Talk:The Monster of "Partridge Creek"

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References[edit]

I've updated The Strand Magagazine reference, but there are a few earlier references, and at least one later:

  • Dupoy, Georges (15 April 1908). "Le Monstre de 'Partridge Creek'" [The Monster of "Partridge Creek"]. Je sais tout (in French). Vol. 4, no. 39. Paris, France: Pierre Lafitte & Cie. pp. 403–409 – via Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Almost all of it seems to be based on Dupuy's story. While the Je sais tout version appears to have been published before The Strand version, the composite image in the French version is separated into two complete images in the English version.--tronvillain (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1903?[edit]

I can't seem to find anything in any of the sources that says "1903." The newspaper reports between the Je sais tout and The Strand say the previous summer, which would make 1907 the setting of the "first sighting" part of the story. --tronvillain (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything on 1903 either. It might be best to move that paragraph into 1907 and say there was only one sighting? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one story with three encounters, two close together and one in a quoted letter.--tronvillain (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I still wonder if it was a publicity stunt, but I guess we'll never know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he apparently had a book coming out? Never occurred to me, but as you say there's no way to know now (unless he left a journal with a confession). *chuckle* --tronvillain (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partridge Creek monster[edit]

The Partridge creek Monsters seems to look more like a hoax. Should we add a section explaning the crtics. Example: In recent times many have come to face with the fact this cryptid is not real. Dinosaurs may have had feathe=ry structures and may have been warm blooded however. ShuckerNature points out the the flaws which include.... Bubblesorg (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because all the other cryptids are real. Not to mention all the folklore monsters, mythology and ghosts are also all real. These are almost all miss-identifications, hallucinations, imaginations, etc. Yes, this one could be a Doyle hoax, but we'll never find any evidence one way or the other. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Bubblesorg (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC))OK that not what I meant. But anyways. I know most cryptids are fake. Humans do have a powerful imagination.[reply]
It needs a rewrite to clarify that all of it was a piece written by George Dupuy. There's no need to even bring pseudoscientific terms like "cryptid" into it. --tronvillain (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't cryptid official? I do not know just asking. I do agree with some of your points. --Bubblesorg (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "official?" It's not a real scientific term... it's like ghosts, myths, etc. It is a real word/term used in some dictionaries, magazines and the press. But you'd have to find sources that actually call it a cryptid before you'd add the term here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Academics do not use the term ‘’cryptid’’ and the term is obscure to the general public. The term was coined by cryptozoologists, and it’s restricted to their use and things influenced by it. As mentioned above, the term, like the field of cryptozoology, is pseudoscientific. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The text reads as if this animal is real. WP is asserting there were "known sightings"? Someone with access to the newspapers.com articles should clarify that these encounters are claims and specify who originated them. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked. Still needs a little more and to incorporate the newspaper articles, but it's a start. --tronvillain (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Bubblesorg (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC))is an example of cryptozologists being unprofessional is them calling the widley accepted name of basilosaurs calling it by the alterneteve zoglodon? I do agree with the newspaper.I am finding one.[reply]

Is it "Dupuy" or "Dupoy"? When the sources can't agree on the spelling of a name, that isn't a good sign. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guessing we could use which name was more common? I think yes this is a big contradiction. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? It's Dupuy in every one of those five sources. --tronvillain (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit; it's my understanding that we don't correct grammar or otherwise alter direct quotes from sources, such as Bissette's use of capital ""c" in cryptozoology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Bissette didn't use a capital "c." --tronvillain (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I coulda sworn I saw it capitalized in the source, but you're right. (And people say I'm biased against Cryptozoology!) - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines[edit]

After doing a little digging into this topic, I'm definitely seeing a notability issue here. You've got the original claim — someone claims to have seen a dinosaur in Alaska in 1908, seriousness unclear — and then a few cryptozoologists write about it (all of which fail WP:RS). With the exceptions of a few mentions of the original article, there appears to be nothing else about this entity out there. The entity doesn't stem from any sort of tradition, nor does it seem to have resulted in one. I don't see how this clears WP:NOTABILITY. Consider the very first line of the guideline's article: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.". :bloodofox: (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "story" published by Dupuy (and not the subsequent crypto nonsense) is the appropriate subject for the article. Again, I haven't read and can't access the newspaper.com sources cited here on the Talk page. But if they can back up notability for the story, then we have a just barely adequate rationale for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's the story itself (which I can access -- and it's unclear if it's meant to really be taken seriously, from what I can tell), and then there are a few mentions of the story. Beyond that, there are a few fringe sources (cryptozoologists) discussing the story. That appears to be it. I am unable to locate a "reliable third-party source" discussing the topic per notability guideline requirements (unless contemporary announcements of the story's existence count). :bloodofox: (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the story itself is easily accessible [1]. From the editorial description ("Stories Strange And True") my impression is that this was the 1908 version of sensational supermarket tabloid fare. However without secondary sources we can't really characterize it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Stephen Bissette, the story was likely an early form of 'true adventure' fiction that later got interpreted as 'real' by the crypto crowd. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the impression I get as well. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that it fails - it's an interesting story with a reasonable amount of coverage, and the Stephen Bissette piece gives it extra context. It doesn't need to have stem from or have created any tradition to be notable. I have access to the Newspapers.com versions that come between the Je sais tout version and The Strand version, and it's mostly the same story as the other two versions with a few additions (the Duke of Westminster wanting to hunt it, a photo being taken, etc.) And then there's the later one that again mostly repeats the earlier story with Russian elements added. I'll grab some quotes. --tronvillain (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something, or does the Bissette piece only mention it a single time, and only in reference to an illustration from the original publication? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying the mention in Bissette gives it extra context as a fantastic story. --tronvillain (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Maybe there's more secondary stuff out there on this in this context? If not, that's a shame, as it seems like a good example of its particular genre. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's also:

Pretty extensive newspaper coverage really. It's a hell of a lot more than the various "living dinosaur" articles still in need of deletion. It wasn't picked up and championed by cryptozoologists, probably because it's less ambiguous than most of those reports, and in a location that rapidly became less exotic and inaccessible. -tronvillain (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also a mentioned in: Lydekker, R. (September 1908). "The Monster of Partridge Creek". Zoology. Knowledge & Illustrated Scientific News. Vol. 5, no. 9. London, England. p. 219 – via Hathi Trust. --tronvillain (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taken together, that looks to me like enough to meet notability guidelines. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the Lydekker Knowledge & Illustrated Scientific News piece several times, and my impression is that it was meant to be a wry tongue in cheek 1908-style putdown of Dupuy's story. I was going to add it to the article, but can't think of any supporting text that wouldn't be puzzling and unclear. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Lydekker points out that the existence of carnivorous dinosaurs in northern Alaska "seems incredible to every scientific mind"? --tronvillain (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That helped. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Monster_of_%22Partridge_Creek%22&oldid=1205652650"