Talk:Pacific Northwest tree octopus/Archive 1

Untitled

Why was this deleted without discussion in less than a day? It is a notable hoax, scoring 19,600 google hits. I just saw a mention of this in Uconn Advance [1]using this as a model hoax, presenting it to students as an negative example. Paul Studier 22:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I nominated this article for deletion earlier today, but I was nothing to do with the other deletion of the page. The article did not explain it was a hoax, it talked about it as a real animal. However, this certainly does look to be a notable hoax. I just nominated it for deletion again, presuming it reposted, so I apologise for that. Thankfully, I noticed the error of my ways, Googled it, and realised that it WAS notable. J Milburn 23:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, it was just an error on my part. I should have looked more carefully before acting. I am fully responsible for the deletion and hope I didn't do too much damage. --DanielCD 00:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I am an inclusionist when it comes to pseudoscience articles because it is a way to fight it. Paul Studier 00:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistakenly tagged it as random vandalism since the article had been vandalised and I couldn't imagine that it had actually been a valid stub. I reverted it myself. --Bonadea 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please think of the consequences before claiming that the tree octopus doesn't exist. This makes it feel very depressed.Jon kare 20:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Purpose

Perhaps some more info on the purpose of this creature's creation (aka a teaching/awareness tool) would be beneficial, as well as who created it. --DanielCD 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you look at the parent site Zapato Productions intradimensional, you will find many obvious hoaxes. My favorite is "Belgium Doesn't Exist!". So it appears to me that it was created entirely as a joke, and others later used it as a teaching tool. Paul Studier 12:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Conservapedia fell for the hoax and cut-pasted the article on its site.

• They are having technical problems now but it appears that only one editor added this article. Don't know if the rest of the community believed it. Paul Studier 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

Cryptozoology is the study of hypothesized organisms which may or may not exist and animals which are extinct. This does not include completely made-up animals, rather only animals for which there is some evidence. I removed the stuff about cryptozoology here (stub and category) because there is no actual hypothesis that this exists, and there were never any actual reported sightings. All "sightings" were part of a single hoax and only "documented" on the internet page used for that hoax. If Cryptozoology is actually about imaginary animals that everybody agrees can not possibly exist, say so here before adding the stub and category back. Althepal 23:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Amphibian / amphibious

The article as it stands confuses 'amphibian' and 'amphibious'. If the hoax calls the creature an amphibian then it is clearly wrong; as the article says amphibians and cephalapods are not closely related. However if the hoax claims that the creatures are amphibious then this is plausible and likely; it simply means that they live both in water and on land. Klippa 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we all know that it is impossible for this creature to exist in trees and doesn't exist. I agree, however, that "amphibious" can refer to amphibians and other things which work in and out of water. Althepal 04:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Considering how much vandalism this page is getting, do you think we should request to have it semi-protected? Vsst 15:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I added a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Paul Studier (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

More potential sources...

• Inkling Magazine
• Google News has several hits. — Scientizzle 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable hoaxes

The Pacific Octopus web page lists a lot of other hoax species and such; there's no need to single out any one of them for mention in this article. The "Rock Ness Monster", for example, is not even a well-known hoax and it's not really talked about anywhere else. ... discospinster _talk 04:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The point here is the scope of the article. This isn't an article on an octopus - there's no such thing. It's an article on a hoax. The hoax was a website. Part of this hoax, just as important in the totality of the deception as the octopus photos, was the rest of the supporting content: the stuff that's at issue here. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the point is that there is no need to single out any particular ones in order to give them more legitimacy. (The reason for this is to prevent articles being made on non-notable hoaxes, such as Rock Ness Monster -- which has already been attempted as Rock nest monster, using this article as support -- under the guise that they've been mentioned in other articles.) As long as it's made clear that there was other "supporting content", it's not necessary to name any specific ones. I'm not trying to "get the last word in". ... discospinster _talk 15:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Legitimacy is presumed to mean WP:N, which (as I'm sure you know) isn't conveyed by coverage through WP. There is no need to prune content here in case it's used as such, the simple policy is already plenty clear enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I just don't understand why you are objecting to the more general wording. What is the need to name these specific hoaxes out of the many that are discussed in the web site? What is so special about them? ... discospinster _talk 15:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it weakens the article, because it makes it more vague. A specific example is always more easily understood than a generalist one. None of these three are outstandingly vital, but we have a better article with them than we have without them. You remember that thing about writing better articles being the goal here? Why do you think the article is removed by removing this content? Do you think the content is somehow inaccurate, or unsourceable? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it weakens the article. Adding specifics is helpful only if they're things that people have heard of. None of the listed "hoaxes" are nearly as well-known as the Pacific Tree Octopus, so how can they make the web site more believable? ... discospinster _talk 19:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for fun

Pacific Northwest tree octopus
Conservation status
Endangered
Scientific classification (Hoax)
Kingdom:	Animalia
Genus:	Octopus
Species:	paxarbolis
Binomial name
O. paxarbolis L. Zapato (1998)

--Auric (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2014

Please change "The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus is an Internet hoax created in 1998 by Lyle Zapato" to "The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus is an Internet hoax created in 1998 by Professor Don Leu (Neag School of Education) as a means to test the online academic skills of students." because Professor Leu created the page on zapatopi.net, not the site's owner.

Also, "... used in Internet literacy classes in schools, although it was not created for that purpose." should be changed to "...used in Internet literacy classes in schools." because Professor Leu actually did create it for that purpose.

Sources: http://advance.uconn.edu/2006/061113/06111308.htm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352929/Endangered-tree-octopus-proves-students-believe-read-Internet.html (not the best written, in terms of style, but still somewhat credible)

WigglyBoy (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. @WigglyBoy: The source you cited does not say that Professor Leu created the hoax. The source simply says that Professor Leu, in a study, directed students toward the hoax, which already existed.

In fact, the source says right at the bottom: An earlier version of this article stated that University of Connecticut researcher Donald Leu created the site http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus for the study. The site was in fact created by Lyle Zapato. We are happy to clarify this. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Rating

I've adjusted the class of this article from Stub to Start for several reasons. As it stands, the two paragraphs of this article cover the subject adequately. It appears to have sufficient sources for its content. But most importantly, in my opinion it is not clear how making this article longer would improve it; on that criterion, one could argue for a "C" or even a "B" class. In my experience, there are many such articles of this nature on Wikipedia, & either we should adjust our definitions of quality accordingly or consider new ways to present the information in these articles of problematic classification. -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2015

they are fake. the animal needs water to live. 2605:6000:F2C2:3400:613B:AE08:216A:804B (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 00:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2016

Broken link in Resources: Matthew Bettelheim (March 14, 2007). "Tentacled Tree Hugger Disarms Seventh Graders". Inkling. http://www.inklingmagazine.com/articles/tentacled-tree-hugger-gets-legs-up-on-twelve-year-olds/ This should be removed or updated. I would suggest replacement with this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352929/Endangered-tree-octopus-proves-students-believe-read-Internet.html Captain Jack Richards 22:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done There's nothing wrong with the ref that you provided, but it does not give the number of students in the study and so cannot be used support the statement. One of ht existing refs for that line is dead, but there is no requirement that refs be available online. As long as we reference where it the information was found it is sufficient. We may even be able to find an archived copy of the original page. I'll tag the ref as dead for now. Meters (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup. the archived page is at https://web.archive.org/web/20070320203138/http://www.inklingmagazine.com/articles/tentacled-tree-hugger-gets-legs-up-on-twelve-year-olds/ I'll see if I can figure out the format for adding archived apges before the bot gets around to it. Meters (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

done Meters (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2016

I want to use this page for a day (8/19) as a way to test my students on web research. I am a high school teacher and I want to force them to really think about evaluating resources, and this webpage kind of gives away the fact that this is a hoax.

Can all the information that says it is a hoax just go away for today?

Thanks! Ashley

The Pacific Northwest tree octopus is an Internet hoax created in 1998 by Lyle Zapato.[1] This fictitious endangered species of cephalopod was given the Latin name "Octopus paxarbolis" (the species name being coined from Latin pax, the root of Pacific, and Spanish arbol meaning "tree"). It was purportedly able to live both on land and in water, and was said to live in the Olympic National Forest and nearby rivers, spawning in water where its eggs are laid. Its major predator was said to be the Sasquatch.

The Pacific Northwest tree octopus website is among a number of sites commonly used in Internet literacy classes in schools, although it was not created for that purpose. Despite the falsehoods shown on the site, such as the inclusion of other hoax species and organizations (mixed with links to pages about real species and organizations), all 25 seventh-grade students involved in one well-publicized test believed the content.[2][3]

Ooshbell12 (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done:. No, you may not edit the article like that. I suggest you read WP:ASSIGN for guidance on how to do an assignment for your students. RudolfRed (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not just use the original site as the source material? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2017

I would just like to add one predator,the tree shark. 198.110.51.171 (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2018

they ARE REAL MY MOMMY TOLD ME11! 185.28.91.234 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 11:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

renreceive?

Dear Wikipedia editors, what is the meaning of "renreceive"? - Nokautupeih (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a typo. ... discospinster _talk 17:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2018

I believe that in the opening section, the sentence "The Pacific Northwest tree octopus is an Internet hoax created in 1998 by Lyle Zapato.[1] This fictitious endangered species of cephalopod was given the Latin name "Octopus paxarbolis" (the species name being coined from Latin pax, the root of Pacific, and Spanish arbol meaning "tree"), should be changed to "The Pacific Northwest tree octopus is an endangered species of Octopi that has adapted to humid climates through selective evolution.[1] This endangered species of cephalopod was given the Latin name "Octopus paxarbolis" (the species name being coined from Latin pax, the root of Pacific, and Spanish arbol meaning "tree") stemming from the fact that the octopus absorbs nutrients and liquids from trees with its suction cups.

Found at https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0010826 help our school save the pacific northwest tree octopus! Bibleman99 (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Your proposed wording does not include the crucial information that the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus is a hoax. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

worldwide perspective

"in Internet literacy classes in schools" should be changed to " in Internet literacy classes in US schools" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.56.143.63 (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2020

The Pacific Northwest tree octopus is not an Internet hoax created in 1998 by Lyle Zapato.[1] This fictitious endangered species of cephalopod was given the Latin name "Octopus paxarbolis" (the species name being coined from Latin pax, the root of Pacific, and Spanish arbol meaning "tree"). It was purportedly able to live both on land and in water, and was said to live in the Olympic National Forest and nearby rivers, spawning in water where its eggs are laid. Its major predator was said to be the Sasquatch. The Pacific Northwest tree octopus website is among a number of sites commonly used in Internet literacy classes in schools, although it was not created for that purpose.

103.126.24.45 (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You'd need to point to sources for that. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2020

they are not endangered but just thought because of how low there numbers are 12.127.77.18 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done Unsourced nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020

YEET0987654321 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

i need to edit

​You can request specific changes here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y", citing reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)