Talk:Altamaha-ha

Weasel Word Alert
This statement needs to be sourced so we know who the some are that are saying these interesting things:
 * Some have speculated that it may be an oceanic cryptid which engages in reproductive spawning in the fresh waters in and around the Altamaha River

When making assertions about what people believe about cryptids, it's OK to to say what someone believes so long as you name them or at least cite the source article or book where the assertion was made. otherwise, editors could go on all day about "people generally accept that" or "Many residents believe" and so on. Just cite the source. If you have trouble formatting citations, leave me a note on my talk page.Lisapollison 22:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
This article promotes a non-mainstream view rather than simply describing it, and it also fails to plainly note the mainstream view and point out which statements are fringe.Locke9k (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cryptozoology Tomfoolery
This is a prime example of the problems that came with letting internet cryptozoologists run amuck on the site, in this case dating back to the article's creation in 2006.

This figure appears in a few reports in Georgia newspapers. It's worth writing an article about. However, rather than taking the approach of a folklorist, the cryptozoologist turns the article into a monster hunting index. As a result, we get no information about this concept beyond maybe it's out there somewhere—and we can find it! That's fun but that isn't science.

I can't locate the AJC articles. However, here is the Brunswick articles referenced in the text: McIntosh showcases a new mascot And here's an article from Creative Loafing:. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)