Talk:Paul the Octopus/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Great Conspiracy

Paul the Octopus (also known in England as Paul the Traitor) seems to have picked up Spain over Germany as the winner of the World Cup’s semi-final. Some photos have surfaced that prove the claim: Men in black are reported to have arrived at the scene, hijacked all video evidence and held Paul hostage. Do you also smell a cover up? If they replace Paul with one of his brain-washed brothers, how are we supposed to figure this Government conspiracy out? (PaulTheOctopus (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

can someone explain how an octopus could be english? was in born in london or something? (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
THE OCTOPUS WAS RIGHT Spacexplosion[talk] 20:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

the octopus can be english if it was born in an aquarium in england,or in the english coast (though im not sure if you even get octopuses there) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

the octopus came from Weymouth in England. According to reports, he went to Germany in 2006. Other sources say he is 2 years old. It is not clear how old he really is, but he was predicting results in 2008. He must be older than is generally reported (3 or 4 years old). I also remember an octopus predicting results last World Cup finals, so is he continuing a tradition started by another octopus? HolidaysOnIce (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


There were three possible outcomes in the group games, and 2 in the later stages. So that's 0.45% probability of Paul picking all the winners. (0.33*0.33*0.33*0.5*.5*.5*100) (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. The probability of guessing the results of the 6 games is 0.33*0.33*0.33*0.5*0.5*0.5 = 0.004492125, why did you multiply by 100 at the end? The probability of guessing one knockout game is obviously 0.5, win or lose. Getting the second correct as well would be another seperate 0.5 chance, but the odds of guessing both is merely 0.25 - already less than the 0.45% you cited. It's a very similar scenario to betting on whether or not something can flip 6 heads in a row. Davedeslave (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because 0.45% is in percentage terms (i.e. between 0 and 100). The 0.0045 number is for probablity between 0 and 1. (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I completely misread it, I missed the % (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with the math part. However, we are assuming that the conditions of each event (Picking the German flag vs picking the other flag) are exactly the same. Is there any evidence of the conditions are being set properly? A few comments that could help answer that question:

A) It's mentioned that each container has food. Has it been confirmed that the food is exactly the same (in quantity and in quality) in both containers? If one container is generating a more appealing smell for the animal, one flag will have more probability to be chosen.

B) When Paul enters the fishbowl, he should be in a point equidistant from the two containers. I assume this should be easy to validate.

C) Is the German flag container always on the same position in the fishbowl? Let's say the opponent's container is always next to the soccer ball. The octopus could prefer to choose more often the container that is far from the foreign object, giving Paul more probability to select German as the winner.

D) One of the containers has always the same visual aspect (the one with the German flag) and the other container always changes its visual aspect. The animal can learn a preference towards the non-foreign object. This can also greatly increase the chances of selecting Germany as the winner. --W1k1w4lt3r (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


Article says Paul was born in England[7]

Technically, octupuses are not born.Ordinary Person (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the plural form of the word is octopi Spacexplosion[talk] 21:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, octopuses is correct. See Plural form of words ending in -us#Octopus. Robofish (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How do we know the octupus isn't predicting who it thinks will lose each game? (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is, it's still psychic, just unable to use its own abilities. It's an oracle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Like octopuses, those tentacled facehuggers on Aliens are oracular. They have an uncanny way of predicting a person's death. Neuterz (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


When i created Paul the octopus I did not find Paul the Octopus maybe because of capitalization of the word octopus in the title that IMO is wrong. New article has everything the old one does plus more info. IMO there's nothing to merge there. I believe that this article should be deleted, or maybe merged with a new one, and not the other was around.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Besides this article is incorrect in at least some instances. For example this source never mentioned that the octopus predicted German's lost to Croatia, as the article claims referring to it. The source only mentions German's lost, but says nothing about the octopus prediction.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Definately merge. Portillo (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


There's nothing really to merge there. All info from Paul the Octopus is present in Paul the octopus, so IMO Paul the Octopus could be safely deleted.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Merged. This article used the incorrect capitalization and so it was obvious that it had to move the other way. Some information is redundant but some was new. feel free to redact the at Paul the Octopus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
What incorrect capitalization are you talking about? All sources use word "octopus" in a lower case [1]. There's nothing to merge there. All the info from the old article is present in the new one. Merging only created an unwanted mess. In a worst case scenario the article could be moved but nor merged. Please discuss before doing this again. There's no rules in the merging policy which require to merge a new article into the old one.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Walter. --John (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, somebody else agreed to merge an old one into the new one, and I did before I read your comment. There's also some info in the old article that is not conformed by the references. IMO it will be easier to deal with the article if an old one is merged into a new one, but honestly I am tired and hardly care any more. So please do as you wish.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

History merged

For technical reasons it would have been preferable to merge the newer into the older article, just to preserve the page history better. I have now history-merged the two articles: edits currently seen in the history of this article up to 02:01, 8 July 2010 are those of the earlier duplicate Paul the Octopus. Edits from after this time are those of the new article started under Paul the octopus. (Parallel edits on the other article after that time are still in the deleted page history at Paul the octopus). The old talk page is moved to Talk:Paul the octopus/Archive 1. Fut.Perf. 07:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


It is ostensibly incorrect that "All sources use word 'octopus' in a lower case".[2][3][4][5]. I am unsure how a single link to is supposed to establish a claim concerning "all sources". It is true that "Paul the octopus" at present appears to be the more common spelling, but I predict that "Paul the Octopus" will become more frequently used daily. --dab (𒁳) 11:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As soon as folks realise that Paul is the current avatar of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, "octopus" will most definitely be capitalized henceforth - perhaps even retroactively. --Aryaman (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
more or less my point :) --dab (𒁳) 14:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Heavens! And here I was thinking I was the only one. Apparently, Subodh Varma hath glimpsed His Noodly Appendage as well... --Aryaman (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


The eponymous anthology Der Tintenfisch Paul Oktopus by Boy Lornsen confusingly appears to have been published only in 2009,

Boy Lornsen: Der Tintenfisch Paul Oktopus. Gedichte für neugierige Kinder. Manfred Boje Verlag, Köln 2009, ISBN 978-3-414-82148-5.

But it appears that Der Tintenfisch Paul Oktopus is the name of a poem, published in 1985 in Das alte Schwein lebt immer noch: Boy Lornsens Tierleben (Schneekluth, 1985, ISBN 9783795109417). --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Boy Lornsen died before the book was published...Polentario (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


It seems that there are conflicting reports on Paul's predictions in Euro 2008. While the Telegraph says he was wrong in the match vs Croatia and Spain, and the BBC says his accuracy in Euro 2008 was 70%, certain sources say he only erred vs Spain and his accuracy is around 80%. Which one should we go for? Craddocktm (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The usual thing to do is, if sources differ, say in the article that sources differ. Parrot of Doom 15:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
not in the case of a WP:RECENTISM in the popular press. These people all copy from one another. One good source saying Paul was hatched in 2006 beats any amount of journalism copying the 2008 date off some news agency. That said, which is correct now, 2008 or 2006? We need to find the reliable sources and ignore the journalistic cruft. --dab (𒁳) 15:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The German source from 2008 is credible ( saying that Paul predicted Germany as the winner over Croatia. So he was correct for this match as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
This is discussed below, too. -> #Croatia prediction. Note that "Paul predicted Germany" and "he was correct" actually contradict each other: Croatia won. --a.bit (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


its obvious his gender is male? the owner named him 'paul' and often refer the octopus as 'he'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsdsasds (talkcontribs) 14:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No it's not obvious. Animals are often given names before their sex is determined, and in the case of octopuses I imagine you need to be an expert to be able to tell. --dab (𒁳) 14:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
the owner himself, who named him is an already expert, why is the octopus under the care of him ever since it's born? its because the owner is a professional who knows the octopus better than anyone else, paul is not a pet under some 12 years girl who name her hamster. He is an octopus living in Sea Life Centres which can afford to spend money hiring professional to take care of their creatures, not by recruiting random volunteers on the street. i leave it to others to edit for me, i believe many will stand with me, its obvious its male. This creature is under the care of professional whose job is just to stay around them, no reason to think they made a mistake of the creature's gender, peace. :)
Dsdsasds (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, they just named the thing for a children's poem. If you have a reference saying it is male, fine, but just assuming it is from the name "Paul" does nothing.
Also, please stop saying "gender", I find it jarring. It's an octopus, for crying out loud, it doesn't have a gender identity, and it very probably isn't a feminist or genderqueer or something of the kind. It just has one of two possible sexes, at present unknown. --dab (𒁳) 22:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Cephalopods, like many invertebrates, would be hard to sex unless their species has a external indicator, like size or coloring, even for experts. I've never owned one, but I imagine that the procedure for determining sex based on their internal structures would be similar to the procedure for reptiles. Many pet reptiles are not sexed unless they are going to be bred due to the stress that it puts on them. dab is right that it's not a trivial assumption.
Living things have secondary sex characteristics observable externally. In the case of an octopus, males have a hectocotylus for injecting spermatophores into a female. So, if the octopus is sexually mature one should be able to tell... Of course, Paul was named before it was sexually mature... Miguel (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I miss the old days of persecution when gender and sex were seen as nearly synonyms. For an animal that can't have a gender different from its sex, should it really offend you to use the wrong term? Spacexplosion[talk] 22:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm with dab. Cephalopods don't care (I'm assuming) that they don't adhere to society's version of femininity or masculinity. The actual old days just gave humans one sex or the other. Gender is a recent option. Humans like to create stuff to confuse themselves like bureaucracy, accounting, and postmodern performance art. Sex and gender, too. The octopus is male or female...maybe a little of both, but that's its sex, not its gender. --Moni3 (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure an animal has a gender. "Gender" just used to mean "type". The feminists and gay activists have then rendered the word unfit for any other use than an euphemism for "human sexual identity". It's an anthropomorphisation to suggest an animal has a "gender" in this sense. Not that it is terrible to imply human attributes for an octopus who is already used to predict football results, but all the same I feel that talking about Paul's "gender" is about as inaccurate as saying he was "born" in 2006 or 2008. --dab (𒁳) 23:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Feminist gay activism marked the downfall of civilization. I completely agree. --Moni3 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, gender. Gender is the wide set of characteristics that are seen to distinguish between male and female. It can extend from sex to social role or gender identity. I did not know that gender is the wrong term used here in this case as for my country, singapore, we don't have much of these extreme gay/feminist activities in the city, confusing the term 'gender'. Apologies for the wrong term used then if it offended you.. Dsdsasds (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes each individual octopus definitely has a gender in the biological sense of the word. There are male and females octopuses, as is clearly explained in the article on Octopus. The male has a specialized hectocotylus arm for copulation. It's on the outside, not on the inside of the animal. However an octopus is not born, but hatches out of an egg that has been laid by a female octopus. Invertzoo (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Octopuses' life span

Just wondering: don't Octopuses have a very limited life span? Something like 12-15 months, if I recall correctly. This can't be "the same" Paul of Euro 2008. dariopy (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This page [6] mentions an average lifespan of "two to three years", noting that he's unlikely to be still with us for the next World Cup, but making survival since 2006 or 2008 not unlikely. Fut.Perf. 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I think they die after reproducing? Chaleur (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

15months is the maximum lifespan I have seen documented for O. vulgaris. Either this is not an example of O. vulgaris, or there have indeed been multiple "Pauls". But then, why should anyone really be concerned with such details? It's just a fun publicity stunt anyway. More power to the aquarists who figured out an interesting way to raise publicity and a tiny bit of awareness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


I think it would be nice to have the flags displayed in the table of the different bets, as Paul might have a selection bias towards colors or certain forms. Polentario (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Germany is left out however. Polentario (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 9 July 2010


its not 11 out of 12 but 10 out of 12. verification is in the table provided. There are 2 incorrect predictions (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Done

Edit request from, 9 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The local paper in Oberhausen reported in 2008 that Paul predicted Germany as the winner over Croatia. The table is therfore wrong. Here is the story: (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Not done: Please explain the difference between the table content and source. Note that the last change (well before this request) of the table was made specifically to include the content of this source, which is cited there. --a.bit (talk)

Edit request from, 9 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The FIFA 2010 World Cup Final Match is on 11 July 2010 not 9 July 2010 as it is written in the table of Spain and Netherlands. And the 3rd place match between Germany and Urugway is on 10 July 2010 not 9 July 2010. Check if you want to make sure. (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for spotting that. Parrot of Doom 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Scare quotes on the word "predicted"

Hi everyone. I am replacing the scare quotes on the places where the verb predicted is used. Let's be clear here: the octopus does not itself make predictions. It chooses one food box over another for a reason that is currently not known. The supposed "meaning" of these food box choices is imposed by the commercial authority that owns the octopus. Clearly this whole story has many of the qualities of a publicity stunt. The journalists who have been reporting it have been telling the story tongue in cheek, as a humorous item. I think the least we can do on Wikipedia, which is after all an encyclopedia, not an entertainment news magazine, to maintain a neutral point of view, is to steer clear of endorsing the idea of: 1. A psychic octopus 2. A marine invertebrate who cares about the outcome of soccer matches. Invertzoo (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when did u become God? How neutral are you? Id put scare quotes around your 'Clearly', because the only clear thing is your upset at this story that supports Precognition is possible. You claim to be neutral yet add: 'is to steer clear of endorsing the idea of a psychic octopus...'. This a very UNscientific attitude whereby you fudge the data, ignoring what doesnt fit you preconceptions. This is why7 Wiki cant be trusted Its 'editors' are trying to edit reality. Jalusbrian (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. As an encyclopedia we follow the sources without indicating our editorial skepticism through the use of punctuation. --John (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Three of the sources used in the article also use scare quotes, if you look you will see this is true. "Psychic" octopus is used with scare quotes by the BBC twice and by one other source. It is very important to make clear that this story has been widely reported as an amusing joke, as an entertainment, not as a serious piece of reporting. Invertzoo (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the the over-use of scare quotes here. They have a negative aesthetic effect. They also have the effect of giving the entire article a sarcastic tone not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I propose that the scare quotes should be used on the first instance of "prediction" only. Perhaps if a paragraph uses the word extensively then another set of scare quotes can be used at the first instance in that paragraph. The reader should assume the meaning of "prediction" will stay the same throughout the context. Spacexplosion[talk] 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable compromise. I am certainly prepared to try it and see how well it works, and how stable it is. It must say that it is worth keeping an eye on the scare quotes you do leave in place, because so far any scare quotes put in have all rapidly disappeared.
Also I feel it is important to keep the use of the word "prediction" to a minimum, since the octopus is not actually predicting anything, he is simply making a choice about which food item he prefers. As for the sarcasm problem, actually there is a problem with the whole tenor of this piece. It's questionable whether this topic should even be covered in an encyclopedia. However, since the article is here now and we have to deal with it, we need to find a way of making it clear that this story was not reported by journalists as a serious news item, but more as a joke or a piece of entertainment. Invertzoo (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Invertzoo. Posted below on a different thread Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Per the spirit of NPOV we do not editorialize in this sneaky way. Instead we follow sources. Sources do not use scare quotes like this, therefore we cannot. QED. --John (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the BBC refs use scare quotes on two occasions and so does one other source. Invertzoo (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Note added, with references to relevant sources. Invertzoo (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but that really isn't worth mentioning in our article. --John (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Potential for stress

A report just seen on Fox mentioning both Paul and Clever Hans point out the unfair stress these animals can face while being forced to make an important decision in front of so many onlookers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This article [7] quotes Stefan Porwoll, manager at Sea Life as saying, "Paul is such a professional oracle - he doesn't even care that hundreds of journalists are watching and commenting on every move he makes." Clearly this is not like poking a cow with a stick.--Auric (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What image should be used?

I made a composite image out of the two images available on commons. Of course it is not a real thing, but it is clearly specified in the description of the image, and shows not only the octopus, but also the boxes

Paul the Octopus.jpg

. I believe sooner or later we will be able to get a free image, but for now what image should used, the composite or the real one? --Mbz1 (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The real ones, both of them. The composite provides no additional information (less information, in fact, since the images can't be viewed in full) and has the potential to mislead. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Support!--Tilla (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the composite image is excellent, and should be used. What is misleading about it Mgiganteus1, and what do you mean by "the images can't be viewed in full"? And Tilla, are you supporting Mbz1's composite image, or are you supporting Mgiganteus1? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Epipelagic. If even one person likes my work, it means that the time I spent on working on it was not lost. I've tried to find a free real image, and even emailed to aquarium, but so far no result. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't like the composite. The way the arms are faded out just at the position where they ought to be clutching the box, just because in the original picture that is where they are hidden behind some other object, looks really clumsy. The originals are fine. Fut.Perf. 06:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I of course understand your point, but I would appreciate, if you will not call my work "clumsy". I have done the best I could under the circumstances, and I doubt anybody would have done it better. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Since the article is now submitted for DYK, the images from now for a week or two need to be kept stable, not changed around. Indeed, as much as possible the article needs to be kept stable or it will fail to become a DYK. Invertzoo (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's stick with the real image rather than use a montage. --John (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: my new try
Paul the Octopus 1.jpg
is much better than the first one, and is definitely more entertaining than the original one. I always support the use of a real image over a composite one, but here the real one actually shows nothing IMO. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Croatia prediction

Paul the Octopus voted at the Euro Champs 2008 that Croatia will win. And Croatia WON 2-1!! 2-1 for Croatia and Paul was right. Change that! Pls correct it (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, it was this edit. Please review. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

yes, it's wrong right now! (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed it now, so the table now says that Paul prediction against Croatia was correct. This would be confirmed by the first paragraph of the article, in which the success-rate for Paul during the 2008-tournament is said to be 5 out of 6. --here@llyis@dj (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How is this an error in the text? The one who made the edit (as identified by dab) gave a source for his edit. Where's a source for the opposite? In fact, I found another source (from the relevant month & year) also saying the Croatia "prediction" was wrong, so I changed it back. --a.bit (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello no you are wrong, everywhere stands that Paul got it 2008 to 80% right. Read: or that he got 5 of six votes 2008 right. read: ... there are "tons" of articles where it stands. I also checked the german original source, and there stands too that Paul only voted the final 2008 wrong. Or 5 of 6. Change it ;-). (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, this discussion is about the Croatia prediction. So could you please provide a reference about the Croatia prediction? I realize there is a contradiction with the "80% right" claims, but if you want something specific changed, then please provide specific evidence (and do not ignore specific evidence to the contrary, i.e. the references provided -- one even has a picture of Paul *not* picking Croatia). --a.bit (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
no problem. Here:
or here
and so on... (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Blogs. User-generated Content. Not from the relevant year, not specific to the Croatia match. Please read WP:VERIFY#Reliable_sources. --a.bit (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
you write, that because you know one single source (form relevant year & month) where stands that Paul was before the croatia match wrong and that "all other" sources or references are wrong..? Then post the link here in. Because it cannot be that the whole internet holds one opinion and you are maybe the only one who think (with your founded source) that the rest isn't true. You write about Blogs and user-genrated Contents. So, if your source is a blog or something like this you are wrong. Check it out ;-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a little bit of googling led me to these pages telling me that Paul predicted Croatia to win: [8] [9] [10]. Also, the German Wikipedia states only the finals were predicted wrong. PPP (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Could someone who speaks German please just e-mail Sea Life Oberhausen and ask them to put the correct information on their website? ;) PPP (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we have the source that can settle this. An user was kind enough to come up with this German source in 2008, which should, in my opinion, triumph over recent English sources. Furthermore, there is a photo of Paul sending his tentacles into the Germany tank!
The link is:
The text also said Paul predicted Germany would win. So he actually was wrong!Craddocktm (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
A shame then, that this source is already used in the article. Parrot of Doom 16:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For those not satisfied with the two sources (as cited in the current revision) dealing specifically with the Croatia prediction both saying the prediction was Germany (and the photo thereof; and Parrot's bbc link saying "nearly 70%" out of 6 correct predictions at the Euro), the German version of the article now contains this link to sealife itself (in German; google translated here). --a.bit (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Paul predicted that Germany would lose to Croatia and here's a link from Crotia's news index which confirms that: So if you could fix that. Thanks, kindey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindey (talkcontribs) 20:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)