Talk:George (lobster)

A fact from George (lobster) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 April 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that George the lobster was estimated to be 140 years old?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/April.

Wikipedia

weight and age discrepancies, perhaps

At the beginning of the article it says he weighs 20lbs. At the end it says 30lbs? What gives? Dough007 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

A typo gives. Well spotted, fixed. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autochthony writes - 'George' was not a record lobster. If memory serves, the 'Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats', 2nd edition, had a pair of Lobsters - named Ike and Mike - both over 30 pounds [c.14 Kilograms], possibly more. ( I do not have the book immediately to hand )

They - presumably - were both '210' years old - or more. Surely, if conditions are conducive, an animal [or a human] will put on weight quickly. I suggest that the article's " '7-10 years per pound " is a very rough guide only, possibly good only over a part of the known lobster age/size range. Autochthony wrote. 2023z 5 September 2010. 86.148.177.1 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious

Based on the description in this article, this sounds just like the lobster I caught in my trap a few months ago. It was delicious with the hot melted butter that I poured on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.23.29 (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, as he was released several thousand miles away from where your IP resolves, in an area where lobster fishing is illegal. Not to mention the fact that I doubt there would be many people who knew enough about the sea to catch a lobster who believe that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are "anatomically correct". How about you grow up and, if you aren't going to contribute constructively, you don't contribute at all? J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got me. I in fact did not eat George the Lobster. Good investigative technique. The traceroute of my IP is something that only the most brilliant of internet professionals would be able to accomplish. I should have known better than to try to slip one past you. Glad you are on our side.

This is hilarious to read, talk about defensive. the sarcasm was brilliant. -Alberto148 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.230.69 (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any speculation on taste?

Do any fine diners and/or Lobster experts care to speculate on how good a lobster of this age would taste? Should an aged butter be used? What would be the best way to serve it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.129.27 (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tale of the tape

The "age and weight" part needs work. In particular, consider this sentence:

Though some scientists claim that lobsters cannot live for much longer than 100 years, Valenti claims it is fairly common.

Both parts of this sentence are wrong. The cited article doesn't say "some scientists say lobsters can't live past 100". It says "some scientists say lobsters can live past 100". And Valenti doesn't seem to say that centenarian lobsters are common. The most relevant quote I see from him is that he's never seen one as big as George.

It's bizarre, in any case, to say "unnamed scientists say X about crustacean biology; this restaurant manager says not X; you decide". Unless we abandon the very idea of expertise, the only possible conclusion is that the restauranteur is mistaken.

This interesting article needs some TLC. TypoBoy (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George (lobster). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429103220/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Home/Strange-News/Giant-140-Year-Old-Lobster-To-Be-Reunited-With-Atlantic-Ocean-After-Being-Freed-From-Restaurant/Article/200901215200675 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Strange-News/Giant-140-Year-Old-Lobster-To-Be-Reunited-With-Atlantic-Ocean-After-Being-Freed-From-Restaurant/Article/200901215200675

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]