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)
It's pretty sad that half of the first paragraph is dedicated to an MTV show.
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Enigma msg 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Surely Punxsutawney Phil was a national celebrity long before the "Groundhog Day" movie. Gambaguru ( talk) 22:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Isn't Phil actually a marmot, not a groundhog? -- The_Iconoclast ( talk) 18:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
It's pretty sad that half of the first paragraph is dedicated to an MTV show.
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Enigma msg 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Surely Punxsutawney Phil was a national celebrity long before the "Groundhog Day" movie. Gambaguru ( talk) 22:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Isn't Phil actually a marmot, not a groundhog? -- The_Iconoclast ( talk) 18:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
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)