting uses of "predict[ion]" in scare quotes or prefacing them with disclaimers is unnecessary, and makes it read badly.

This might be worth adding somewhere:

"Did Paul (RIP) Have Skill?"

First, did Paul have predictive skill? That is to ask, were his picks better than those that would have been made at the time by a naive forecasting methodology?

The answer is yes. Paul had skill. ...

—WWoods (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That operates under the assumption people read the whole article, but the lead needs to accurately summarize the whole article. I don't think it's appropriate to say he's predicting things in the lead, and then why he really wasn't predicting things later on. Also, blogs are not generally usable as sources. Some guy (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK to use in some cases: I find that I'm not very sympathetic to either of the extreme positions here. Some guy's claim that "prediction" inherently supports a mystic interpretation seems a bit excessive to me. Given that the entire article is about an octopus that supposedly predicts the outcome of soccer matches, complete avoidance of the word "predict" would be awkward. I don't think anyone would come away from the article in its current form with the impression that octopuses have precognitive powers, despite the current use of "predict". On the other hand, John's claim that "predict" is required for conformance to sources just seems bizarre. In quotations, sure; however, original writing for the article can use any reasonable and nontendentious English terms, e.g., "selections" or "choices". "Predictions" is probably best avoided, but in some contexts it will be the only word that fits smoothly. NillaGoon (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to say that I approve of NillaGoon's suggestion that we could use words such as "selection" or "choice" most of the time, it is after all, a simple food choice the octopus was making. If in some parallel universe a super-intelligent octopus wanted to express some sort of bizarre preference for one football team or flag over another, no food would need to be involved at all, the octopus could simply sit in the box which had the flag on it that he preferred. The word <predict> tend to imply a level of mentation that is simply not applicable to any invertebrate animal, and to very few vertebrate animals. The important thing to consider here is that journalists all over the world reported this story tongue-in-cheek for entertainment purposes; they are free to do that, as journalism allows for such light-hearted nonsense. That does not mean that as an encyclopedia we have to report the same thing on our pages as if we considered it to be a serious story. That's just not appropriate, despite the NPOV and Verifiability guidelines. Invertzoo (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I like your point about octopus mentation, but I wonder if it doesn't apply just as well to "select" and "choose" as it does to "predict". All these words imply that some kind of cognitive process is going on. But more likely, Paul was just following the smell of a random mussel. Who knows if he was even aware that multiple mussels were available?

If you wanted to be truly rigorous and neutral, you'd have to stick with something like "the soccer team associated with the mussel first eaten by Paul" rather than "Paul's selection", and that just sounds tortured. "Predicted" really isn't SO much worse than "selected" or "chose"... NillaGoon (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sir, ma'am, or goon, I take offense to your underestimation of Paul's intelligence. see Octopus#Intelligence. Paul was most definitely making a "choice" between mussels but not (consciously) "predicting" anything as he was never taught the gentleman's game of football, which in itself is a tragedy. Spacexplosion^[talk] 17:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's true, it's true -- I'm a notorious misunderestimator of octopus intelligence. Even so, one can be quite intelligent and yet unaware of all one's options. How can you be sure that Paul was aware of both mussels and made a cognitive choice between them? Isn't that purely conjecture? NillaGoon (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that in some cases he chose the second box he touched, meaning that he passed up one mussel for the other. I'd have to go find the full-length videos to make sure. Spacexplosion^[talk] 20:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Use sparingly, but no scare quotes: Currently there are 54 instances of "predict" in the article. My opinion is that it would improve the writing as well as compromise on this issue to vary the wording. I would suggest changing the first example in this RfC to "Paul's selections" and keeping the second example as is. Spacexplosion^[talk] 00:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you feel about "Paul became internationally famous for correctly predicting the winner of [...]"? Some guy (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have answered you boldly[1]. Spacexplosion^[talk] 20:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I like, I like...except the first paragraph, which reads weirdly now. I gather that some editors are dead set against all scare quotes, but "Paul became internationally famous for correctly 'predicting' the winner..." seems fine to me. NillaGoon (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It reads a little oddly but but it's definitely better. Some guy (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

How about this version? My intention was to keep Spacexplosion's adjustments but make it flow a bit better. NillaGoon (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A definite improvement. Thanks! Some guy (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Invertzoo (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Colour-Blind ?

Given the octopus' amazing ability to camouflage itself, I was surprised to see it described as "almost certainly" colour-blind. I was less surprised to see the Citation is for Cuttlefish, not octopus ! OK - research shows they are pretty similar. Octopii beat the chameleon at its own game - they change shape and even texture, not just colour. [2] LOL - that search finds several informal sources that say it's colour-blind ! Maybe we can find a better citation ? [3] Some think it detects colour by touch ! Perhaps with surface receptors like the Nautilus, but using a contact print not pinhole camera ? Cephalopod Crypsis says it matches a photograph or through glass, but with less 'depth' than on a 3D surface ! Given that they can even produce polarization patterns that are almost invisible to us, I suspect that they can see colour, even though they do not use colour sense mechanisms that we recognise and understand, and do not always co-operate in experiments. However, I leave it to the experts ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Probabilities

The article currently says José Mérida, a data analyst from Guatemala City, used a coin tossing model to calculate that only 178 individuals are needed to have someone correctly predict all the winners from a series of 8 matches. That, in itself, is false. It's absolutely possible to have 178, 180 or 200 people trying and not successfully getting a correct prediction. Even a million people in a row could fail, although that's very unlikely. What the data analyst probably said (and I can't read the source that is referred) is that the likelihood of at least one person getting it right is 50 percent or larger with 178 people trying. It would be nice if someone with a grasp of the source could correct this.--134.130.4.242 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)