Talk:Punxsutawney Phil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoax?[edit]

The orphan's blood immortality potion must be hoax. I cannot find a reference to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.224.201 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text[edit]

It's pretty sad that half of the first paragraph is dedicated to an MTV show.

PocketPet[edit]

I changed "pocket pet" to no. How big are your pockets, anyway, and who keeps groundhogs as pets? Pustelnik (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Groundhogs[edit]

In an effort to keep this page clear of unnecessary clutter/dead links any 'famous' groundhog that is added that does not have his own wiki article will be deleted. I will however add a link to profiles of other prognosticating groundhogs. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

the "in media" stuff was all deleted by a vandal who then added idiotic comments about masons or whatever....the guy said he likes big boobies and skeazing them. When his comments were deleted, the stuff he deleted was not restored. I'm not bothering because quite frankly I give up - too many idiots on the net to even make wikipedia worth it anymore. Jafafa Hots 08:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but for those of us who don't feel that wikipedia is a waste of time do try to make it better. The In Media section has been restored. --ImmortalGoddezz 18:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff gets vandalized and it gets fixed. No need to get discouraged. Enigmamsg 05:10, 3 February 2010 tHUMBS UP TO GROUNDHOGS! 68.57.46.18 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Century-Old Groundhog?[edit]

Surely the lifespan of these animals is no more than ten to fifteen years? Phil is over 123 years old! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.8.33 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

According to the University of Michigan [1], the longest recorded lifespan in captivity is 10 years. I have noted this in the article. NTK 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any record of how many different Phils there may have been? NjtoTX (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)io9puiyu98y9yguigjkgigui8g78ghhjghg8gyjghjgyigyugyhughjguguogyuggftyvfghkjfgjfghfhftgfyt ftygfghghfghĽhÉÉÉ[reply]
There's been only one Phil, didn't you read the about the immortality potion? 72.24.198.13 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NTk, if you have noted it in the article, it's been removed. There should be some information about the picking of and recent groundhogs. And there should be a small paragraph about the current groundhog's story. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an anonymous editor removed it again. Folks, there's no Santa Claus, the moon is not made of green cheese, and please don't delete facts from Wikipedia because that you think might disappoint some eight-year-old kid. Phil is fun but there's no reason to keep an encyclopedia "in" on the joke. NTK (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Santa Claus? OH NO YOU CAN'T MEAN IT! No but seriously, why is this in "wikiproject mammals"? Isn't that kind of a random association? I mean, groundhogs are mammals, but isn't that kind of incidental when the main purpose of this article is to talk about the groundhog day tradition? I mean it could easily be kimodo dragon day or ostrich day or whatever, if it was happening in a different part of the world. 199.2.242.199 (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem kind of weird to have a specific mammal in "wikiproject mammals". Human is under it, but Bill Murray isn't. Madlobster (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'm just going to axe the template. It really doesn't make any sense. Steve CarlsonTalk 02:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as well. Enigmamsg 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction Accuracy[edit]

Is there any way that we can perhaps tell how accurate Phil's predictions have been?

You'd have to determine what exactly would constitute an "early spring", and whether one week of "early spring" conditions followed by five weeks of winter weather would mean that there were six discontinuous weeks of winter or an early spring that was interrupted... And then average that data for every day across the United States.

Personally, I'd prefer to save myself the trouble and assume that he's been accurate approximately half the time. Burpen 05:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil's accuracy was dealt a major blow in the winter of 2011-12, when there was a major warmup in the eastern United States (where little or no winter weather was experienced at all throughout the winter season). February temperatures often exceeded 60 °F (16 °C), and March temperatures exceeded 70 °F (21 °C) for much of that month, and on occasion exceeded 80 °F (27 °C) in parts of Pennsylvania. The average high temperature for March is around 50 °F (10 °C) in Pennsylvania. Bill S. (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article I found: http://onwardstate.com/community/the-oddities-of-groundhog-day/, Phil has been accurate 39% of the time. I will add the information to the article, along with some other facts from the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.128.14 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The StormFax site is not a quality source, it should be removed. The "39%" number has no description of methodology, and the percentage hasn't been updated since at least 1998. There's no reason to think that someone didn't just completely make that number up decades ago. Here's the StormFax page as of 1998, showing the "39%": https://web.archive.org/web/19981206200435/http://www.stormfax.com/ghogday.htm Harpastum (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the current links, [2], says "Phil has gotten it right 40% of the time over the past 10 years." The page then links to [3]. In the 1988~2018 period (31 years), there are only six "below" or "slightly below" entries for March. Clearly, we are looking at global warming here. This is not a fair standard for defining an early spring when translated predictions are only 14% "early spring". It would be more fair to compare recorded temperatures to approximately the 85th percentile for a probability distribution which tracks the rise in global temperatures. 23.121.191.18 (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than engaging in original research and coming up with our own methodology for deciding what might be fair, Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Without looking too closely, I rather suspect NOAA is a reliable source here. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Contradiction[edit]

The list of predictions states: "2007-08 Early spring" The following sentence states: "...Punxsutawney Phil has predicted an early spring 14 times (13%), and has never done so in consecutive years." One of these two statements has to be false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by X82hammer28x (talk • contribs) 16:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confused... it would be a contradiction if it said he has predicted an early spring more than half the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.32.236 (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: hammerYou saw a vandalized version. 2008 was not an early spring year. A vandal had changed it, and that was one of the reasons I semi-protected the article for a few hours. Enigmamsg 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE: I see that it's been corrected now, I would have fixed it, but I wasn't sure which statement was wrong :D Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by X82hammer28x (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stormfax site[edit]

Claims Phil predicted early spring 15 times, but according to the year-by-year here, it's 14. One of the "murky years" must have been considered early spring by that site. Enigmamsg 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categorical Dismissal of "Groundhog Punch"[edit]

Although I count myself among those who find the claims about "groundhog punch" incredible, I have to take issue with the way that this article dismisses the claim out of hand:

Data shows, however, groundhogs (widely known as woodchucks) have a maximum lifespan of 10 years in captivity or 6 years in the wild.[4] Thus it is certain that Phil has been replaced many times. The actual method whereby the Inner Circle makes the "prediction" is unknown.

How many groundhogs which have been fed "groundhog punch" are included in the cited data? The claim is that the magical punch allows Phil to live well beyond the normal lifespan of a groundhog. Citing the normal lifespan of a groundhog does not refute this claim. My point here is not to defend the claim, but rather to show that the stated argument against it doesn't work either and probably does not belong in an encyclopedia. At the very least, I think it should be removed on the grounds that it is essentially original research, a naked assertion rather than a citation of an argument made by another source. Mike Duskis (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be reworded so it is more balanced. The claim about "groundhog punch" can be there if it's backed by a newspaper story or similar, and the fact that the typical non-punch groundhog has a lifespan of 10 years can be there if there is a citation for that. Let the reader draw whatever inference they want to make from that information. I will reword it to try to capture that spirit Steve CarlsonTalk 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, you rock. Thank you -- and rock on. --Mike Duskis (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never even heard about this stuff. Who are these people? They really believe they can make a groundhog immortal by giving it punch? Enigmamsg 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get the sense that the whole thing is tounge-in-cheek, a body of fun myths that people like to tell each other. Think Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Borrowers, etc. Most people who talk about these things don't actually believe them and they don't expect to be taken seriously. They're just telling stories in good-natured fun. --Mike Duskis (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'd make a lot more sense if it was intended as a joke, but in that case, I don't think we're out to disseminate jokes. Enigmamsg 06:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a joke book. I think that, in this case, "myth" is a more apt word than "joke." Clearly, Phil and the stories and rituals that surround him are important elements of Punxsutawney culture. --Mike Duskis (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan?[edit]

This groundhog is at least 124 years of age or more, how long do these animals live exactly? --99.120.152.215 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not the place to ask this I will answer your question. Groundhogs have a average lifespan of ten years to twelve years.--SteamIron 21:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not mythical[edit]

Punxsutawney Phil is not a "mythical groundhog", he is a real animal. The stories about him are false, but an actual animal is involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcourtier (talk • contribs) 07:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Celebrity[edit]

Surely Punxsutawney Phil was a national celebrity long before the "Groundhog Day" movie. Gambaguru (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Species confusion[edit]

Isn't Phil actually a marmot, not a groundhog? --The_Iconoclast (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are 15 species in the genus Marmota. Among these is Marmota monax, also known as the groundhog or woodchuck. So Phil is both a marmot and a groundhog, and a woodchuck as well. --John Cowan (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Punxsutawney Phil. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kayfabe[edit]

Three years ago, there was a newspaper report noting the scripted nature of the event. Not to begin an edit war, but I've tried to cite this ever since and people keep removing it for some reason. I would think that the totally fictional nature of the ceremonies would be a crucial point. What gives? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Punxsutawney_Phil&oldid=1204628131"