Talk:Exploding whale/Archive 1

message: Ta bu shi da yu, why did you remove the link to research centre? I think it's a valid attition which should be kept. --  Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   20:43, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
:I figure you wikified things for the sake of wikifying them. Is there any guarantee that someone is going to actually write this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's cool. I was just trying to accomodate suggestions by Soliphist. If others disagree, that's fine by me also. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Were it left to me, there would be no meme meme<g>. - Nunh-huh 03:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: lol! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the research centre link. 

message: Just a mention, I've seperated the "Reference section" into 2 sections, "Bibliography" and "External links" just to make it neater. Also removed the link to the Oregon Department of Transportation website as it really didn't belong there... =) --Andylkl 15:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy, I appreciate your assistance here, but I'm rather afraid that we need the references section the way it was. The external links section is more for further information (think of it like "Further reading", just for webpages) and References is also needed to clearly explain where we have gotten our information from (we need to attribute this information). Please see cite your sources, and also the objections that are regularly raised on WP:FAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm... Yes I do know that citing the source is important, but the thing that irks me is the lack of consistency in the References and External links section. Suppose that books, webpages and news articles be seperated but still stay under the Reference umbrella? Btw, the Oregon Department of Transportation website link needs to go, that I'm sure... --Andylkl 05:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed about the Oregon Department of Transportation link, however if you check the edit history you'll note that we had placed all the external links into section AND in the references section at one point. A decision was arrived at that this was duplicating information so we moved all the external links referenced in the story to References and added other links not referenced in the article to External Links. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if that's a wise thing to do. Based on the featured articles that I've read, like the Great Mosque of Djenné, Bloodletting, 1989 Tienanmen Square protests, Ridge Route, yesterday's Battle of Normandy and today's Shakers, the sources and links section there have a vastly different style than the one we have on this article. For most of the articles that I've seen, all links to outside websites were placed under External links to avoid confusion and to make the articles look tidier. Sources were also limited to books only, as in the case of Ridge Route. Imho, the source of the article is already cited when the link is included in External links. About your comment on my talk page regarding the article on Mark Latham, I'm sorry but I can't really take your word about it yet as I haven't come accross another Wikipedia user who uses than kind of source citing format. --Andylkl 08:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't agree with me, then may I suggest you read cite your sources for the suggested manner in which we produce references? This is where I get my information from. The articles you refer to, by the way, are older featured articles where referencing was not such an issue. Correct referencing is now very important for featured articles. Please consult with either Filiocht, Raul654, Lupo or Maveric149 if you don't believe me. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that I disagree with you, I'm just interested on shifting the reference links around a bit so that it looks like this. Done already. --Andylkl 10:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the way you've rearranged the links. This is definitely a more clear layout of references types. I was most worried that we'd lose the seperation of internal article references and "further reading" links/references. For the record, I'm going to modify my articles to be more like this. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess I wasn't clear enough on my intentions. Anyway, glad to be of help. =) --Andylkl 10:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference section 

message: I disagree. I think the sentence is fine, and in fact other must agree because it's part of the text prepared for the front page! I've rolled it back (perhaps a mistake, I should have placed a comment on the edit summary and then reverted it back).- Ta bu shi da yu 14:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonym overload? 

message: Is it just me or is there an edit-war going on? Brutulf 13:40, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
:Certainly more editing than usual. But I've just checked - this article is featured on the main page today, which tends to result in a burst of activity. -- Solipsist 13:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war?

message: I think there is an error in that the first whale is referrenced as 45 ft. in length and 8 tons in weight, and the second is referrenced as 56 ft. and 50 tons.  These two figures don't seem to mesh to me even given the different species?  Perhaps some explanation is in order? --dave@iniquinet.com
:You've got a good point there. Checking the references, it looks like the KATU news report did say the Grey Whale weighed 8 tons, but this could well be a mistake. The length at 45ft looks plausible for and adult Grey Whale, however other sources  suggest that an adult should weigh more like 35 tons. Even a new born pup weighs approximately 1 ton. The news report does mention the whale was long dead, but if it had already lost over 75% of its mass there wouldn't be much need to blow it up. It wouldn't be the first time a report had got his facts wrong. -- Solipsist 20:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, considering the first whale was a grey whale, and the second whale was a sperm whale, I don't find it that suprising. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, assuming that the reported weight is correct, even for an anorexic and long-dead grey whale weighing only 8 tons, that is still an awful lot of whale meat to get rid of: perhaps it puts the analogy with road-kill moose (see above) into perspective, and makes the decision to use explosives not so bizarre. More information on the South African and Lewis citations above would be good, though.  -- ALoan (Talk) 13:26, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Google leads to Explosives used to blow up whale in South Africa and South Africa Kills Beached Whale from August 2001; and this blog which may refer to Lewis. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Grey Whale - Lite

message: The text describing the Patrick O'Brien short story is copied directly from the Snopes.com website.  Could the contributor please re-write it?  JHCC 17:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not me originally, but I have played around with the text - better? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  E.W. in books of fiction 

message: It appears that there are objections to the phrase , who described himself as a "land-blubber" and reported that "the blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds.". Michali says it's "bragging" by a guy who was at the event. I'm unsure why he's saying this. I'm putting it back and bringing this to the talk page. I don't want to get into a revert war over something so silly. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't describe himself as "land-blubber" (which would be bragging about himself) so this my objection is void. And he he didn't "report"  thet the "blast blasted, etc.", because he said this before blast. Before entering into reversal war I suggest you to watch the movie or watch it carefully. The article has enough interesting data without this silly phrase taken out of context. Now, your turn to tell me what is the reason to make an encyclopedia article into paparazzi-style report? Mikkalai 01:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikkalai, could you read the transcript at ? What he said was "The sand dunes there were covered with spectators and landlubber newsmen, shortly to become land-blubber newsmen. For the blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds." I have clarified that he called himself a land-blubber newsman. Incidently, I'm not turning this into a "paparazzi-style report", and I don't appreciate you saying so. This has been in the article almost from the start, it never got questioned in featured article candidates and we had people go over this with a fine tooth-comb. The information is relevant. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: P.S. Just noticed something else: how could Paul have said "blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds" before the explosion? That statement could only have been made after the explosion - how can you talk about something happening before the event? The logic here boggles the mind. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't engage in logic, save your mind, just watch the video. He said in before the blast. Dis you see the video or not? Watch it, and then continue this silly bickering. I start suspecting that there is something in you character that disallows you to give up. Give up, man, you are wrong.Mikkalai 03:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Can you read what you wrote yourself? Reverting nonsense again. The fact that information stayed there simply means people who wrote it don't care about correctness. Also, it is irrelevant to the event, adding nothing to the description but the fantasy of the reporter, who said this phrase "before" the blast itself. Even in this respect the information is inadmissible. Mikkalai 02:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikkalai, you still haven't stated what is incorrect! I originally wrote what is in there, incidently. I do care about correctness. I will explain why it is relevant to the event: it is relevant because the chunks of whale meat (or blubber) landed all over the reporters and spectators and so caused them to become "land-blubbers" (a play on words that made the report highly amusing and interesting). It was not bragging. Bragging means "To talk about one's self, or things pertaining to one's self, in a manner intended to excite admiration, envy, or wonder; to talk boastfully; to boast; -- often followed by of; as, to brag of one's exploits, courage, or money, or of the great things one intends to do." (Websters, 1913), this is hardly bragging about the reporter's exploits, it was merely reporting on what happened to him and others when the whale exploded — it shows the consequences of the explosion (in a highly amused tone, admittedly). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to ignore what I wrote. I withdrew the accusation in bragging, since it was based on an earlier, even more incorrect version. Mikkalai 03:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But you still reverted! And when did you withdraw this objection?! I certainly don't see evidence of it. So now the issue is that you beleive Paul Linnman stated that the "blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds" after the explosion because he "he reported his fantasy in this case" . C'mon - you don't seriously beleive that do you? Please give me evidence to back up your claims! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: It is not the joke itself that pisses me off. It is sensationalism and lack of diligency in the desire to preserve a silly thing by all means. Mikkalai 04:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikkalai, I sympathise. But on the other hand, it's not creditable to go so far in fighting it!Dr Zen 04:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Curiously,  on watching the video on the KATU news web site, the sentence in question has been editted out and doesn't occur. A couple of the preceeding lines, such as 'Is there any chance it might be more than a one day job?' aren't there either. In any case, I would agree that it is a pretty lame and dated joke. Ta bu shi da yu is correct that it occurs in the transcript, but I think the article is better and has a dryer wit with out it.  -- Solipsist 21:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Fair point. I might be a bit close to this article... - Ta bu shi da yu 22:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of edit 

message: Hoping to fit this detail into the article:
*In 2002, fourteen Alaskans ate muktuk (whale meat) from a beached whale, and eight of them developed symptoms of botulism, two of them requiring mechanical ventilation . No explosives were used here.
Femto reverted, maintaining that it was not revelant to the article. Does everybody agree? Where else should I put it - because it is important enough. JFW | T@lk 10:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But, um... it's not actually about exploding whales, which is the title of this peice. What about adding it to an article like beached whale or beached whale incidents? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Femto and TBSDY. I will move the indicent accordingly. It's one of my favourite "don't to that then" stories. JFW | T@lk 13:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably already noticed that I included it while I was there. As always, feel free to improve it though. Femto 13:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Botulism

message: soren9580: I just wanted to say how much I think this article rocks. I haven't enjoyed a story like this in a while, so kudos to everyone who worked on it.
:Cheers :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes of Appreciation

message: I started a page, translating the en: to :fr:baleine explosante. And am guessing that some bits can't be translated, such as the "land-blubber" bits. The Frenchies have been quite keen to vigorously correct the fluidity of my French, and so I propose translation of this article elsewhere - its funny--Thewayforward 01:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... just passed the French article through Google translate and it appears to refer to 500 kilograms of TNT!!! Good grief. There just wouldn't be a beach LEFT if that was the case :-) Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it says 500 kg of dynamite. Sacre bleu! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: French