Talk:Champ (folklore)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Champ (cryptozoology))
Jump to: navigation, search

Cleanup[edit]

This article could use some good, healthy cleaning up. There is a dearth of citations (e.g., who were the photo experts who analysed Sandra Mansi's picture?) as well as a bunch of information which appears superfluous due to insufficient information: in the paragraph that describes the photo experts, Mansi apparently shows the photo to 'Joseph W Zarzynski'. Who's he when he's at home, and why should we be concerned with him?

A large part of the article is very well written, especially the bits listing the various sightings over the centuries. However, the first section is a mess, lacking continuity and professionalism. Paragraph 3, for instance, simply says that Champ has a famous photo similar to the 'Surgeon's photo'. Does Champ himself own this photo and display it over the mantelpiece? Or is this a photo of Champ? And where is this photo? And what exactly is the 'Surgeon's photo'? The sensible reader will be able to figure out that, yes, the photo is of Champ, not owned by him; the Surgeon's photo is the most famous Nessie photo; and by golly, there is Champ's photo at the bottom of the page. But a well-written article shouldn't have these ambiguities.

The last paragraph of the first section looks like it was taken from a travel brochure. Not only is it not written in canonical 'encyclopaedic style', but it raises a lot of nonsequiturs and isn't connected to what precedes it.

Scientific name for Champ[edit]

why on earth is there a box with this monster described as some sorth of scientifically accepted and documented species?!? You can´t give a scientific name and taxonomy for a creature that is not scientifically proven, identified and described! I think it should be removed ASAP! --Danielos2 10:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just added a bit about it not being an official name. If it was simply deleted, someone else could revert it. I prefer to add than take away. Totnesmartin 14:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm slowly putting up Charles Fort's now-public domain The Book of the Damned on Wikisource for just such people as you, Danielos2. *Chuckles* You might like it. --Chr.K. 11:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The name for "champ" would be Pliesiosaur or Elasmosaur. ofcourse some dinosaurs (marine) may be undiscovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.162.135 (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC) errrm... there were no marine dinosaurs. Only marine *reptiles* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.19.37 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic" version[edit]

I object to the recent edit. First, I don't think the word "supposedly" is the best choice. Second, the original wording was engaging, interesting and meets Wikipedia policy.

Skudrafan1, let's discuss a rewrite before making the edits again, please? Dreadlocke 04:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The way that section is written right now is not at all encylcopedic. It is written in a completely conversational tone. When people hear phrases like “sea monster” or “lake monster”, what usually pops into their heads? This is obviously not something you would see written in an encylcopedia. The current format might be "engaging" and "interesting," but it definitely doesn't meet Wikipedia policy. Perhaps supposedly in my version isn't a good word. One bad word in two otherwise encyclopedic paragraphs, though, is better than what is there right now. -Skudrafan1 04:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Please show me the policy that states articles cannot have a "conversational tone" and how it applies to the way the section is currently written, and I'll withdraw my objection. I think you cut too much from the original section. I do think you added some good information, especially around the minor league baseball team, but I think what is in there now is engaging and interesting. I like the references to "sea monster" and "lake monster" they are helpful and informative links. I also find that the journalistic prose adds color and engages the imagination. This may be an encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it can't have an engaging writing style. I'm sure we can combine the two and come up with something better than either one by itself. What do you say? Dreadlocke 04:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Given my short search and my (I'm ashamed to say) unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia pages on policies and guidelines, the only thing I can come up with is Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Which style to use?. It only mentioned two styles: news and summary. However, you are right; it only says these styles "tend to be used," not "must be used." All I know is that in my experience with Wikipedia, any articles I've seen written in this conversational tone have always been edited to the encyclopedic tone. I assumed it was policy -- and it still may be, and I might just not be finding the appropriate reference in the policies. However, it would appear that you are right. My opinion that my way is better was just that: my opinion. My apologies for snap judgements.
Now, I will attempt to make an edit meshing your version with my version. Wish me luck. -Skudrafan1 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
We crossed edits, I was posting the below, which I think goes right along with your idea! Sorry if I was snappy too... I definitely could have handled that better!  :(
Let me guide you to something I think is an important concept for this situation; a quote from News Style which one of the two advocated writing styles from the Wikipedia Guide to writing better articles.
"They use subject-verb-object construction and vivid, active prose. They offer anecdotes, examples and metaphors, and they rarely depend on colorless generalizations or abstract ideas."
I think what you are referring to as a "conversational tone" is an example of a vivid and active prose that offers examples and anecdotes. Pehaps it can be better written...but I dispute it's complete removal. I'd at least like to explore that concept. Dreadlocke 05:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I've had the same experience as you have, any articles I've seen written in this conversational tone have always been edited to the encyclopedic tone. When I first saw this section in Champ, I was going to rewrite it myself - but then as I restructured the article and found some citations for it, it grew on me and I began to think it was an interesting style that just might be a good thing. I dunno, you may be right and it's unencyclopedic, but I kinda hope it's not. Dreadlocke 05:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Skudrafan1, your latest version is GREAT! Excellently done! Dreadlocke 05:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I say we take out the "lake monster" section[edit]

I'll bold the information that doesn't belong in the article... Not very encyclopedic sounding, and doesn't help teh casual reader.

When people hear phrases like “sea monster” or “lake monster”, they often think of mythical giant squid-like creatures or some kind of merfolk out in the middle of the ocean. Many may think of the affectionately-named “Nessie” from Loch Ness in Scotland. However, the lore of lake monsters also exists in North America. According to legend and eye witness accounts, such a monster dwells in Lake Champlain, a 125-mile-long body of fresh water that is shared by New York and Vermont and juts a few miles into Quebec, Canada.[1]

When people hear phrases like “sea monster” or “lake monster”, they often think of mythical giant squid-like creatures or some kind of merfolk out in the middle of the ocean. Many may think of the affectionately-named “Nessie” from Loch Ness in Scotland. However, the lore of lake monsters also exists in North America. According to legend and eye witness accounts, such a monster dwells in Lake Champlain, a 125-mile-long body of fresh water that is shared by New York and Vermont and juts a few miles into Quebec, Canada.[1]

Champ is highly revered by many in the area and has become a revenue-generating attraction.[2] For example, the village of Port Henry, New York, has erected a giant model of Champ and holds "Champ Day" on the first Saturday of every August.

The mascot of Vermont's lone Minor League Baseball affiliate, the Vermont Expos, Champ would become even more of the star of the team when they would rename the team, due to the end of the Montreal Expos, to the Vermont Lake Monsters. Champ has been the primary attraction of the New York - Penn League affiliate since their inception.

Now, here's the version that I think should be added to the beginning of the article, and not be a seperate section.

Champ or Champy is the name given to a reputed lake monster living in Lake Champlain, a 125-mile-long freshwater body. The creature's existence has never been authoritatively documented. While most authorities regard Champy as legend, some believe it is possible such a giant creature does live deep in the lake. The state government of Vermont has put Champ on its Endangered Species List, so that if such an animal does exist, it would be protected by law.

Champ is highly revered by many in the area and has become a revenue-generating attraction.[2] For example, the village of Port Henry, New York, has erected a giant model of Champ and holds "Champ Day" on the first Saturday of every August. It is also the mascot of a Minor League, Baseball, Affiliate, the Vermont Expos. Later, the team would be renamed to the "Vermont Lake Monsters."

Who agrees with me? And if noone answers by the next three days, I might as well just change it. Abby724 05:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Abby! I like the "lake monster" section as it is currently written and would like to see the first paragraph remain the same. I think it's interesting and engaging. Several editors have discussed that and so far we're all in agreement that it should stay the way it's written - as you can see by the discussion in the above section. BTW, it may be just my browser, but it's hard to read your post with the "font size=1" setting. Dreadlocke 15:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What the article could really use is a photo. There used to be one included, but it had no copyright information. Perhaps you could find one? Dreadlocke 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Conflict With the Loch Ness Article[edit]

The article on the Loch Ness Monster states: "The loch simply does not have enough food to support animals as big as a plesiosaur, particularly a breeding population of plesiosaurs." However, the Champ article states: "The reason some scientists believe that “Champ” may be a plesiosaur like “Old Nessie” is because the two lakes have much in common ... both lakes support fish populations large enough to feed a supposed sea or lake monster (Krystek 1)." These two statements are in conflict with each other. I don't personally know which statement is correct. I have posted this same observation in both articles, so if the conflict is fixed, my comment should be removed from both places.

Actually, many are confused. The discovery documentary Loch Ness Discovered says the number of fish is nine times more than originally thought. Frankyboy5 17:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC) The loch is so deep there must be enough food. Also, we don't even know there breeding cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.162.135 (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Video Is Not Right[edit]

The video is not the right. The original video is gone from the site. I only got to see a little of it on "google's top searches" thing. That video shown in the article doesn't show anything. There's no monster near the boat or anything in the video. The "true" video may have been removed. I found it on yahoo video search but it can't load up. I think removing the video is the best idea. Frankyboy5 02:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Champy[edit]

The name "Champy" is not common usage. "Champ" is what the creature (real or not) is called. I will edit the article shortly, unless there is objection.--Jonashart 14:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I live in Plattsbugh and it is never called champ, it's champy.
Can you provide a reliable source for that? Thanks! Dreadlocke 00:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this so far: [1]. But the discussion is how notable is that name, and is it used enough to be in prominent locations in the article. Dreadlocke 00:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I grew up near Burlington, VT, and this is the first time I've ever heard/seen "Champy". It's always been "Champ". -- Annon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.182.66 (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I had to find this article through the Lake Champlain talk pages, because I was looking for 'Champy'. Growing up in the AuSable Valley of New York, it was 'Champy' to everyone I knew. Is this a regional thing, with New Yorkers calling it Champy and Vermonters calling it Champ? This article is titled Champy but uses both, and this website is named 'champyshack.com' (the hoster first heard about it in Port Henry, NY). Personally, I think it's at least notable to mention this form of the name. —Akrabbimtalk 13:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if these are 'reliable', but when you're looking for common usage, I think examples of common usages fits the bill doesn't it? People calling it 'Champy': [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]Akrabbimtalk 14:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"The creature's existence has been authoritatively documented."[edit]

how has it been authoritatively documented? citation? 208.103.185.112 19:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That set off alarm bells for me as well. Turns out it was an anonymous edit that no one caught. Ken Gallager 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Tanystropheus[edit]

Dennis Jay Hall: "It remained on the top of my list, until one day while browsing in Barnes and Noble on Dorset Street (in Burlington), I found a picture of a reptile called tanystropheus. I knew I had found the perfect match in both behavior and looks to the animals I have observed living and thriving in our lake." Now that's research! [7]Totnesmartin 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My edits[edit]

I tried to improve the article. A few things worth noting:

  1. Discover Magazine some years ago had an article on the subject, and the seiche in the lake is mentioned (I had, through poor memory, attached it for some reason to Loch Ness, but it was actually Lake Champlain). It also gives a skeptical view of the monster/log.
  2. I think the 1600s thing should be mentioned as a legend, but it has clearly been debunked - the original journal shows no such siting, and given it is a primary source, it takes precedence over any third party claims of what it supposedly says.
  3. The supposed Native American name for it is something I've never heard of; it is unsourced and smacks of something being made up, probably by a cryptozoology site. Is there any -credible- source we can cite this with? Titanium Dragon 18:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see a credible source for the Native American name; Lake Champlain Region is alright, but can we find a better source, such as, say, an anthropologist or similar? The issue is that urban legends often get repeated in less reputable sources, particularly promotional materials, and it seems to me that increased tourism in the area is a possible motive for being generous to such legends. I'm not going to remove it, but if anyone has the time/data, a better source would be nice. Titanium Dragon 10:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Town with tracking board[edit]

A source would be nice, at least to tell us what the town's name is...;) More detail on what the board says would be nice too. Dreadlocke 07:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Port Henry NY has the board..down by the Bulwagga bay entrance. jC...

Recent Sightings[edit]

That "recent sighting" of champ looks remarkably like a submerged log. Titanium Dragon 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And it also looks remarkably like a brown whale. Elasmosaurus (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He is a 200+ year old white sturgeon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.90 (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Typo or anachronism?[edit]

In the text it says that Champ was made famous in 1883, however, it also says that a reward was put up for it's carcass in the early 19th century. The early 19th century would be maybe in the 1810's, 20's or 30's, not in the 80's or 90's. taht would be in the end. How can you put up a reward of something after it gets famous, but do it at a date earlier than when it got famous? Bobber0001 09:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sightings need to be updated[edit]

The sightings need to be updated as two sightings of champ have been recorded in 2006. One in April and another in October. Both sightings were in the Rouses Point area of the lake and Police reports are on file for both as I understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinj63 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 11 July 2007Martinj63 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Find some sources and update the sightings! Oh, and be sure to sign your talk page posts with four tildes "~~~~" per WP:TALK. Dreadlocke 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, the infobox says that it has been most recently sighted in 2009, when it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Does anyone know why it says 2009? —Akrabbimtalk 21:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename article to "Champ (cryptozoology)"[edit]

Champ is not a legend, there is legitimate proof for its existence. I think the article name should be changed to Champ (cryptozoology) or Champ (lake monster). Elasmosaurus (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly why the History Channel did a thorough study of the lake and found nothing? : \ T3hZ10n (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

With the title of the article, it seems as if it's treating champ as if it's not real at all. Of course you can't go edit the article to make it say "This cryptid is real. End of story", but on the other hand, the article's title says, in a nutshell, "Champ is nothing but a legend." rods are far more unlikely than a champ, yet their article title is "rod (cryptozoology) rather than rod (legend). Elasmosaurus (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, Fact, Intro[edit]

With people acting, as above, claiming "proof" for the existence of this mythological creature, there has been instances of insertion of POV and error in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well actually, Champ has been proven but we do not know what it is yet. There were recordings of the creature echolocating, and the people who recorded it ruled out a hoax because there was no boat in range that could produce such a sound at an extensive volume. Elasmosaurus (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole article seriously LACKS NPOV. The word "neutral" is what that N stands for, and the tone of this entire article smacks of skeptical disdain and contempt -- which is NOT NEUTRAL!! I don't know why skeptics think that their bias towards disbelief is somehow a superior bias to that of belief and therefore makes them "neutral" by default. It most certainly does not. If this article were truly NPOV, the tone would not favor either side. I wish that someone who actually comprehends what the word "neutral" means would clean this up. 192.54.250.11 (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Champ Video[edit]

In contrast to what is currently said on the article, the video can be seen here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YysvxZgZYOc I'll leave it up to you to decide what to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.117.205 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Champ is not on the endangered species list[edit]

I've heard this before, but it would seem that Champ is indeed not on the list of endangered species according to the Lake Champlain Basin Programs website. http://www.lcbp.org/Factsht/Endangerspecieslist.pdf Unless someone can site a list in which Champ is present, I'm removing this text from the article. PMHauge (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

1977 picture[edit]

The picture of Champ with its head out of the water that was taken in 1977.I don't believe that could possibly be anything else.It doesn't look like a tree or a log.I've studied and examined the photo and made my conclusion:This picture may be good evidence to prove the existence of Champ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.5.100 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't give you an exact source, but I do recall reading in many places that experts who have studied the Mansi photo could not find any evidence to suggest it is not a legitimate picture. Also, since she did not sell her story and was accompanied by her family who witnessed whatever-it-was moving in a way which ruled out the possibility of it being a log or something else inanimate, there is really no justification to mention this in such a heavily biased way as is done here... and yes, bias in favor of disbelief is just as much a bias as any other kind. This whole article is seriously lacking NPOV; it is heavily "debunker-biased", which is inappropriate here no matter what you believe. 192.54.250.11 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which could you put up that photo of Champ at the head of the article, because I can't find it in Wikimedia Commons? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Controversy?[edit]

I have 3 problems with this section and suggest that it be deleted. 1) There is no citation for the claim that Lake Champlain is the most polluted lake in the US, and I believe that honor in any case goes to Lake Onondaga 2) Even if the "polluted lake" claim were true, I fail to see how it is relevant here. 3) That Champ can be used to attract tourists is fairly self evident--this is the case for pretty much every similar cryptozooid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.254.27 (talkcontribs) 18:51, 21 February 2009

  1. You are right, and it looks like it has been removed by now.
  2. Also true.
  3. I don't think that just because it is common for all cryptozooids that it shouldn't be mentioned on this page. It is one of the reasons for its notability to Burlington, etc. —Akrabbimtalk 21:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference Link Copyvio[edit]

(copied from User talk: Thargor Orlando)

Hi Thargor Orlando,

could you please be more clear with your reasons for removing links to sources on the Champ (cryptozoology) page?

If you could direct me to the relevant policy that would be great. Thanks! Greedo8 16:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's specifically about Rense as a source. The source itself is not being removed, merely the copyvio link. See Wikipedia:Copyright_violations for more. Further questions should be raised at the relevant article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I still do not see how Rense is in violation. Which section of Wikipedia:Copyright violations refers to this type of case? Greedo8 16:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
As noted, the final line of the top of that policy tells us not to link to copyvios. Rense just copy/pasted the source page wholesale. The reference remains, and is the important part. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
But at the bottom of the Rense page there is a "disclaimer" which explains their fair use and lack of copyvio. Greedo8 17:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
A disclaimer of fair use does not mean it's fair use. If this was simply an excerpt, and properly cited at that, it would maybe hold up. Instead, they have specifically copy and pasted an entire article without permission, a copyright violation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It does give all credit to the original article. If Rense did not meet the "fair use" standards, would it not have been shutdown by now? Also, how do you know it's not an excerpt? As best I can tell, Berlington Free Press has the original archived and cannot be viewed without a subscription. Greedo8 17:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be a full article as it's too long to be an excerpt. As for "giving all credit," that doesn't change what it is. It's not up to me as to whether Rense stays up, but we can't be linking to copyvios. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
You said it wasn't properly cited, I was simply arguing that it was. Of course we can't link to copyvios, however, I disagree with your opinion on what is and is not copyvio. Seeing as we haven't come to an agreement, I will leave it as is. It does not harm the article too much to leave the link out. Greedo8 18:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Champ (folklore). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

White sturgeon[edit]

Champ is actually real. He is a 200+ year old white sturgeon. His length is between 18 feet and 22 feet long and he weighs between 1800 to 2200 lbs. He has been seen many times by locals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.90 (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Cryptozoology Hijacking[edit]

I've just removed a ton of undue emphasis on cryptozoology, an obscure pseudoscience that dominated this article. Wikipedia has straightforward policies about this stuff, namely WP:UNDUE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. I've also removed a bunch of random Youtube videos being employed as sources here. In general, this article needs to be rewritten with material from secondary sources. As this is an entity form folklore and clearly fits a larger pattern in the folklore record, a rewrite leaning heavy on works by folklorists (folkloristics) would be ideal. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I fully support your edits and agree that a rewrite leaning more toward folklore rather than cryptozoology would be ideal. I've been struggling to figure out what to do with the "possible explanations" section. Deleting it entirely works for me! One note for future edits, I do think the Mansi photograph bit should stay because it's a famous photograph that's become part of the story of Champ.Dustinlull (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)