Talk:Vampire squid

Female/Male/Offspring - Vampire Squid

I'm researching this, and I was just wondering, what to baby Vampire Squids look like (a description, not a photo, please)?

Goldman Sachs Reference

RedPenOfDoom has removed one of the only references to the Vampire Squid in current discourse, as Goldman Sachs was compared to a Vampire Squid in the very first paragraph of a very famous Rolling Stone article. RedPenOfDoom, I put it to you that you are a stooge of our evil Banking overlords. cojoco (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC) * Taibbi, Matt: The Great American Bubble Machine, Rolling Stone Magazine, July 2009 cojoco (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Endthefed" has independently added it again, and it was removed again. I've put it back now, because it's probably the most notable thing about the Vampire Squid, is well referenced, and quite relevant to most readers. Please don't remove it again without discussion. cojoco (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And I have subsequently removed it. A sarcastic comment in a Matt Taibbi article it may have been, but the contention it's the most notable thing about the Vampire Squid is a. first and foremost unsourced apart from that Matt Taibbi said it, b. has no place in the opening of the article anyway (WP:LEAD), c. even if it could be proved the comment made the Vampire Squid notable or relevant it would be in an in popular culture, and even that's a stretch. This verges on non-notable POV. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Handling trivia applies here too. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually given this comment "RedPenOfDoom, I put it to you that you are a stooge of our evil Banking overlords." and that Endthefed, by edits and username, is an SPA this appears to be an insertation of a POV political bend. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also that quote, though several months old, does violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? Anyway, I do believe that some reference to Matt's article is warranted, for several reasons. The comment was cited by many reliable news organizations, far more so than any reference to the creature itself, which gives support to my statement that Goldman Sachs is its chief claim to notability. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. I was not aware that "XXX in popular culture" was the only method of broadening the context of a currently fairly academic article: I'd appreciate some guidance if you could provide a pointer to such a WP policy. I agree that it need not go in the lead; perhaps it belongs in a closing comment. cojoco (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I have nothing against a brief mention of the quote somewhere in the article, I find the idea that an offhand mention in relation to the financial crisis (which is why that story was so popular and reproduced) is the vampire squid's 'claim to fame' hard to swallow. It's generally accepted on wikipedia that a species is notable by its very existance, not merely due to popular media. Also, it must be said that scientific articles are by nature academic, though there is a place for media content. To include it, I'd probably go the way of giant squid and add it into a brief paragraph such as 'cultural depictions' or 'in the media.' Iciac (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy wise, in the broadest terms, it would be covered under WP:IINFO under merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. However in this case the more appropriate things to look at are the essays WP:HTRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE. As Iciac explains a species existing is notable in itself, whether it is well known to the populace based off a derisive comment is incidental and not related to the biology of the species. As Iciac pointed to giant squid and I add great white shark which though are more known to the populace by popular depiction the articles are largely about the species itself. However a personal observation here is that while those articles all refer to Matt's usage of the animal to refer to the banks it does not illustrate that this quote is what most people know the animal from, and thus surmising that conclusion constitutes WP:OR. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote might find a place based upon WP:CEPH#Article contents which says that the article should make reference to cultural, economic influence etc of the cephalopod. I'm certain that I've seen other references to the vampire squid around, so I wouldn't be completely against such a section being introduced to the article. Trivia and popculture should however be avoided - the quote seems to be a little thin for me, just a simple metaphor homing in on an evil sounding name (Oh no! Goldman Sachs is a 30cm long teuthid; great at glowing slightly to avoid predators, and little else...) - however, I'm not going to oppose it if an editor feels it's worth including. Iciac (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the inclusion of this quote as it seems to be little more than connective trivia. There are no sources to support cojoco's claim that "it's probably the most notable thing about the Vampire Squid", rendering any such statement OR. mgiganteus1 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is getting strangely self-referential. There are dozens of references to the Goldman Sachs Vampire Squid quote in reliable sources, and I gave some examples above. You do not need a reference explicitly stating that another reference is notable; it is notable for the simple reason that it has been cited, and more notable for the fact that it has been cited dozens of times by very reliable sources. In any case, the fact that the GS quote gives the Vampire Squid notability does not need a reference, because nobody has proposed that this statement be added to the article. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect notable aspects of the world, and, in my opinion, the obvious resonance of this quote in many articles suggested it deserves a mention in this one. cojoco (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite a lot of the top ghits for "vampire squid" refer to the Taibbi article, whose primary subject is the Goldman Sachs company, so a mention of the comparison of Goldman Sachs to a vampire squid may well belong in WP's article about Goldman Sachs. However, I'm not big on "cultural references" sections in general, and I don't see a need to mention the comparison in this article. If it is mentioned at all, it should certainly not be in the lede. If Taibbi's article was primarily about marine biology rather than banking, and he had described vampire squids as "a great Goldman Sachs of the ocean", then the comparison would belong in this article rather than the G.S. article, but that's not what we're dealing with. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Editor: I think you are being a bit stiff about the GS thing, which is why I came to the article. Please note the wikipedia article on the donkey (aka "ass"): "Braying is the characteristic sound made by an ass, donkey, and most mules. Donkeys use this sound to communicate and will bray more frequently when a new donkey is encountered. The sound typically lasts for twenty seconds.[5][6] The sound may be rendered onomatapoeically as "eeyore" and so this was used as the name of the donkey in Winnie-the-Pooh. Donkeys may be trained to bray or not to bray upon command. This may be used as a form of mockery.[7][8] Braying may be considered a simile for loud and foolish speech. For example,[9]

   There are braying men in the world as well as braying asses; for what's loud and senseless talking and swearing, any other than braying
   —Sir Roger L'Estrange

(END OF QUOTE) I think the message here is pretty obvious: each species may deserve its own article, but even vampire squids can be targets of popular wit, and even editors can sometimes be.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.7.8 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

YET MORE.... There is also the wikipedia "bat" article, a scholarly endeavor that still has space for: "In Western Culture, the bat is often a symbol of the night and its foreboding nature. The bat is a primary animal associated with fictional characters of the night, both villains like Dracula and heroes like Batman. The association of the fear of the night with the animal was treated as a literary challenge by Kenneth Oppel, who created a best selling series of novels, beginning with Silverwing, which feature bats as the central heroic figures much as anthropomorphized rabbits were the central figures to the classic novel Watership Down." (END QUOTE, but there is more there....)

   Dude, even rabbits got into that one. Give it up, sub-subs, put GS back in the article!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.7.8 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC) 

NOT TO MENTION: The wikipedia article "vampire bat": "Role in fiction The vampire bat is often used in movies and books about vampires. Fictional vampires also consume blood, usually in order to survive. Comparable to the actual vampire bat, the most common feeding method is piercing a hole in the victim's neck with sharp fangs and sucking blood from the pierced area. Fictional vampires are also commonly nocturnal, and rarely come out during the day, similar to vampire bats. Other attributes of fictional vampires include, but are not restricted to, the ability to transform into a vampire bat and animal-like senses of sight and hearing. In several vampire horror films a vampire bat arrives through the victim's window then magically transforms into the fictional mythological creature.[11]" (END QUOTE).

  Loosen up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.7.8 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC) 

Two years have passed and the Vampire Squid = Goldman Sachs analogy is still going strong, so I've reinserted a mention at the end of the article. Plenty more refs within this New York Times article. Jpatokal (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing sources. I'm wondering, though, whether Taibbi really was referring to Vampyroteuthis infernalis, or just meant "a squid which is a vampire". In the latter case, perhaps this information should be moved to the Squid article. I will note that the animal indirectly described in the quote doesn't seem to resemble Vampyroteuthis infernalis much at all (but neither does it resemble any member of the order Teuthida, as far as I know). Augurar (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammar, spelling

Read this. "Its limpid, globular eyes; which appear red or blue, also depending on lighting; are proportionately the largest in the animal kingdom at 2.5 cm (1 inch) in diameter." Read it again.

Seriously, who wrote this? Here's a quick fix:

Its limpid, globular eyes, which appear red or blue, depending on lighting, are proportionately the largest in the animal kingdom at 2.5 cm (1 inch) in diameter.

You just can't use semicolons as 'higher-order' commas. That's not how it works.

Also: what I originally thought was a spelling error is actually right. The correct plural of octopus is octopuses; according to a video by the people at Webster, octopi was a Latinized version of a Greek word... followed by Octopodes, the correct Greek plural... but octopuses is correct because octopus was a foreign and imported word, so it takes on the English plural.

I've changed the sentence to your suggestion. Thanks for pointing it out. mgiganteus1 (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Threat to humans?

What is the point of the first sentence in "physical description?" This would seem extremely obvious because it's a deep-sea cephalopod. It's just as ridiculous as saying, "At a weight of only 4 grams, the Great Spiny Caterpillar poses no threat to humans," and then making that the first sentence in physical description section of the caterpillar. 71.62.188.38 (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed. Thanks, mgiganteus1 (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Needs citations" can go

For an article of this length, the number of citations provided is completely adequate. Why not just get rid of the three-year-old, now invalid, "needs citations" tag?

Frankly, that tag pisses me the hell off. It's way, way, way overused. If some lazy smuck wants to hang that tag on an article, let him spend a weekend afternoon digging up some good citations himself first! That would be easy to automate - the system could be programmed so that you can't apply that tag unless the history shows that you yourself have provided at least three citations.

98.243.173.66 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)