Talk:Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, which aims to improve all articles related to Minnesota.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Minnesota articles.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

An entry from Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 6 November 2006.

be happy homes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.239.148 (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second most photographed satue in the united states???

Second most photographed statue in the US after Mount Rushmore....

I'm only a humble Australian, but surely the Satue of Liberty would rate in the top two most photographed statues in the United States. This claim seems a little flimsy to me, i would like to see some further evidence to support this.

I have to agree. I checked out the link and found it to be an internet news site that just referred to Kodak. So I did a quick google search and found many sites making similar claims, but none with any real reference. Then I searched Kodak's website, and they don't have anything devoted to ranking "most-photographed" nor a single page that contains the name of the town. I think this may be an urban legend.--Scottieb 14:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I came to this discussion page to post exactly that; unless somehow the Statue of Liberty does not count as a true statue (I don't see why it would, just hypothetically), I think it would be #2, if not #1! --UNHchabo 15:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just recieved this message from Microsoft and it has been confirmed by AOL and Verizon, it is the most ... oh wait a minute. I do not think it is a well sourced information. Minor newspaper do not verify their information and are prone to publish urban legends. I propose deleting this peace of information if citation of original statement of Kodak is not provided. --Jan Smolik 15:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Plus, even if Kodak did say it, there should be no reason to list it if it is clearly erroneous.