Talk:Exploding whale/Archive 3

Hoax?

I think this is either a hoax or a very bad joke. --75.10.49.208 (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a copyright violation so Wikipedia shouldn't link to it, but you can easily find the 1970 television clip with a Google search on exploding whale video. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's neither. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyedits ... and more

I don't really know how some articles get FA. Be that as it may, I've copyedited the carp outta this article -- trimmed some of the blubber, you might say. Or not. ;^D The only real change I made to the semantics was to remove the dimensions given for the whale in Tianan City, since those dimensions were not cited (I think... I was not rigorous in checking), and (as noted above) they are suspect. I also rearranged the order of stuff somewhat.

Oh, ok. I made a major change to the lede, if you must know. (lol) Controversy, anyone? As far as I'm concerned, the phrase "exploding whale" refers to the internet meme event in Oregon. The fact that other incidents also fall under this rubric is certainly notable, interesting, and encyclopedic, but this article (I think) should say what it says now: that 'exploding whale' most often refers to the Oregon incident. BRD if you disagree, but I'd also appreciate a comment here if you do so. Eaglizard (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You really should check when that was made FA. It was like 2 or 3 years ago, and since then it's changed hugely, and the standard of course has risen. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC) (the original author)

I think it remains featured because it's now an indelible part of Wikipedia culture. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 03:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured quality?

I know this article has sentimental value, but is it really up to today's featured article standards? Tisane (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, in my opinion, it's not. This article achieved featured status in 2004, when Wikipedia was much smaller. This article is not even comparable to other featured articles such as Cougar and American Airlines Flight 77. -xwingsx- (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

this is a classic case of changes to the a reticle making it degrade over time. Much worse than it was before. - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Time discrepancy

1970 is not "approximately twenty-five years earlier" than 1990. - Elmarco 15:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Guts?

Not exactly the most scientific term available.

"The explosion threw guts and chunks of whale flesh over 800 ft..." How about "The explosion threw chunks of whale flesh over 800 ft?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipdigit (talk • contribs) 14:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Others" section

As pointed out in the FAR, none of the sources tie the other exploding-whale incidents to the 1970 one. As a result, the entire "others" section is synthesis and should be removed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the article says that "The term exploding whale most often refers to an event at Florence, Oregon, in 1970", there is no reason why the article shouldn't also mention other examples. It is not necessary to "tie the other exploding-whale incidents to the 1970 one". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

About the www.offbeatoregon.com citation:

One of the citations on this page leads to a newspaper article I wrote. I've been advised to declare this connection so it won't look like a conflict of interest, or as if I'm trying to pull a fast one for some free publicity. FWIW I make no money on my articles and the archives are licensed under Creative Commons 3.0. For more info, please see my Talk page. Finn-jd-john (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)