Talk:Champ (legend)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Cleanup 2 Scientific name for Champ 3 "Encyclopedic" version 4 I say we take out the "lake monster" section... 5 Conflict With the Loch Ness Article 6 Video Is Not Right 7 "Champy" 8 "The creature's existence has been authoritatively documented." 9 Tanystropheus 10 My edits

[edit] Cleanup

This article could use some good, healthy cleaning up. There is a dearth of citations (e.g., who were the photo experts who analysed Sandra Mansi's picture?) as well as a bunch of information which appears superfluous due to insufficient information: in the paragraph that describes the photo experts, Mansi apparently shows the photo to 'Joseph W Zarzynski'. Who's he when he's at home, and why should we be concerned with him?

A large part of the article is very well written, especially the bits listing the various sightings over the centuries. However, the first section is a mess, lacking continuity and professionalism. Paragraph 3, for instance, simply says that Champ has a famous photo similar to the 'Surgeon's photo'. Does Champ himself own this photo and display it over the mantelpiece? Or is this a photo of Champ? And where is this photo? And what exactly is the 'Surgeon's photo'? The sensible reader will be able to figure out that, yes, the photo is of Champ, not owned by him; the Surgeon's photo is the most famous Nessie photo; and by golly, there is Champ's photo at the bottom of the page. But a well-written article shouldn't have these ambiguities.

The last paragraph of the first section looks like it was taken from a travel brochure. Not only is it not written in canonical 'encyclopaedic style', but it raises a lot of nonsequiturs and isn't connected to what precedes it.

[edit] Scientific name for Champ

why on earth is there a box with this monster described as some sorth of scientifically accepted and documented species?!? You can´t give a scientific name and taxonomy for a creature that is not scientifically proven, identified and described! I think it should be removed ASAP! --Danielos2 10:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just added a bit about it not being an official name. If it was simply deleted, someone else could revert it. I prefer to add than take away. Totnesmartin 14:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Encyclopedic" version

I object to the recent edit. First, I don't think the word "supposedly" is the best choice. Second, the original wording was engaging, interesting and meets Wikipedia policy.

Skudrafan1, let's discuss a rewrite before making the edits again, please? Dreadlocke 04:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The way that section is written right now is not at all encylcopedic. It is written in a completely conversational tone. When people hear phrases like “sea monster” or “lake monster”, what usually pops into their heads? This is obviously not something you would see written in an encylcopedia. The current format might be "engaging" and "interesting," but it definitely doesn't meet Wikipedia policy. Perhaps supposedly in my version isn't a good word. One bad word in two otherwise encyclopedic paragraphs, though, is better than what is there right now. -Skudrafan1 04:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please show me the policy that states articles cannot have a "conversational tone" and how it applies to the way the section is currently written, and I'll withdraw my objection. I think you cut too much from the original section. I do think you added some good information, especially around the minor league baseball team, but I think what is in there now is engaging and interesting. I like the references to "sea monster" and "lake monster" they are helpful and informative links. I also find that the journalistic prose adds color and engages the imagination. This may be an encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean it can't have an engaging writing style. I'm sure we can combine the two and come up with something better than either one by itself. What do you say? Dreadlocke 04:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Given my short search and my (I'm ashamed to say) unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia pages on policies and guidelines, the only thing I can come up with is Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Which style to use?. It only mentioned two styles: news and summary. However, you are right; it only says these styles "tend to be used," not "must be used." All I know is that in my experience with Wikipedia, any articles I've seen written in this conversational tone have always been edited to the encyclopedic tone. I assumed it was policy -- and it still may be, and I might just not be finding the appropriate reference in the policies. However, it would appear that you are right. My opinion that my way is better was just that: my opinion. My apologies for snap judgements.

Now, I will attempt to make an edit meshing your version with my version. Wish me luck. -Skudrafan1 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We crossed edits, I was posting the below, which I think goes right along with your idea! Sorry if I was snappy too... I definitely could have handled that better!  :(

Let me guide you to something I think is an important concept for this situation; a quote from News Style which one of the two advocated writing styles from the Wikipedia Guide to writing better articles.

"They use subject-verb-object construction and vivid, active prose. They offer anecdotes, examples and metaphors, and they rarely depend on colorless generalizations or abstract ideas."

I think what you are referring to as a "conversational tone" is an example of a vivid and active prose that offers examples and anecdotes. Pehaps it can be better written...but I dispute it's complete removal. I'd at least like to explore that concept. Dreadlocke 05:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I've had the same experience as you have, any articles I've seen written in this conversational tone have always been edited to the encyclopedic tone. When I first saw this section in Champ, I was going to rewrite it myself - but then as I restructured the article and found some citations for it, it grew on me and I began to think it was an interesting style that just might be a good thing. I dunno, you may be right and it's unencyclopedic, but I kinda hope it's not. Dreadlocke 05:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Skudrafan1, your latest version is GREAT! Excellently done! Dreadlocke 05:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I say we take out the "lake monster" section...

I'll bold the information that doesn't belong in the article... Not very encyclopedic sounding, and doesn't help teh casual reader.

When people hear phrases like “sea monster” or “lake monster”, they often think of mythical giant squid-like creatures or some kind of merfolk out in the middle of the ocean. Many may think of the affectionately-named “Nessie” from Loch Ness in Scotland. However, the lore of lake monsters also exists in North America. According to legend and eye witness accounts, such a monster dwells in Lake Champlain, a 125-mile-long body of fresh water that is shared by New York and Vermont and juts a few miles into Quebec, Canada.[1]

When people hear phrases like “sea monster” or “lake monster”, they often think of mythical giant squid-like creatures or some kind of merfolk out in the middle of the ocean. Many may think of the affectionately-named “Nessie” from Loch Ness in Scotland. However, the lore of lake monsters also exists in North America. According to legend and eye witness accounts, such a monster dwells in Lake Champlain, a 125-mile-long body of fresh water that is shared by New York and Vermont and juts a few miles into Quebec, Canada.^[1]

Champ is highly revered by many in the area and has become a revenue-generating attraction.^[2] For example, the village of Port Henry, New York, has erected a giant model of Champ and holds "Champ Day" on the first Saturday of every August.

The mascot of Vermont's lone Minor League Baseball affiliate, the Vermont Expos, Champ would become even more of the star of the team when they would rename the team, due to the end of the Montreal Expos, to the Vermont Lake Monsters. Champ has been the primary attraction of the New York - Penn League affiliate since their inception.

Now, here's the version that I think should be added to the beginning of the article, and not be a seperate section.

Champ or Champy is the name given to a reputed lake monster living in Lake Champlain, a 125-mile-long freshwater body. The creature's existence has never been authoritatively documented. While most authorities regard Champy as legend, some believe it is possible such a giant creature does live deep in the lake. The state government of Vermont has put Champ on its Endangered Species List, so that if such an animal does exist, it would be protected by law.

Champ is highly revered by many in the area and has become a revenue-generating attraction.[2] For example, the village of Port Henry, New York, has erected a giant model of Champ and holds "Champ Day" on the first Saturday of every August. It is also the mascot of a Minor League, Baseball, Affiliate, the Vermont Expos. Later, the team would be renamed to the "Vermont Lake Monsters."

Who agrees with me? And if noone answers by the next three days, I might as well just change it. Abby724 05:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Abby! I like the "lake monster" section as it is currently written and would like to see the first paragraph remain the same. I think it's interesting and engaging. Several editors have discussed that and so far we're all in agreement that it should stay the way it's written - as you can see by the discussion in the above section. BTW, it may be just my browser, but it's hard to read your post with the "font size=1" setting. Dreadlocke ☥ 15:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What the article could really use is a photo. There used to be one included, but it had no copyright information. Perhaps you could find one? Dreadlocke ☥ 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict With the Loch Ness Article

The article on the Loch Ness Monster states: "The loch simply does not have enough food to support animals as big as a plesiosaur, particularly a breeding population of plesiosaurs." However, the Champ article states: "The reason some scientists believe that “Champ” may be a plesiosaur like “Old Nessie” is because the two lakes have much in common ... both lakes support fish populations large enough to feed a supposed sea or lake monster (Krystek 1)." These two statements are in conflict with each other. I don't personally know which statement is correct. I have posted this same observation in both articles, so if the conflict is fixed, my comment should be removed from both places.

Actually, many are confused. The discovery documentary Loch Ness Discovered says the number of fish is nine times more than originally thought. Frankyboy5 17:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Is Not Right

The video is not the right. The original video is gone from the site. I only got to see a little of it on "google's top searches" thing. That video shown in the article doesn't show anything. There's no monster near the boat or anything in the video. The "true" video may have been removed. I found it on yahoo video search but it can't load up. I think removing the video is the best idea. Frankyboy5 02:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Champy"

The name "Champy" is not common usage. "Champ" is what the creature (real or not) is called. I will edit the article shortly, unless there is objection.--Jonashart 14:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The creature's existence has been authoritatively documented."

how has it been authoritatively documented? citation? 208.103.185.112 19:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That set off alarm bells for me as well. Turns out it was an anonymous edit that no one caught. Ken Gallager 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanystropheus

Dennis Jay Hall: "It remained on the top of my list, until one day while browsing in Barnes and Noble on Dorset Street (in Burlington), I found a picture of a reptile called tanystropheus. I knew I had found the perfect match in both behavior and looks to the animals I have observed living and thriving in our lake." Now that's research! [1]Totnesmartin 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

I tried to improve the article. A few things worth noting:

1. Discover Magazine some years ago had an article on the subject, and the seiche in the lake is mentioned (I had, through poor memory, attached it for some reason to Loch Ness, but it was actually Lake Champlain). It also gives a skeptical view of the monster/log.
2. I think the 1600s thing should be mentioned as a legend, but it has clearly been debunked - the original journal shows no such siting, and given it is a primary source, it takes precedence over any third party claims of what it supposedly says.
3. The supposed Native American name for it is something I've never heard of; it is unsourced and smacks of something being made up, probably by a cryptozoology site. Is there any -credible- source we can cite this with? Titanium Dragon 18:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)