Talk:Paul the Octopus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Pseudoscience"

Re. [1]: I agree with SlimVirgin's removal of Category:Pseudoscience. This is not "pseudoscience", because nobody has ever claimed it's "science". It's a joke, and is universally being received and reported on as such. Nobody has ever claimed it should be taken seriously, in the sense that the Octopus actually has true special powers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

An edit war over whether Paul the Psychic Octopus is pseudoscience. Splendid! :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We should ask Paul which of us is gonna win. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL!! :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a malacologist, a scientist and a skeptic. Contrary to appearances, I do have a sense of humor. However: This is quoted from the Wikipedia page for the category Pseudoscience:

"Pseudoscience is a broad system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific, but that are not considered being so by the scientific community.[1]

This category comprises highly notable topics that are generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology) and topics that, while perhaps notable, have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth)."

If you look on the list of articles in this category you will see that there are many similar topics listed. Many people will take this topic quite seriously as an example of animal divination. It is our responsibility at Wikipedia to make sure that the scientific point of view is also represented here. The fact that some people find this story very funny is not reason enough to present it as if it were completely factual. Invertzoo (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Another note: If some editors apparently have a problem with this article being placed in the Category:Pseudoscience, how come nobody seems to have a problem with the fact that I also placed it in the Category Psychics, and Category Parapsychology? I also just now placed in it Category Divination. Now if any of those are fair categories to put it in, then category Pseudoscience is also appropriate. All divination, all psychics, all paranormal stuff is pseudoscience plain and simple. If this story is just a joke, and not meant to be taken seriously at all, then this must be very explicitly pointed out in the article. Invertzoo (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now revert-warring. Don't. – By the way, if "Psychics" is contained in "Parapsychology" anyway, and that in turn in "Pseudoscience", then that's only one reason more not to have the more general cats, on purely technical grounds: Per general guidelines, we don't include articles in daughter cats and their parent cats at the same time. Only the most specific cat gets included, all others are redundant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm This is another proof by Wikipedia that the brainwashing of the people by the fun-oriented mass media is effective. People believing that somebody might seriously believe this nonsense is just the first step. You are obviously one of the pioneers in this respect. The next step will be some people actually believing such nonsense just because it's shown on TV. I really hope we haven't reached that step yet. In any case encyclopedias are written for people with a reasonable amount of intelligence and common sense, not for the exceptionally stupid.

Now for the formal, Wikipedia-style argument: What this nonsense is missing is "claim or appear to be scientific" and "obviously pseudoscientific". Is there anything wrong with words like "divination", "superstition", "nonsense", "stupidity", "foolishness", etc.? Where does this pushing of the word "pseudoscience" for things that have no similarity with science originate? What's next? Groundhog Day as pseudoscience?

Why not be a bit more specific and call it pseudobiology? Or even pseudoastronomy or pseudoeconomics? Hans Adler 22:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the term pseudoscience and the category pseudoscience is quite legitimate for this nutty animal-based divination activity. if you look under that category, you will find such articles as Cooties, Horoscope, Negative calorie food and other equally ridiculous concepts. Invertzoo (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

no it isn't. It was rich enough when people insisted that ghosts were "pseudoscience", but claiming that Paul the Octopus is "pseudoscience" is really very far out there. Invertzoo, I cannot really tell whether this is tongue-in-cheek, I do hope so, but if you are really serious, please take this to some venue more relevant to discussing the dictionary meaning of "pseudoscience". I suppose the notion of ridicule is in the eye of the beholder. The notion of pseudoscience isn't. A pseudoscientific claim is one that pretends to be in the tradition of 18th century Enlightenment and rationality while it is in fact not. It follows immediately that no statement predating the 18th century can possibly be pseudoscience (I imagine as a "skeptic" you have heard of causality). Claims that are later than 1770 or so can only be "pseudoscience" if they pretend to be science. If you find somebody claiming that they have a scientific explanation of Paul's above-expectatino winning streak you can let us know and we'll duly label it pseudoscience. Until then, I suppose it is safe to assume that everyone agrees that this is just a nice coincidence (and not even an astounding one at that, as I explain above it's about a 1 in 9 chance so far). Humans are born with a desire to be playful and to create and enjoy fantasy, I don't know if this is "ridiculous" to an alien observer or indeed to a "skeptic", but it's the way we are wired. --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with the fact that humans are playful and like to create fantasy; I think that's absolutely great. I love humor and fantasy. However it is part of our responsibility as the creators of the world's most widespread and most often consulted encyclopedia to try to differentiate between what is fantasy/fiction and what is fact. The WP article on Pseudoscience mentions "any subject that appears superficially to be scientific" and says that "Science educator Paul DeHart Hurd wrote that part of gaining scientific literacy is being able to tell science apart from "pseudo-science, such as astrology, quackery, the occult, and superstition". Well, Paul the Octopus and his food choices (which are taken to be predictions) certainly seems to be about a superstition. By the way, where did you get that fascinating theory about claims that predate 1770? I would love to read the source for that. Seriously. Also, to be honest I am not interested in arguing endlessly about which categories this article should go in or any other similar minutae. Most readers don't even look at categories anyway. I am primarily interested in making sure that it is clear one way or the other that the story of this octopus was always meant to be entertainment and fantasy rather than fact. Best wishes to all, Invertzoo (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination

I made DYK nomination. The hook probably needs to be copy edited or changed. The other question is who should be included in the nomination as the authors. I included myself, and two other editors, whose name I saw the most in the history. I am not even sure about me. I did extend it a lot on July 8, but almost everything I added was changed. One of the editors I included removed themselves. So, I decided to let the community to decide who should be included and/or excluded. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed myself from the nomination list. If the article becomes stable with a balanced viewpoint I am prepared to back it, otherwise, not. As I have said before, I am a malacologist, a scientist, and a skeptic. I can't back something that seems to endorse the idea of an animal oracle. Invertzoo (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The other editor I added for the nomination removed themselves too. So now it is only me who is there as an author. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I started the German article about Paul, endorsement for "schon gewußt" the german DYK is ongoing. Lets see which gets on the mainpage first if at all. Polentario (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If of interest, here are some German language articles related to below: de:Neuroethologie and de:Ethologie. 99.88.231.251 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

KewlPolentario (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptseite there we are. :) Polentario (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Of link interest: Animal cognition &/or Ethology (Animal behavior study)?

Of link interest: Animal cognition &/or Ethology (Animal behavior study)? 99.29.186.79 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

how has this any relevance? On the ethological side, this is just an octopus opening containers to eat mussels. Nothing out of the ordinary. What makes this interesting is a point of human ethology, if you like, i.e. the human urge to see patterns and hidden causality. The octopus has nothing to do with any of this. --dab (𒁳) 13:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed ... maybe Anthropomorphism instead? 99.35.9.24 (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

With the octopus beating the odds so well one never knows. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Predictive accuracy

..is now, before final, at .85 (11/13), when a toss of coin is .5. I prefer Paul over the statistics professors commenting on his success rate. (Yes, tongue in cheek).

That's better than some of the tool I use in my Bioinformatics work... 118.92.168.60 (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

For the world cup, chance of predicting 8 outcomes = 1/256 (0.5^8). 50/50 is correct, unless you think (A) the owner/feeder is correctly predicting every match, and influencing the choice of the octopus, which in itself is an achievement or (B) the octopus is considering which team is likely to win and acting according to some form of considered opinion as to the relative merit of the sides! Caernunos (talk)

Fans

http://www.sportschau.de/sp/fifawm2010/news201007/10/img/bg_uru_grilled_paul_960.jpg http://www.sportschau.de/sp/layout/jsp/komponente/mediaseite/index.jsp?img=6&id=102447&fifawm2010=true

This is from today, held up by fans when the game started. Legitimategamesjournalist (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Take note: Recentism

Hi everyone, I am heartened to see the furious editing by countless contributors (at least a few edits every hour) at this point in time. Much as we would seek to include every available information on Paul's ways, do remember Wikipedia's guideline on recentism.

Here's a quote:

"Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted, but the quick and contemporaneous passage of events may make any subject difficult to judge as actually notable enough for a permanent encyclopedia entry. Maturity, judgment and the passage of time are sometimes required to provide proper perspective."

I encourage all to continually adding accurate and verifiable new information as it appears, but do also keep your contributions in context, and remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Thanks, and happy World Cup day! AngChenrui (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's great advice, but why the {{Recentism}} template? Is there a actionable problem you'd like to see corrected? Melchoir (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Without objection, I'll just remove it. Melchoir (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I just did a re-read of the Recentism tag. Quote "may be slanted towards recent events" - on second thought, I've realised this article is existing exactly because of recent events. If you asked yourself if the article would still be relevant ten years down the road, the answer would probably be very much less than today. On the other hand, it has already snagged the headlines of major publications countless times, and notability shouldn't be argued against. Mmm, my aim here is to remind contributors to keep the article encyclopedic and to not merely list trivia. I suggest we can insert advice reminding them to do so? Thanks, AngChenrui (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We must also make emphasis such that unknowing readers (who would form a majority of the reading population a few years down the road) would be led to understand that this topic is notable as an encyclopedic entry because of its significance to the sports world in the year 2010. i.e., notability must be established in the article proper clearly. Otherwise, it might seem a compromise on the serious-ness of Wikipedia. Hope you enjoyed the long read :) Cheers, AngChenrui (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. :-) I guess there are two possibilities. If the article is currently unencyclopedic due to trivia, then the problem areas should be identified and fixed. If the article is fine, but you still feel strongly that we need a reminder to guard against trivia being introduced in the future, I don't think inserting a warning into the article itself would be appropriate. I guess you could add a {{notice}} to the top of this talk page.

As for gaining perspective in future years: let's solve that problem later, with the benefit of future sources. Soon the World Cup will be over, and the press will write its retrospectives. With any luck, someone will write about the media frenzy itself. Sadly, in a year or so, Paul will die, and there will be more stories looking back. Then comes Euro 2012 and World Cup 2014, and probably new animals will crop up, giving the media more chances to reminisce. Melchoir (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope so. At least my previous fear of the article becoming a factsheet hasn't bore fruit, so all's going well. Great day. AngChenrui (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Other animals with "unusual mental powers"

Anyone who tries to change this to a "See also" subheading, and that won't be too far off, is a humorless dolt. Reading that made me laugh out loud. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I could restrain myself :) Anyway, the incidence of anonymous editing is getting insane just now. I think I will be back in a few days and see how this is doing. --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I put the phrase "unusual mental powers" in scare quotes because these kinds of cases are almost always demonstrated to be false for one reason or another, hence my insertion of the list of articles so people can compare those stories to this one. 17:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this is the source of the anon edits - [2] Parrot of Doom 17:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. Invertzoo (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone posted that Mani the parakeet had predicted all the quarterdfinal matches,....evidence? His owner...!Why wasnt this claim put in the wiki article?as it makes it seem there is supporting evidence the parakeet did as said...Paul has been closely watched by the media since at least the england match...mani (opr his dodgy owner) can make no such claim. Its clear many of these 'other animals also did it' stories are fraudulent, and represent the sceptics efforts to undermine Pauls credibillity. Becauase Pauls very real succes calls into question the central dogma that precognition is not possible...and certanly not by an animal...Jalusbrian (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It should not be controversial that Mani is famous for making certain predictions. I agree that it is worth considering whether Mani actually made those predictions or whether his owner is just telling stories, but that is a matter better reserved for the Mani the Parakeet article. The extent and timing of his celebrity is another detail we don't need to fight about here. Melchoir (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

youre joking..because what evidence is there he has made any correct predictions! Jalusbrian (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mani became famous because a local newspaper had been publishing his predictions. They asked Mani to predict each quarter final match, and then published the results. Because they were all correct, his fame grew. Here is one such prediction from the paper. I will try to find each prediction and put the sources in. - S Masters (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

what local newspaper? Ive not heard of it...AND to prove the parakeet was a huckster, he chose the losing side in the final...Jalusbrian (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The New Paper - Singapore's second-highest circulating paid English-language newspaper. I have made comments regarding this on Mani's talk page. - S Masters (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mention of use of scare quotes by journalism sources

Ummm... didn't you just tell me: "we follow sources. Sources do not use scare quotes like this, therefore we cannot. QED."? Now I found some sources that do use the scare quotes, you suddenly tell me that it is not worth mentioning? That seems odd to me. Maybe the info was awkwardly placed, and did not link up well with the other things that were being said, but it was a good faith attempt on my part to show that journalists have been treating the story as a tongue-in-cheek thing rather than the literal truth. You must know I am not here to be disruptive, everything I try to do on Wikipedia is in good faith. Just look at my track record. Invertzoo (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That's right, we follow sources. None of the sources we have seen use "prediction" to describe this phenomenon. Hence, neither do we. To comment on the language the sources use or their use of scare quotes is the epitome of original research, which we don't do, which was why I undid your edit. I never suggested you were intending to be disruptive, I just think you need to have more faith in the reader's intelligence and in core project values like WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, I think you actually may have misunderstood why I inserted those two sentences, which if you remember, read as follows:

"The BBC, when reporting this news story, have used scare quotes when describing the claimed abilities of the octopus: "psychic", , "prophesy" . Reuters have also used scare quotes: "oracle octopus" ."

When I inserted these two sentences, I was not trying to say that we should put every use of the word prediction into scare quotes. I stopped trying that idea several days ago. Instead I was doing something quite different. I wanted to include in the article a mention of the fact that some of the journalists themselves used scare quotes. That is a totally different thing. It is a factual thing that is coming directly from the sources themselves. It is not my comment on what the sources said, it is quoting exactly what they said. There is no POV in that on my part, it is a simple record of a fact.

The significance of the fact that those journalists used scare quotes it explained by this (taken from the WP article on the subject):

"Writers use scare quotes for a variety of reasons. When the enclosed text is a quotation from another source, scare quotes may indicate that the writer does not accept the usage of the phrase (or the phrase itself),[3] that the writer feels its use is potentially ironic, or that the writer feels it is a misnomer. This meaning may serve to distance the writer from the quoted content."

"If scare quotes are enclosing a word or phrase that does not represent a quotation from another source they may simply serve to alert the reader that the word or phrase is used in an unusual, special, or non-standard way or should be understood to include caveats to the conventional meaning.[4]"

As for the reader's intelligence, people consult the English language Wikipedia who are from every possible stratum of life, who have every possible level of education, and who have every possible level of intelligence. Yes, we should not underestimate the intelligence, the education level, and the worldly sophistication of our readers, but equally, we should not overestimate it either by making assumptions that may not be true. Although a large proportion of WP editors have a college education, the same thing is certainly not true of the general public all over the English-speaking world. We want the encyclopedia to be clear and intelligible to everyone who may try to use it, and so we should not take for granted that "everyone knows this" or "everyone understands that". Not everyone lives in the Western World or in the Developed World, and thus there are a fair number of people who have access to Wikipedia information who do not have television or radio at home or even in their whole village.

Thank you for your patience and your understanding. Invertzoo (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC) A note added. Invertzoo (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I don't think the lead paragraph adequately explains things. "Paul is presented with two boxes, each containing food, and each marked with the flag of a national team." This line tells a bit about the way he predicts - but leaves things untold. Firstly, he is not presented with two boxes all the time - it is only during the predictions that such arrangements are made - but the current line suggests the boxes are there all the time. Furthermore, what does Paul do with the two boxes after he is presented with them? Again the lead doesn't say and it can confuse somebody who has no previous knowledge of Paul. I agree the lead should be concise, but I do think the current one is inadequate.Craddocktm (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My general rule while writing is to be as concise as possible. To require the qualifying statement "during a prediction" would, I feel, imply that we're going to expand upon what he does when not making predictions, which would of course be a bit difficult. His notability stems entirely from his use as an Oracle, and it's implicit that he's presented with the boxes during a prediction. Parrot of Doom 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously suggest that making the sentence more accurate by adding the 3 words "during a prediction" would lengthen the lead in any significant way? While a lead has to be concise, it also has to be accurate and easy to understand. Does the drawback of adding 3 extra words to the lead outweigh the benefit of making a more accurate statement? The answer should be self apparent.

I certainly don't see how you can imply from the 3 words that we are going to expand upon his time outside making predictions. For example, you can't imply we are going to expand on the topic of common octopus by saying Paul is a common octopus in the lead.

I suggest modifying the sentence to be this: "During a prediction, Paul is presented with two boxes, each containing food and marked with the flag of a national team, among which he chooses his predicted winner." This looks pretty concise to me. Craddocktm (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to point out here that the octopus is not choosing a winner, the animal is simply choosing which piece of food it prefers! Invertzoo (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC) The idea that this is some kind of "divination process" is entirely a human construct being imposed on this food choice by the owners of the commercial attraction. Invertzoo (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I suggest changing it to ""During a prediction, Paul is presented with two boxes, each containing food and marked with the flag of a national team, among which he is said to choose his predicted winner." While the animal is just choosing his food is one POV, some may think he is genuinely making a prediction, and to achieve NPOV, you cannot just impose your POV on the article.Craddocktm (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The specific term is Divination respectively just Oracle. Wether Paul is aware of it (hes got nine brains, so maybe only in one) is not at all relevant. Polentario (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually an octopus does not have nine brains, contrary to what one journalist said. Like many of the more sophisticated invertebrate animals, the octopus has a group of ganglia in the head region (each one is a small mass of nerve bodies) rather than a brain. Only two of the ganglia are cerebral ganglia. Invertzoo (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi I just wanted to say I think the octopus rules. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.142.22 (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this story intended to be humorous? Can we show that?

As yet there are no sources quoted in the article, especially up front, that explain that this oracle is a joke, that the whole story is valued for its humorous qualities. This needs to be made clear. Many naive people will willingly believe that this is a genuine example of a animal oracle, a belief type that has existed in one form or another for many hundreds of years, like Flat Earth theories. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a humor magazine. Writing up a story like this in a serious encyclopedia gives the story significant credibility. If this is indeed a joke or an entertainment, that needs to be made perfectly clear. The article must not be written as if this was a factual occurance. Invertzoo (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul has become quite the topic of conversation in my household over the past week. What I've been trying to explain, to no avail, and what this article needs, is that Paul doesn't predict anything. Paul chooses a box on which is a flag. His actions are then interpreted as predictions, but they are not. I haven't read the sources, and don't know what they support, but somehow the article must explain that his choosing a food is not a prediction and has no causality at all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you so much for some sane words. Yes, the animal is simply making a food choice. He is hungry and has to choose between which of two mussels or oysters to eat first. We are all capable of choosing one piece of food over another without any psychic implications. Invertzoo (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO this article should present Paul as a media's created phenomena. Of course nobody should seriously believe that an octopus could make predictions. I would not call it pseudoscience simply because it has nothing to do with science at all. It is just a funny story that has became quite notable because of media attention.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Other animals have been offered food without any significance, birdes hev flown without being read by Auspices. Some sceptics here overdo it. Imean if octopeds have a preference for yellow frames or are dislike certain color traces in water,there wouldbe an explanation for the significant choices. Of cause its mainly a funny story. Polentario (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No doubt the story is a media created phenomenon, and the article could be written as such. Rather than stating the octopus predicted, it would be better to state the media reported the octopus predicted. If the language is heavily qualified it's fine. As is, now the scare quotes have been removed, I'm not so sure about it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize with your feelings. However, we only report what the reliable sources say. The obvious better way to balance this would be to find other skeptical sources and add them to the article. --John (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone seems to agree that the story was intended as a joke, a piece of entertainment, both when it was reported by journalists and maybe also when it was announced by theSea Life Centres company, Merlin Entertainments, for whom clearly this functions very well as a publicity stunt. How can we convey in the article that this story is entertainment, humorous, and not fact? I am very open to any suggestions as to how this can be done. Invertzoo (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We do already convey that it's a joke, just not as explicitly as you want, but anything more would be overegging the pudding. The sentence "He has predicted a win for Spain against the Netherlands in the World Cup final on July 11 by eating the mussel in the box with the Spanish flag on it" strongly conveys that it's a joke. "Show, don't tell" applies here. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Slim on that. This sentence alone works better than category pseudoscience and scare quotes on the word "predicted" combined, and Paul's occupation "exhibit" that is stated in info box also sounds funny IMO. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've been warned on my talkpage to be careful, I won't respond here any longer, but I think it's important to understand that many people believe the octopus is predicting the outcome of the games. We may understand the joke, but do the readers? Just something to think about, as I bow away from this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Invertzoo, Paul is, indeed, a "genuine example of an animal oracle". It is exactly what animal oracles were over the past three millennia or more: they are about people attaching significance to the random behaviour of selected animals. It's much like casting lots for divination. If you are interested in the cultural and anthropological implications of divination and magical thinking, perhaps you should go and read up on these umbrella topics instead of spending time with this summer's press fad. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

on an unrelated, and lighter, note, here is an charming piece of vandalism for your edification :) --dab (𒁳) 16:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Invertzoo, give it time. I'm sure James Randi, patron saint to college freshmen and all who use scientific scepticism as a means to indulge in self-aggrandizement while simultaneously berating others - not to mention the only stage magician treated like a scientific celebrity on Wikipedia - is feverishly whipping up an article with the purpose of exposing Paul as the obvious fraud he is. When the time comes, you'll be free to quote Randi to your heart's content. --Aryaman (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

All my edits have been in good faith, trying to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. People can feel free to attack me, ridicule me, or condescend to me, whatever makes them feel better in general is fine with me, but as for my side of things, my motives are good, I am confident of that. Yes, in a large number of my edits, I have been attempting to ensure that there are enough pointers in the article to let people know this story has always been reported by journalists as tongue-in-cheek thing, not as a legitimate factual account of animal clairvoyance. I must say that the article does read a lot better and look a lot better now than it did 24 hours ago or 48 hours ago. Many of the retained edits and organizational groupings are things I did, and I am proud to have improved the article. Invertzoo (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, if anyone STILL thinks he(Paul) is a joke and is a hardcore skeptic, place bets in real money against his WC choices then! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.250 (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Invertzoo, my comment was not intended to question the honesty of your motives, and I'm not criticising your work. But surely you can see that this story is both humorous and factual. It's not as though his keepers are pulling some kind of "scam" here, that it's all some big "joke", and they will eventually disclose that Paul isn't really predicting anything. Paul is really choosing which container to open, and people are viewing that as a prediction regarding which team will really win a particular football match. It's genuine animal oracle phenomena. Of course, we can and should meet that with a healthy sense of humour and an appropriate amount of scepticism, but if we feel the need to add "Paul isn't really predicting anything" to the article, we're missing the point - not to mention all the fun. --Aryaman (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

emphasis should be on world cup

I noticed that probability is calculated over all of his predictions. While this is correct and should be included, emphasis in the article should really be on the 7 out of 7 correctly predicted results for Germany at the World Cup. This is the only reason Paul got famous and made people and press care about this. Nobody cared for his Euro predictions, and they are barely mentioned by the press in current articles. And weren't reported at all during the Euro except maybe in a few regional newspapers. Legitimategamesjournalist (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support removing that number (11/13) entirely. The table of results gives a clearer impression of Paul's success rate than any fraction or percentage could, anyway. Melchoir (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but would at least suggest to split the prediction into Euro and World Cup, and possibly consider the final at the World Cup just a bonus predicition. The emphasis as I already mentioned should IMO be on the 7 out of 7 correct results for Germany. Legitimategamesjournalist (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Breaking News - Paul is from Elba (Italy)

According Bild, Paul would maybe have been catched April 2010 in Italy, maximum age 4 weeks and sold by the sea star aqarium in Coburg to Sealife.

• Ich bin die Mutter vom WM-Orakel Paul Bild 11.7.2010

We requested an OTRS from Sealife, to be waited upon. INsofar there could have been two Pauls, not one,and the animal oracle bias towards Germany would have been repeated with two animals. BR Polentario (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added your reference in the Further reading section for now, since I don't have the energy to write about it properly. The Servimedia reference, also in Further reading, makes a similar claim, although with fewer details.

Hopefully someone will integrate this information into the article soon! Melchoir (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the article deletion discussion on the itWP comes to an end now.... Polentario (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

TONMO.com

Request to include an External Link to TONMO.com: The Octopus News Magazine Online (www.tonmo.com), which is the definitive resource on responsible cephalopod care and ceph-keeping in home aquariums. Paul has caused a spike in ceph-keeping interest and linking this article to TONMO.com would be a good thing to do in the interests of cephs. Thanks for your consideration! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonmo (talk • contribs) 12:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for the external links section

There is an online "simulated" version of Paul on page http://www.octopusbet.com. It would be interesting for the external links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcivan (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done That website is an advert for a betting company. Modest Genius ^talk 17:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest changing the 'Official Facebook page' from this to this one. -- Underyx (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Results involving Germany bit is wrong

There's only one incorrect rather than two, the prediction for the Euro 2008 Croatia vs Germany should also be marked as incorrect on the article. I personally can't make this pedantic fix, given the protection status of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.55.85 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference: this was fixed. Legitimategamesjournalist (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Colours of flags picked

If Paul was picking flags based on what the article says, surely he'd have went for Argentina over Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.182.111 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.243.28.37, 12 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Spain beat Germany at the World Cup Final, not the semi-finals as listed in the article. 67.243.28.37 (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: inaccurate request. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for the Results not involving Germany section (and other sections if relevant)

Paul's prediction to Spain's success over the Netherlands was correct (0:1). This makes it Paul's 8th streak, and that all his predictions for the South Africa 2010 FIFA world cup are 100% correct (and since Paul's prediction was correct, this makes Mani the Parakeet's prediction incorrect). More: http://g.sports.yahoo.com/soccer/world-cup/blog/dirty-tackle/post/Paul-the-Oracle-Octopus-goes-eight-for-eight-is?urn=sow,255211 ; http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1273034/index.html#psychic+octopus+seals+perfect+record (and more if you Google about it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.244.77.140 (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul is Italian?

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/808271/ce/uk/?cc=5901&ver=us

What do u guys think about the info contained in this article? Should it be included ?

Mercenary2k (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. Polentario (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"selection bias"

So the newspapers are full with this atm, but this doesn't mean that we need to include every random piece of journalistic drivel. If some octopus expert says they find it likely that flag brightness might influence the choice, sure, we mention it, but I really see no reason to honour random speculation that could have been made up by anybody at all.

In my opinion, If you look at the video, it seems obvious that Paul doesn't even see the flags. The flags face the aquarium glass, while Paul approaches the cases from above. So it seems unlikely he even cares about the flags, he just looks at the two mussels and decides which looks tastier to an octopus.

If he does look at the flag, his octopus intelligence probably tells him that there is one flag that is always there (Germany) and then there is some other flag, which they keep changing for some reason. Once he has tried the mussel from the German case a few times, he decides that the German case is a safe bet for a good mussel, so he keeps favouring that, while he doesn't quite trust the case that keeps changing its colours. This would explain why he chooses Germany 9 out of 12 times. And as Germany just so happens to be a good team, they won 8 out of those 9 matches. We are then just left with the fact that out of the three times he didn't pick Germany, they lost every time. --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is quite apparent that Paul is in fact causing Germany to be defeated. For Euro 2012 it is essential that Paul's predictions be made in secret and only revealed to a wider audience after the game, so as not to demoralise the German team. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If he were to live so long Chris... Jared Preston (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To me it's pretty obviuos that Paul usually choose the right box. I couldn't find images of all guesses, but in WC 2010 images that I could find only in 2 of them he chose the left one (against England and Servia). - Leandro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.212.59 (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to ask about this too: has anyone published a record of which team's box was on the left and which was on the right ((a) of Paul, and (b) of the tank as viewed from the front) when Paul made his choices? zazpot (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Most Americans(USA) can't tell the difference between all the flags of Europe. I doubt this octopus notices any difference between two flags with three horizontal bars. It's more likely that something to do with the handling of the box biases his decision, e.g. the handler's pheromones and anxiety level about the upcoming match. Spacexplosion^[talk] 15:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"the handler's pheromones"? from outside an aquarium? This is getting more and more bizarre. Sorry, but perhaps we should just stick to RS after all. --dab (𒁳) 15:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. The box starts out outside the aquarium. Spacexplosion^[talk] 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm assuming the handlers touch the box. They might wear rubber gloves and grab the mussels with tongs, I guess. Spacexplosion^[talk] 19:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks suspiciously like Clever Hans Effect. Has any animal cognition expert mentioned this yet? The article Clever Hans has a link to Paul the Octopus in its "See Also" part. I think it could be cross-referensed in this article. 194.44.31.194 (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I was reading the article and thinking that surely, by now, pure-chance and flag appearance couldn't be the only notable explanations for Paul's success? Off the top of my head, I can think of things like cuing from an "expert" (for example, using scented food), post-prediction psychological effect on the players, or even match-fixing. Not to mention maybe using 2^8 different Pauls. :) --Iavram (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for the statistics section

After the final match the number of correct guesses are 12 out of 14, and the binomial probability to get at least as many correct results by chance is approximately 0.108%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.11.5 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

How do three possible results in the group stages affect the probability? Legitimategamesjournalist (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the binomial distribution is "a dead herring" and indeed all of the statistical analysis so far offered is misplaced. A flipped coin can give heads or tails, but a football match can be won, lost OR DRAWN. So Paul has been unable to account for a third of all possible outcomes (assuming, of course, that a win, a loss and a draw are equally likely)? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this for his predicting method?

He predicts based on which box is closer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.228.172 (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that only the last time (NL vs Spain), haven't seen any other footage of Paul's pickings though. But putting the box with the winning flag nearest Paul 8 out of 8 still is an impressive acchievement. Pepijnk (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Meena the Parakeet

I don't understand why my edit was reverted with a comment about meerkats and saying it had no source. The edit was valid and contrasted a successful parakeet against the failed one and it cited a source. Please reinstate the edit Philg88 (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The only source is the owner. Legitimategamesjournalist (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

hmm, Looks like I will get nowhere trying to reason with you. Enjoy your fiefdom.Philg88 (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

divination section full of false comparisons

The argument that Paul's abilities to correctly predict the results can be compared to predicting the lottery are facile to say the least. Paul is unique in terms of his press coverage, which began in Germany before the contest and was broadened with each successive prediction. The other psychic animals alluded to did not receive anywhere near the same amount of attention and it was mostly due to the interest already aroused from Paul The Octopuses successful predictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.255.125 (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the 1/64 chance should be updated to 1/256 for the tournament, in which he predicted 8 games (p = 0.0039). Whilst there is lots of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs' debunking statements, claims for logical explanations are seemingly purile and presented without evidence. Are people suggesting you can predict the outcome of a football match by the countries flag? Id love to see evidence for that. As for the prosecutor fallacy, Paul has featured widely in media for world cup since Euro 2008, so it is not a post-hoc analysis of past results, but a (I would suggest verified @ p = 0.004) claim that he could predict the world cup matches. Caernunos (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oscar the cat

An American cat with super natural powers that can predict when people will die is another example, perhaps for see also section. (Article here on wikipedia) BTW great octopus, good, good, you made me a lot of money, Paul! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.18.209 (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Oscar (therapy cat) - probably made rather less money for anyone, but seems somehow more genuine and plausible? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Oscar therapy cat, dunno if it made less money for the relatives and an octopus that scored 100% in its predictions aint that bad! Do this mean all football "experts" will be fired and now its up to Paul who wins?! Jokes aside: i hope someone inserts see also Oscar therapy cat about animals with strange powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.18.209 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Knut aspect

So far the discussion has been about statistical aspects. Is it possible to explain at least apart of the hype around Paul with the fact that he's sort of looking nice and funny, just great to use as a sort of media mascot like the famous Knut? As well octopuses on display in commercial attractions are available notmuch longer than for 10 - 15 years. It is not easy to tend them and those able to do it might see them as a sort of fashion item. All in all I assume there is a sort of Finding Nemo aesthetic aspect which has to be considered if we want to enlighten and explain the media hype around Paul. Claudia Schmölders has written various essays about the role of of vivid mimics and body language, not only in Water worls and aniomated films. This is (myOR) an essential part of the attractiveness of all the Paul videos and pictures. Polentario (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. That's just idle speculation. It's certainly true that part of the appeal here is novelty, but that should rather be implied. It is not really up to us to point out to readers that octopuses are not typically known for their psychic powers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul's method of selection treated backwards?

It is possible Paul's sitting on top of either selection meant the opposite of what it was publicly stated to be. Instead of Paul sitting atop Germany's box meaning a win, it could have meant a loss - in that the octopus was in a threatening position atop the box, meaning that team would be eaten - ie. lose the game. And the box it left alone was the winner. This would put Paul's predictions at almost 100% wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.38.30 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you actually joking? --Half Price (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I don't see why unsigned 134.126 is joking at all. This explanation seems just as plausible as those offered by Paul's fans, or by any of the scientific commentators. Indeed it puts the whole episode, along with this article, into a much needed and refreshing perspective. How exactly did Paul convey his intentions to his keepers and vice versa? This part of the fascinating tale we have yet to be told. Presumably Paul speaks German, but with a slight Dorset accent? But worse that that, Paul may have been offside the whole time. Martinevans123 (talk)

The important distinction is whether Paul is actually an oracle (Krakenorakel) or merely a tool of divination (e.g. a crystal ball). It's hard to believe that Paul is intelligent or educated enough to even understand a question about football, but if the correct interpretation of his behavior can be used to predict the future then he is still a supernatural tool or extension of the will of Nike. Spacexplosion^[talk] 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, but quite a lot rests on "the correct interpretation", doesn't it? Thanks for reminding us about Addidas the official World Cup sponsor. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I thought he was joking was because this octopus doesn't know what it's doing! It doesn't read the back pages of the newspaper or make notes on what the football pundits on the TV say. He just eats a mussel! --Half Price (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But where's that WP:RS that proves he doesn't read the back pages, eh?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Flags

Anybody think the flags add anything? --John (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2010 (UTCPaul

Apparently you have yet to notice that the only discrimination Paul has to operate with is between the shape and colour of the flags. The flags are THE critical parameter. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

According to...? --John (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake... --Epipelagic (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean this is your own theory? --John (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My goodness, at least zoological experts agree that the flags could play a major role, either by vision or scent. Polentario (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. Could. That's quite a jump to having (odorless) virtual flags on this article. --John (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Btw -any sources for the claim of odorless? Same glue used for both of them? A picture is worth a thousand words :) Polentario (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. The ones on the article are virtual and therefore odorless. I'll take down he redundant flags then, unless anyone has any serious objections. --John (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We are now up to 32 flag icons on the article. Anybody else think this is a bit too many? --John (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course that is most objectionable. Really, this thread is one of the silliest I have have ever seen. You originally removed all the flags as "cruft". You are joking, aren't you? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the colour of a flag, or the design on it, in some way predicts the outcome of a football match? If not, then the whole flag discussion is a little moot. Several of the flags have very similar geometry, most have 3 horizontal bars. IF FLAGS DO predict the outcome, maybe thats why Brazil has been so successful, they have the right flag. This is obviously nonsense, and not verifiable as any kind of explanation. Caernunos (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed most of the flags based on this discussion. If there is consensus to replace them then they can go back. --John (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You have, of course, no consensus to remove the flags, so I have restored them. If you can achieve some consensus here, then you can remove them again. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. See WP:BURDEN. As the editor wishing to restore flagcruft, you need to demonstrate a consensus here for it. I don't see that consensus at present, do you? --John (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, if you read the article, you will notice that the task Paul was set was to choose a mussel from two boxes which are similar apart from being marked with a different team flag. The presence of these flags (their visual appearance, possibly their odour, etc) is the only obvious physical basis Paul has for discriminating between the boxes. Possibly there were other factors involved, such as the position of the boxes. If the German flag was always placed on the left hand box, that might have been another factor. But the sources do not mention factors like that. They mention flags only. WP:BURDEN requires the editor who adds or restores material to provide reliable, published sources using inline citations. Many inline reliable sources are cited throughout the article, such as the following: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Nearly all of these sources refer to the team flags being presented to Paul as markers on the boxes involved. The flag are not "flagcruft", as you so dismissively refer to them, but are pivotal to the article. You have no justification for removing them. I notice someone has restored the flags you have (yet again - three times now) removed. Please do not revert again unless you can achieve a rational consensus on this page. I don't see that consensus at present, do you? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem confused. If you read the article, especially the Potential biases section, you will see that we have "He could have been choosing boxes systematically—if not on the basis of football expertise, then perhaps on his evaluation of the countries' flags or the food offered", which is an accurate reflection of the sources. We therefore show the three flags that the octopus has selected. These I left in place. What you and I are arguing about is the other 29 little flag icons beside every mention of a football score. Do you see the difference? Can you make a rationale for the other 29, please? In the absence of a rationale, they can and will be removed by any editor. --John (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read the sources (24 listed above) you will see the common denominator is the reference to the team flags. The presence of the team flags is the salient physical clue that Paul was offered. I doubt you can source your concern, that Paul made decisions on the "the basis of football expertise", to any reputable zoologist. Since the common octopus has a significant degree of visual acuity, also mentioned in some of the sources, the visual appearance of the flags is relevant to how Paul made his choices. I for one want to see how the different flags look. That is, in my view, perhaps the most relevant issue in the whole article. Perhaps including flags in the "Prediction" columns is overkill, and we could compromise by removing those flags. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

When talking about the influence that the flags' form and colours might have, I haven't seen any mention of the _position_ of the flags. The boxes were at the bottom of the tank, with the flags on the _front_ (for the benefit of the press cameras), so when Paul approached the two boxes from above, he couldn't even see the flags. Alas I can't find any reference to this in the media. Thrapper (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Thrapper, that the positioning of the boxes/flags could have been important. As I mentioned above, if say the German flag was always placed on the left hand box, and if Paul had a bias towards the left box, then that fact alone would explain most of Paul's results. And your point, if true, is a particularly good one. Maybe Paul didn't really even see the flags. But without suitable sources this is wp:or, and we cannot add these points to the article. After all, this was a publicity stunt, and not a carefully thought out scientific experiment. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I realise this is OR, that's why I said "alas", I couldn't find any references in the media - I was hoping that someone may have seen such a reference and would be able to include it. When this article goes into great detail about the colour combinations of flags, and the octopus' possible colour-blindness or not, it would seem relevant to know whether Paul actually had a chance to see and choose the flag or not. And yes, I'm aware that it wasn't a scientific experiment, thank you! :) Thrapper (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions

I've got a couple of questions, I'm hoping that a source somewhere has discussed these rather than using this as a forum: 1. How/why did the keepers of Paul decide that he could predict football match results? There used to be something in the article like "his owners realised he had special powers" - even if this was the case why did they realise that his purpose was to predict football match results? 2. Are we certain that this is the same Paul from UEFA 2008? The article and other sources I can find say that the common octopus lives for between 1 and 2 years, he must have already been at least several months old last time round so how is he still alive? If anyone can find some sources to answer these questions I'll be happy to add them to the article. Thanks Smartse (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smartse, I don't know how to use Wikipedia very well, but there was a source today in a Brazilian newspaper which interviewed the people at the aquarium and they said that Paul was not the same octopus that predicted the matches for Euro 2008. I added the link to the article. It's at http://globoesporte.globo.com/futebol/copa-do-mundo/noticia/2010/07/oceanario-diz-que-polvo-profeta-nao-tem-preco.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.228.140 (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a very interesting source, and it may mean we need to revise our coverage of the alleged 2008 activities. The article quotes reliable sources from the actual Aquarium people confirming not only that any predictions in 2008 weren't made by Paul, but actually that no predictions took place in 2008 at all. The reliability of our 2010 newspaper coverage that speaks of such 2008 activities needs to be reviewed. For convenience, here is the google translation of the Portuguese article (readable enough). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK statistics

is here.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Peta?

I don't see the relevance of PETA to this article. They pretty much come out against any animal being held captive so including their views here here seems to be pretty much spam to promote PETA. Considering revelations about the PETA over the last few years they are not a credible institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.25.43 (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above, as PETA saying that a particular animal shouldn't be captive is nothing new, and the fact that PETA does this for every captive animal they ever hear of, their message's relevance is certainly of question. It also may not be notable enough to be on Wikipedia at all. The only place I could see this reference going is to a list of animals that PETA has made a scene about. --67.173.106.77 (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I shortened the entry, to eraseit completely failed so far. Polentario (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and delete it again. It doesn't fit in with the rest of the Life section anymore. Spacexplosion^[talk] 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL (OT)

Into italian wikipedia want to delete paul! http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polpo_Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.44.83.47 (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it will be deleted. The Italian Wiki seems to not like articles about recent events. Others want to delete it because it's not a scientifically verified psychic octopus. I don't think these standards exist on the English Wikipedia, but I think each language Wiki gets to make its own rules, no?

Already looking forward to The World Cup article on Polpowiki. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? Paul the octopus didnt even predict that Italy would lose big time!

This is interesting. I wonder if he hasn't been big news in Italy. --Half Price (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Italian hatnote "this article may suffer from recentness" is golden... no wonder kids at school are taught latin and greek but not calculus or stats. So thank you to all editors who fight for recent articles! --Squidonius (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Legacy trivia

The Legacy section is turning into a trivia section. The whole thing should be removed. If anything in it deserves mentioning then it should be in other sections where relevant, not between Retirement and Similar oracles. Discuss. Spacexplosion^[talk] 20:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Legacy replacing After Effects a little toungue-in-cheek perhaps. Probably appropriate only long after we see The Times obituary. But I tend to agree, it could all be fitted in elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

Interesting article you guys can use to add to the statistics section.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10567712.stm

and this

http://wcbstv.com/local/shakira.world.cup.2.1795749.html

Mercenary2k (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Used the BBC source, thanks very much for that :) Parrot of Doom 15:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

what made you think a random comment on the nature of probability by a random professor asked by a random jorunalist has any WP:DUE place in this article? Nb given in full, verbatim, as blockquote? --dab (𒁳) 16:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing random about the quote. The article, [27], relates specifically to the Octopus. Considering the weight that has been placed by the media on this animals (in)ability to predict the outcome of matches, I feel that some small discussion of the statistical likelihood of it being entirely down to chance is more than appropriate. Parrot of Doom 16:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the way this would work is this: Paul seems to have a bias for the German case similar to the "bias" of the German team for winning matches. I.e. if Paul chooses the German case with 75% probability, and Germany wins 75% of its matches, the chances for a correct prediction (for finals, where there is no draw) would be 0.75*0.75+0.25*0.25=62.5%. The chances of getting at least 11 out of 12 predictions right would be about 3%. The chance for getting at least 10 in 12 correct is about 11.5%. It follows that this entire item is about the occurrence of a 1 in 9 chance.

I won't put this in the article because it is OR, but as long as we don't have a source giving a calculation of at least this quality I do not think we should bother quoting it. --dab (𒁳) 15:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that really supposed to be "original research" according to Wikipedia standards? Let's see, we're told that he made 10 correct predictions out of 12. We can say that. But if nobody bothers to tell us that the probability of that or better given 1:1 odds is (1 + 12 + 66) / 4096 or approximately one in 50 we're not allowed to say it ourselves? That's a high-school-level math exercise based on a piece of sourced data. Surely that is not "original research". Miguel (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

um, did you read any of the above before reverting and asking me to "please discuss"? --dab (𒁳) 16:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. If two distinguished university professors feel qualified enough to comment on the matter then I think it entirely appropriate for their conclusions to be included here. My view remains unchanged. Parrot of Doom 16:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you have no idea about the workings of the popular press, or of academia. If " two distinguished university professors feel qualified enough to comment on the matter", they will publish in an academic journal. Once they do that, please let us know. Journalists on a deadline, on the other hand, will just phone up random heads of department and pester them until they give them some non-committal soundbite just to get them out of their hair. This is what happened here. I don't have a problem with quoting people commenting on the statistics on this, but as long as the statement doesn't at least implicitly involve binominal coefficients, it can be disregarded as irrelevant. Your professor just said, "yeah, probability is like when you toss a coin". This is certainly not incorrect, but it is also utterly irrelevant. --dab (𒁳) 13:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

One could link to the Binomial distribution. Assuming Paul's predictions were no better than fair coin flips, the probability of 11 or more successful predictions in 13 attempts is given by the binomial distribution. Using Wolfram Alpha, this works out at about 1.1%. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=probability+of+11+successes+in+13+trials —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.234.94 (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Done

I have a problem with this: it's OR. Yes, yes, I agree that the calculation is routine; that's not the problem. The problem is that including it presupposes that it's a relevant calculation to make!

The value in the coin-flipping model is that it provides a quick, easy-to-understand, order-of-magitude estimate for the probability of reproducing Paul's success. The precise value of that probability doesn't matter, because it goes out the window the minute another game is played, or draws are taken into account, or Paul's biases are taken into account. The only defensible use for deriving a number like 1/64 or 1/128 is to observe that it's both much smaller than 1 and much, much larger than the probability of winning the lottery.

So let's not put on false airs of precision. The sources don't, and the content policies say that we should follow them. Melchoir (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The section doesn't go against any of what you said. If you think there's a better way to present the statistics, change it. But don't remove that information from the article. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have agreed with Melchoir, Paul would never have been able to sit on the Pools Panel, as he couldn't vote for a draw. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind everybody that the probability calculation fails to take into account the fact that some of the games had the additional option of being a tie. As such the calculation is completely irrelevant and should either be removed or rectified. 81.148.118.37 (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This would merely make the chances of paul to "guess" correctly that much more difficult, the probability less.Whatzinaname (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I made a numerical simulation on that, taking 1/3 probability for the group stage matches, and 0.5 for the others. I randomly generated 20000000 sets of predictions, and in 0.11% of the cases there were 12 or more right. Of course, if Paul has a bias, that doesn't hold, but that's kind of speculative and cannot be addressed in such an approach, I think. Klepser (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC).

What are the chances that those Group Stage matches for which Paul "predicted" a score would not end in a draw? After the Group Stage, of course, a draw is not possible and a win (together with an octopus's fame) is (almost wholly) guaranteed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Statistical Significance...

• only World Cup 2010, involving GER:

correct: 7 of 7 -> p = 1/128 < 5 % = Statistical Significance?

• assuming fair coin flips:

11 of 13 -> p_binomial = 1.1 % < 5 % = Statistical Significance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.54.124 (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm much more interested in the betting odds Paul tackled in his predictions, which I don't see mentioned anywhere in the article or this discussion. Basically, at the time of each of his predictions, what were the best market odds for his prediction being true? Furthermore, if one were to have placed a $1 bet on his first prediction, and let it ride for each following prediction at the time each were made, what would the final winnings have been? 94dgrif (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

DPA

In the 'Life' section, it says, "According to DPA, local businessmen…" This is the first mention of DPA in the article, and it is not well known. It should either be expanded or linked. I can't do it myself as I don't know what it refers to. (I'm guessing perhaps Deutsche_Presse-Agentur?) Eigenbanana (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

3rd option

Have any qualified people given though to the possibility that an octopus is quite capable of learning to open both containers simultaneously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.194.35 (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Learning"? A strange word indeed to appear here, although I'm not really qualified to comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Octopodes wouldn't normally pursue two prey items at once. The saying goes, "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush." But I would be interested to know if Paul would go after the second mussel given enough time with the boxes. Spacexplosion^[talk] 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the Octopus article tells us quite clearly what it can learn. It can even use tools. But I am very doubtful that this "honorary vertebrate", even with eight tentacles, has this in its "repertoire of responses". But more significantly, it just seems a little contrary to the whole ethos of divination? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If he opens both containers simultaneously the game will be a draw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In natural conditions, Paul would have little incentive to risk losing two prey by attempting to capture both at once. But seeing that he's feed daily, and the prey are stuck in a box, and that he will definitely lose one if he chooses the other, there is little risk in him wasting at least one attempting to obtain both at once. As for actually doing it, their limbs are unusually autonomous. Squid can carry on a two independent communications at once using their left and right eye and left side and right side chromatophores. Two immobilized shrimp aught to be simple by comparison. --75.110.194.35 (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul and politics

I read in the paper that Paul predicted the next Russian president.Is that worth a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.216.46 (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears from [28] and other sources that this was an unofficial prediction with subjective interpretation and not following the normal rules. The alleged prediction is secret and it isn't even known who will run for President in 2012. It sounds like a publicity stunt by a Russian newspaper trying to get attention from Paul's fame. I don't support inclusion in the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Paul (octopus) → Paul the octopus — Examination of references suggests that this is the most common name used (with a small O for "octopus"). The second most common looks to be "Paul the Psychic Octopus", but that's largely from tabloid sources. "Paul" by itself is rarely used (we're not talking about Knut levels of popularity here). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I've only heard him called "Paul the octopus" (or "Paul the Octopus").Iota (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support in the form of "Paul the Octopus" - there have been wall-to-wall references, in the media, to PTO in the last few days and all have been in the form of "Paul the Octopus". I don't see why this was moved in the first place. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support in the form of "Paul the Octopus" Morhange (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - that is certainly the most common name. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support and note that the move to Paul (octopus) was done apparently without discussion. --John (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support John's point that it was moved without discussion certainly means it should be moved back to "Paul the octopus". Smartse (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Still bewildered why the wikipedia search for PAUL gives us the French bakery in favour of Paul the Apostle. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, preferably as "Paul the Octopus" which appears to be the most common form in the media. Majorclanger (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It should never have changed in the first place. My opinion is that the "Paul the Octopus" capitalization is probably drawn from confusion over all nouns being capitalized in the German language. Spacexplosion^[talk] 21:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The user who moved it made an unsubstantiated claim that "Paul" was the form most often used. This claim is probably incorrect. Also, user did not discuss prior to the move. Wurdnurd (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: if you decide to move, please don't forget to also move the talk archive in parallel. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support in the form of "Paul the Octopus". Half Price (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Seric2 (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support —paul? what paul?! —the octopus. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support It should never have been moved in the first place, especially without any discussion whatsoever. – S Masters (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Paul was not Paul in 2008

Some inconsistency between Paul picking any results in 2008, when 2008 is the very year that is given as his probable year of hatching. Must have been a different octopus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.65.241 (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

why? The year 2008 had 366 days. Perhaps he was first hatched, and then used as an oracle at some later date? --dab (𒁳) 15:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, at least one reliable source [29] does claim, from the horse's mouth, that it indeed was a different octopus. "Ao contrário do que foi noticiado pelo GLOBOESPORTE.COM e do que consta em sites como Wikipedia, Paul começou a exibir seus dotes visionários durante a Copa do Mundo, e não a Eurocopa. O molusco tem apenas dois anos de vida e sequer existia em 2008." Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct statement?

"However, if Paul or other octopuses[17] felt attracted for whatever reasons to the flagged boxes of Germany or Spain, their predictions would be much more exact than tossing a coin."

How does that work? These aren't educated decisions. --Half Price (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The assertion is nonsense and contrary to the accurate assessment in the following section, so I've removed it. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh the joys of anonymous editing... --Half Price (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Blog nonsense

"Individuals from the blogosphere have even gone so far as to argue that Paul's probabilistically exceptional precision constitutes a pressing metaphor for the imminent downfall of the traditional scientific conception of the world." has no place in this article. This is nonsense written by a single non-notable blogger, not Individual*S*. The blogger cites no sources or actual reasoning. It seems a WP:SPA is the only one for this, while at least two are against it. Any other thoughts? Reywas92^Talk 21:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Of all the Legacy/trivia section, this is perhaps the most useless. Spacexplosion^[talk] 21:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagreed. I definitely see no hard order defined on the set of trivia accompanying the events. Actually to the contrary, I deem said blog post decidedly one of the more interesting in light of the partially dull remaining. Also, finding alleged fault with the source regarding reliability seems considerably obtuse, given its very point of reference, the blogosphere. Suggest a dedicated section 'Trivia' to end such irrational quarrels on grounds of purely subjective matter of taste. Seemour (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - we don't need to mention trivia about the opinions of all individual bloggers, and am I completely wrong in remembering some huge debate over exactly that in the past? It's not exactly nonsense, but a single post in a non-notable blog isn't exactly encyclopedic. Bart133 ^{t c @} 22:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagreed - agreed we don't have to reference every blog in existence that mentions Paul, this post is recognizably relevant though as it further delineates the scope Paul has acquired in its absorbing singularity, also agree it is considerably more interesting as the previous speaker suggested and hence prime member of a trivia section, if such one is desired at all. i personally think for an article as the one at hand with its fundamental trivial nature it definitely is. CeshireMatt (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

disagreed uhm .. why would some random panamanian questionable-quality reggaeton piece on youtube be more relevant please?? also not sure about the webcomic or coke vs. pepsi... lol people come to terms Llisaloo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC).

Comment - The blogosphere, as an entity, is important. What individual blogs say is usually mound-shaped and steaming. A credible, independent source about what the entire blogosphere is saying as a whole, if anything, might be noteable. Any info about Paul or the blogosphere sourced from a blog has no value. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Objection Please review your reasoning to avoid similarly dangerous future fallacious conclusions. In synergistic systems such as the blogosphere precisely the actions of individual elements define the overall shape of the whole. Egalitarian measures aimed at inducing an artificially constructed perception of the individual, thereby necessarily levelling opinions and individual freedom, means eventually denying the existence of the observer. Reducing the substantially non-directional blogosphere to a single brought-into-line entity seems hence likewise inane as saying that every age group on wikipedia should have its single spokesman. If there is one authoritative source regarding definitive events in the blogosphere, then it is a blog. Rather obviously.. LesterO'Brien (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. Clear as a bell. Did you just say that blogs are credible authorities on information about blogs? With due respect, that's like saying that the Catholic Church is an authority on what goes on in the Catholic Church. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, if something "happens" in the blogosphere, it means somebody writes this something in a blog. There is exactly one authoritative source regarding this very happening: this very blog. Referencing this very blog corresponds to demonstrating some actual concrete catholic congregation's demolished roof to prove that a purported lightning strike has happened, to continue your divine analogy. LesterO'Brien (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed a blog can report that somebody wrote something on their own blog. In fact, they don't need to. It's self-evident. But, for Wikipedia, the only thing that is possibly notable, is if the entire blogosphere, generally, has a certain leaning or position. If that is the case, it can be included in the article, provided that it is sourced independently. When a blog states: "The blogosphere generally has the position that...", it is worthless because the source is not independent. If one blog reports that something was written on their own blog, fine. We can believe it. But nobody will care because it is just one steaming blog. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we were obviously not discussing meta-blogs, so the above is self-evident. Individuals are the ingredients that constitute the blogosphere in its variety, as for any other area of human endeavor, hence especially Wikipedia has no interest in certain majority leanings or otherwise levelling positions. Besides its inherent inconsistency your position eventually means denying your own voice, ironically. LesterO'Brien (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagreed The article should be in the Trivia section, that is where it belongs.

Wikipedia is not much concerned with individual bloggers' voices. Google came up with nothing about Paul and the blogosphere as a whole. As Wikipedia is only concerned with massive social trends regarding the blogosphere and Paul, this whole thread is leading nowhere. Now, if you'll excuse me, I am, right now, concerned with trying to get the cork out of this glass jar. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• what blooming nonsense. Random stuff like this clearly has no place in a Wikipedia article, no matter how "pop culture" the topic. --dab (𒁳) 15:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting

Resolved

I strongly suspect that users Seemour, CeshireMatt, Llisaloo, Mersi linwar and LesterO'Brien are the same person creating different accounts to try and con the system here. Check out all of their account creation times (within a very short period) and their edits. All to this talk page. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Concur. I noticed that the first puppet almost parroted the first disagree to a tee. All are new users as of either today. . . ----moreno oso (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Concur. Strong evidence. I have tagged all the pages. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC) DISAGREE What a brazen impudation as I clarified in the revision history. Don't you dare verbalize such baselessly calumnious accusations without the slightest whit of evidence! I demand reparation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LesterO'Brien (talk • contribs) 01:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Has anyone opened a case? If not, I strongly suggest so. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC) I made a request. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC) The case is open. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC) The above-mentioned user pages are, I believe, quite obviously the same individual who's getting his kicks from making alter egos and trying to push through his belief(s) via sockpuppeting. Given the range of characters that this individual is attempting to create, from the 'ditzy schoolgirl' (Llisaloo) to the 'PhD-holding OSU grad' (PeterHellinger), it's evident that this is all bait to suck us in, for his personal amusement. Given his response to the sockpuppeting accusation ("What a brazen impudation as I clarified in the revision history. Don't you dare verbalize such baselessly calumnious accusations without the slightest whit of evidence! I demand reparation.") it's now apparent that he is sarcastically enjoying the entire situation. At this point, I think it would be in everyone's best interests for an administrator to indefinitely block each of those accounts and permanently disable account creation abilities from his IP address, and then move on. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC) The investigation is important to stop it continuing and make others aware. I'm sure the admins will not waste a lot of time on it, and will zap the accounts. Time to move on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seemour/Archive: Blocked all the accounts indef. It's unclear who is the sockmaster, but it's not really important right now. It's some pretty obvious socking going on here. The IP is already blocked as an open proxy, so this case is pretty much closed. (X! · talk) · @955 · 21:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (missing paren (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Political controversy (Iran president's comment against Paul the octopus)

Why is the the political controversy between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Paul the octopus residing in Germany included in this wiki entry? Is it necessary to include the political controversy? Does it matter the significance of this controversy in the wiki entry of Paul the octopus? Kimberry352 (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Paul the octopus → Paul the Octopus — "Paul the Octopus" is a title and should be capatalised, much like Henry the Hexapus, Ace the Wonder Dog, Bill the Goat, Ham the Chimp and other similarly known famous animals. "Paul the Octopus" is the form that was used when this article was featured on Did you know?, and the form used by much of the press (Metro, Hindustani Times, Times of India, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Washington Post). City of Destruction 19:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This form is prevalent in the media. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rename: per nom. jonkerz♠ 00:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UE. — AjaxSmack 00:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support As a whole, it is a title. - S Masters (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UE ≈ Prometheus  «talk» 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Agreed. Kimberry352 (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is a valid point. FFMG (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support and let's not forget Henry the Human Fly and Bubbles the redirected chimpanzee. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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[30]. 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. [31] LOL - that search finds several informal sources that say it's colour-blind ! Maybe we can find a better citation ? [32] 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)

DPA

The "Life" section contains a sentence which begins, "According to DPA...". I'm guessing that DPA refers to Deutsche Presse-Agentur, so I have added a link, as it is not a well known acronym. If this is not the right DPA, please switch the link to point to the right one. If the link is thought to be excessive, I suggest changing the abbreviation to the full text "According to (the?) Deutsche Presse-Agentur..." Eigenbanana (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging successors

I had a go at merging Paul II (octopus) into Paul the Octopus, as per the AfD. I think for consistency Ollie the Octopus should be blanked, redirected and merged in the same way. I'll wait a few days for anyone to dissent. Spacexplosion^[talk] 16:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite agree, with both. Do you think that the FIFA fruit flies should go in Oracular animal? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Have now added them at Oracular animal. But I was expecting to see more there, indeed more than are included here. Where else could they be? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 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)

The source says: Solo se necesitan 178 personas eligiendo al azar para que alguna acierte una quiniela de ocho partidos la mayoría de veces. Posting it here so that someone who knows the language may translate it. And the part of the source that is being used is an opinion piece from the "Letters" section, it seems to me. Does that count as a reliable source? --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The translation of Solo se necesitan... is It is sufficient to have 178 people choosing at random to have at least one that guesses at least 8 games most of the times. Jose Merida's piece is not worthy. Although it is fairly ok in the sense that it points correctly to the fact that there was survivorship bias (being Paul the Octopus the survivor among many other Oracles), the piece is clearly a case of self-promotion. If it were a paper with an actual model that simulates a coin-toss and shows the distribution of the 99th order-statistic it would be one thing. But it is not. I therefore delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.24.246 (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think that section of the article was overlong anyhow. LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

At IP: It is meant this way: 178 people are needed to have a significant chance one of them predicts all winners right, than if there are less people.93.128.92.207 (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Angelic Paul irony

Given that even Google themselves acknowledge that Paul has ascended to the region of above the clouds, should his Google Doodle really appear in the article section headed Life? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Where else to put it? It certainly doesn't merit its own section, but a day's devotion on a leading web portal is pretty notable '''tAD''' (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The celestial irony now largely dissipated, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT the same octopus!

OK, please remove that Euro 2008. table.

It is simple - it was not Paul the Octopus - as it is written in the text. Why making contradictions?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AurgelmirCro (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There were contradictions in the reporting of the facts by the news sources being referenced. The article is keeping true to the information available. If you have a reliable source that explains the discrepancy, let's see it. Spacexplosion^[talk] 20:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. My guess, considering octopus life spans, is that it probably was a different animal for the two tournaments - but it was probably better for the aquarium for people to think it the same one. This being a fun story about a psychic octopus, media outlets probably didn't feel the need for absolute fact checking rigour so went along with it. As we'll probably never get any more info than we have, I've fixed up a bit of a "disclaimer" sentence for the base of the lead. LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The "straight from the horse's mouth" (from the zookeeper) source saying that 2008 Paul and 2010 Paul were different octopuses is apparently here, but it's in in Portugese which I can't read. I'm inclined to believe it was a different animal, as 2.5 years is an improbably long life for Octopus vulgaris. Unfortunately, we're kinda constrained by WP:OR and probably have to follow the lines of the sources (which probably didn't bother with fact-checking) than trying to establish "truth" in the article. Perhaps Wikinews could do some investigative journalism and blow open the Great Octopus Conspiracy of 2010? :P --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it just a coincidence that you've waited nearly two and a half years, LukeSurl, to make this co-called "connection"!! Am surprised if you're not in league with User:Acalamari. Deeply shocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh, that article has been discussed here before, I just fished it out of the archives.

If anyone can read Portuguese and can paraphrase what that article says it could be a useful addition to the article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because polvo guisado never gets the world-wide coverage. But you could be right. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Paul the Octopus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140622175607/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/sport/football/world-cup/7877034/World-Cup-2010-10-things-you-didnt-know-about-Paul-the-psychic-octopus.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/7877034/World-Cup-2010-10-things-you-didnt-know-about-Paul-the-psychic-octopus.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100709061022/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/sports/soccer/worldcup2010newsfeed/?feedID=39851695869528950 to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/soccer/worldcup2010newsfeed/?feedID=39851695869528950

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 13:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)