Talk:Fremont Troll

Untitled

Removed

• "Fremont's Silent Giant" by Jill Frewing, Klipsun Online, April 1999

because it's 404'd

how can the weight be only two tones?

Bus crash

There is a section about the bus crash that was removed as irrelevant (by 128.208.95.144) then reverted back by Jkonrath. The revert note says "I'd argue that the bus crash is a significant historical event". Personally, I'd say though it's significant enough, it's not really that relevant to the troll itself. Currently the crash is 1/4 of the article, which seems out of proportion at best. Ocicat 23:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

O, It seems to me that the centrality of the Troll to the memory of the victims of the crash, by a spontaneous community reaction, shows something aboutt the centrality of the Troll to the neighborhood. As such, it is encyclopedic and suitable to WP. I say, put it back! ww 07:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

KBO reference

In agreement to the above sentiment by Ocicat, I removed a very non-sequitor segment of the article talking about a reporter and some tongue-in-cheek anti-immigration movement. When reading this article, I got lost trying to figure out 1) what the article is talking about (anyone NOT living in Seattle wouldn't understand the reference) 2) what it had to do with the troll. I removed the statement, but ww put it back without comment. I'm going to re-remove the statement and ask that WW explain its purpose here before reverting. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Watson maintained, slyly, that it was Californication of Washington that the KBO was organized to resist. Though others moving in from elsewhere were condemned as well. As such, the California license plate of the VW being trapped by the Troll is, in a humorous sense in keeping with both the Troll and the KBO, a connection between them. It is not unencyclopedic to note connections, even humorous ones, between humorous items. Consider USND at Hoople, and PDQ Bach, for instance. Hence, on this basis, the one line reference (ironically phrased as it was) should be retained.

Come on guys, lighten up a little... ww 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything verifiable that you can cite to claim that there is any deliberate connection whatsoever between the license plate of the VW and this KBO thing -- other than your own personal observations, which is original research? If the answer is no, then I'm sorry but its not suitable for WP. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A statement by the sculptors stating that they followed the KBO TOE, nope. There may be one, but I don't know it. As for Watson's grumbles about the Californians moving north and ruining Seattle, that's not my original research, it was the common knowledge of every PI reader in the era. He was funny. That the Cal license plate was deliberately indluded, no reference. But then the cited phrase makes no such claim. It merely notes the amusing parallel, for which no citation is required. Humor is rarely so verifiable. This doesn't rise to a WP:V issue at all. It is an observation, on the side, noting the amusement value for those who were aware of the KBO. ww 16:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your "amusing parallel" is original research. Because you can't cite it and it is not directly related to the subject of this article, any inclusion of it is your own "unpublished analysis". It can't be included. Nuff said. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This amusing perspective is not a verifiable fact and so does not require citation and reference. It is not original research to note a widely known fact (in re Watson's KBO) and another (well not so) widely known fact (ie, the Calif license plate). Your objectin is grinding the cited policy too much. It should indeed stay.. comments from otheres? There seems to be a clear difference of opinion here. ww 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I may have to side with Shinmawa...after all, plenty of Washingtonians feel anti-Californian sentiments without familiarity with the KBO, and surely it's at least possible that the license plate is a coincidence...an unintended reference? If the Troll's creation coincides marvelously closely with Watson's activism on the topic, or if any reporter has ever suggested that the license plate had intended meaning, I think such things (being verifiable facts) can be mentioned, but I'd lean on the side of caution. Sorry, Ww--good to hear from you, though. Best of luck to you both in deciding on specific language. Jwrosenzweig 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Somewhat amusingly"?

While I'm not getting into whether the bit about the license plate should be there or not, but I really don't think "somewhat amusingly" belongs there. If someone has the background to find it amusing, they'll know it's amusing without being told. If someone has no idea why that would be funny, telling them isn't going to make it more so. 70.227.26.127 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

megalithic

It's big, sure, but it's not megalithic - that means made out of huge stones, like the beauties at Avebury or Stonehenge. 86.137.139.42 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

10 Things I Hate About You (1999)

This sculpture appears in the movie "10 Things I Hate About You (1999)" near 32:02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.88.234 (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ttrivia section

The garbage dump er, 'Cultural references' section tacked on to the end of this article needs to be cleaned up. The fact that this sculpture appeared once in a movie or TV show, or someone made up a story with a thing that is actually nothing like the actual troll sculpture, but is only inspired by it, is not enough reason to mention it in an article. We need a third party, reliable source that tells us how the pop culture or trivia reference matters, either because it affected the actual Fremont Troll or the way it is perceived or remembered, or the actual troll sculpture had a meaningful influence on the larger world or culture. IF the Seattle Times used some other thing, like an orca whale or the space needle on its website's 404 page, would it make any difference? If people see the Troll and they say "Oh, I know what that is!", it's nothing but Member Berries, and so inconsequential. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Concern About History Section

The History section of this Wikipedia article seems to discuss The Troll and its history only tangentially, focusing more on ramifications of the homelessness crisis in Seattle. For example, I fail to see how the number of drug needles is directly relevant to the history of the piece without any evidence that such a figure and important facts about the Fremont Troll’s history are intractable. The section also uses very casual language toward the topic, which is arguably inappropriate for a sensitive topic like a homelessness crisis.

I am not calling for erasure or deletion of these things necessarily, as it seems the topics may be reasonably linked and it would not be honest to hide or write-off such a link. But I believe they would do better either in a new section about the legacy of The Troll as it relates to homelessness in Seattle, or perhaps in a sub-section of the History section separate from other historical facts.

I am not expertly knowledgeable about the Fremont Troll or its history, so I am calling on anyone who might be to step up and introduce more context, new information, and neutrality to the History section. I will try and do some work on my part to read primary materials relevant to the Fremont Troll and its history in case no one else is up to the task, but I wanted to put forth this community post first in case someone felt they were able to do this job justice. Thelocalsage (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)