Jump to content

Talk:Marius (giraffe)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Marius the Giraffe)

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There's no consensus to move the article, nor for any of the various specific titles suggested in the discussion. Cúchullain t/c 21:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Marius (giraffe) → Killing of Marius (giraffe) – I suggested this at the articles AFD, and i will repeat it here to encourage discussion. i think the article should be renamed(moved), as he was not at all notable prior to his death, and most articles on people notable only for the circumstances of their death are in this format. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moving the article might have the consequence of information being removed not directly having to do with his killing. I don't see anything obvious that can be removed in this scenario, but I still would expect it. - Sidelight12 Talk 17:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I would equally support Death of Marius (giraffe). We need to distinguish between animals (and others) who are notable in their own right (such as Seabiscuit), compared to someone or something that became notable solely for what is done to them as WP:ONEEVENT (for example, Death of Mark Duggan). WWGB (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In general, I disagree with the movement of any article X to "the Ying of X" (where the Ying is what made X notable) just because X would not be notable without the Ying. Regardless of whether X is notable for just A, or for A, B, C, D, ..., and Z, X is notable. Once X is notable, there should be an article about X, which encompasses, but is not solely about, the Ying of X. And the title should reflect that.

    Specifically, this article is not solely about the killing of this giraffe. It's also about the giraffe. The article's title should continue to reflect that. --B2C 05:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - or equally Death of Marius (giraffe), follows standard guideline WP:ONEEVENT. Pace B2C, this article is patently not about the giraffe. None of the other giraffes in Denmark have bios. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment why not integrate "giraffe" into the title? Death of the giraffe Marius or Killing of Marius the giraffe ? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose for two reasons. First, consistency. There are precedents within Wikipedia where the death of a single animal is the noteworthy content of the page. These pages use the name of the animal as the title of the article, e.g. Topsy the elephant, Ruby (elephant) and Chunee. Second, accuracy of words. The word "Killing" does not give the impression that there was a reason behind the death - it could have any visitor, staff member or accident that caused the death. The word "Culling" immediately says there was a reason for his death, and also that it was likely done under controlled conditions. Please note, I am NOT trying to sanitize this incident, I am simply trying to use words accurately and in a meaningful way.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's descriptive, but you're saying it doesn't accurately reflect events surrounding his death? My doubts about the move are above. - Sidelight12 Talk 17:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply What I am trying to say is that the term "Culling" immediately gives the reader extra information about what happened. "Killing" is accurate. After all, he was shot, but it does not give an indication there was a reason for him being killed. Therefore "Culling" and "Killing" are both accurate, but IMHO, "Culling" is MORE accurate. Funny thing this English language!__DrChrissy (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So killing is accurate for 'events surrounding Marius' death' like the 'reason for him being killed'? It looks like you're saying you want the title to be informative. I wonder if there's a better word to use than culling. From a section above, you mentioned that culling doesn't necessary mean death. although, one of its definitions is this way, and this was how the word was used in the news. Culling may be the right word. - Sidelight12 Talk 19:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am actually opposed to moving the page at all. However, if it is to be moved, I feel that the word "Killing" in the title could be improved on. In my experience, the word culling when related to animals almost always means animals are selected for killing. I accept that the strict definition does not mean that killing will always happen, but in my experience (working with livestock for 25 years) this is the modern useage.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support the use of the term "Cull" or another term other than "Killing" on the same grounds. A Cull by definition is the planned and controlled killing of selected animal(s) for control purposes. "Killing" is a little to open to interpretation Scaredmo (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support 'Culling' as well, but for a different reason. I think the article is about more than just the killing, or Marius' death. It is as well about the whole culling of Marius with its controversies and responses from public, other zoo, etc. as well. Timelezz (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about more than just his death or killing. It is about all the facets of his culling, with killing and death being part of the culling. Hence, I think that Culling of Marius, would cover it much better. Timelezz (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the article with a future perspective, the title is too ambiguous. There are more Giraffes called Marius and indeed currently one is inline to be culled when it's current home receives a female Giraffe for mating with it's other male Giraffe. A more suitable title would be Killing of Marius (giraffe) at Copenhagen Zoo. This then gives the title more relevance to the actual incident and would not need further edits should future Giraffes named Marius be culled within any Zoo around the world causing a similar media outburst! Scaredmo (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are also more people called Barbra Streisand. Timelezz (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really think we are making huge problems for ourselves by considering future possible cullings of giraffes with the same name. Let's deal with the present facts rather than looking into a crystal ball. Marius II might be renamed, transferred to another zoo, or even beamed up by alien abduction. It will be the problem of the editors of any future page to deal with the naming of their page - it is not our problem.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose keep it simple77.102.156.95 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Regardless of any future perspectives, this article is overwhelmingly about the killing of Marius, not about his life. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a caveat. Yes, the article is very much about the killing. However, it's no longer necessary to have "(giraffe)" tagged on the end, because there is no other Killing of Marius from which it must be disambiguated; and with the parenthetical suffix it looks unnatural. (As well as being an extremely unlikely search term). bobrayner (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against, at least for a foreseeable future. The giraffe Marius will continue to be a reference point also in the press for a long time, at least until the conservation debate possibly becomes focused on more general issues. Joen Elmbak (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rifle or bolt gun

[edit]

Was there any consensus on the mechanism used to kill Marius? Over on Deaths in 2014 we're wondering what to put. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've discussed that. See the section #Marius shot with a rifle?. It was announced to be a bolt gun, but later the vet said he used a rifle. I just see that that contribution to the article has been lost now. Will try to get it back in (if I can find the contribution in the haystack). Timelezz (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marius giraffe: dissection

[edit]

Dissection: concerning the public dissection, I disagree with the inserted "what had been described as educational purposes", replacing the earlier "for educational purposes". The insertion implies a refusal to just acknowledge the zoo´s own statements (that it was for educational purposes), and instead hints at the possibility of other factors as just as - or more - important (entertainment, profits, a secularized culture, or other reasons). The zoo conducts dissections of other, smaller animals for schools (cf. for instance the zoo´s http://www.skoletjenesten.dk/Grundskolen/Undervisningstilbud?offer=3c1cba32-a59d-4669-a769-6896d0d1b334, mentioning dissections of fish, hens and rabbits for school classes), which is a normal practice in other Danish zoos and at museums in Denmark as well. Dissection of animals for educational purposes is apparently widely done in the US too (http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/dissection-lessons-cruelty/), so it isn´t that exotic a phenomenon, even if Wikipedia targets mainly a US or English-speaking public. Joen Elmbak (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that zoos in some countries do NOT dissect their animals infront of a paying public. If this practice is common-place in Danish zoos then so be it, however, the reasons for the dissection need to be explained with correct attribution for those who might not understand why the giraffe was publicly dissected. I think it is rather misleading to use a PETA web-site on animal dissection in educational institutes to imply dissection occurs in US Zoos. I don't know if this occurs or not, but the PETA site certainly does not talk about dissection in zoos.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I´m not going to elaborate more on that subject, but there´s a difference in opinion here. I did not say the PETA link was referring to zoos, it was used for exemplifying the phenomenon of public dissection for educational purposes in the US. As a side remark, the use of CAPITAL LETTERS indicates SHOUTING and should be limited in writings here, in my opinion ;-). Joen Elmbak (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My use of uppercase was limited - I used it once - to emphasise and not shout.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, agreed with Joen. The wording now is awkward and unnecessary, adding skepticism where there is none, and it reads more like gossip than an encyclopedia. Chrissy, what do you mean in your edit summary "this has been lost in mult"?
I'd be in support of removing "what had been described as." Bienmanchot (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is scepticism and to give a balanced article, this should be acknowledged. I would prefer being accurate and wordy, rather than giving an uncritical account in fewer words. My previous edit summary got cut short on characters. It was supposed to say "This has been lost in multiple edits"__DrChrissy (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're claiming there is skepticism as to whether the dissection was for educational purposes? I'd like to see this in a RS. It sounds like we're adding the skepticism. Not Wiki's job. Please help me understand. Bienmanchot (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The action was, however, branded a cheap “PR stunt” on the part of zoo officials..."[1]__DrChrissy (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also "Dissection Doesn’t Cut It in a Classroom or a Zoo" (http://www.aavs.org/site/c.bkLTKfOSLhK6E/b.8990255/k.6F4A/Dissection_Doesn8217t_Cut_It_in_a_Classroom_or_a_Zoo.htm#.Ux9sOs4sh50] arguably less robust than my previous example.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and one more example - "A Different Philosophy, a Different Culture: And That's Why Marius the Danish Giraffe Had to Die" [2]. __DrChrissy (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The action," as quoted in the first reference, was the killing, not the dissection - if anything you can make the argument that they put the word "education" in scare quotes, therefore they were skeptical about this aspect of the ordeal, but that's seriously reaching. In regards to the second reference, this Wiki entry is not an appropriate platform for grandstanding the American Anti-Vivisection Society's opinion on vivisection as an educational tool - using that as a reasoning for adding skepticism to the language the lead is totally undue. The third reference, a blog, has no qualms labeling the dissection educational; so I'm not sure why you provided it here. Bienmanchot (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bienmanchot. Please read the first article again. A fuller quote is "“I’m actually proud because I think we have given children a huge understanding of the anatomy of a giraffe that they wouldn’t have had from watching a giraffe in a photo,” zoo spokesman Tobias Stenbaek Bro told AP.

The action was, however, branded a cheap “PR stunt” on the part of zoo officials by those protesting the killing of the young animal."[3]...My reading of this is that the PR stunt relates to the dissection, the subject of the previous sentence, and this is being raised by people protesting the killing. After all, it was the dissection that was public, not the killing. Second reference - are you saying that I am grandstanding for the AAVS? Please be specific whether you are making such an accusation about my editing or not. The third reference I provided finishes with the following sentence "Tell me, Dr. Holst: What could I have possibly said to them to make Marius's death and public dissection an educational experience?"[4] This is a blog, however, it is the blog of a reporter from the Huffington post and the header of the page states "Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors". To my mind, this is a sufficiently robust source.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is seriously reaching, considering we're talking about *adding language that conveys suspicion* to the *lead* of this page. As a reader, this readys me for bs to come, and really reads like a gossip rag. I mean, in the overwhelming amount of articles used herein, there's only one reference (rt.com) that kind of works (though I still think you're pushing the envelope there)? I don't think that makes it okay to add emotion to an encyclopedic entry.
In source 1: Yeah, this kind of works. But the sentence after what you've quoted above makes it seem as though "the killing" is "the action".
In source 2: Interjecting the opinion of a fringe group is grandstanding for the cause (AR), I would say; I didn't mean to imply your edits were - I understand you're trying to be safe, true to the events as they took place; I just disagree with the way you've interpreted this piece.
In source 3: A blog post from an opinion journalist, doesn't really do it for me, RS-wise. Bienmanchot (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced "Cheap PR stunt" by "macabre publicity stunt", DrChrissy, giving the reasons in the editing comments. Please at least read my comments and try to understand before deleting repeatedly; this is very time-consuming. Also, you´ve raised the question of "ownership" to an article earlier towards someone else here. The unsigned article on the RT website is partly an introduction to the accompanying video. This article puts the characterization of the dissection "cheap PR stunt" in quotation marks, indicating that someone characterized the dissection as that. But when reading it, the article does actually not give any example or any source who said such a thing. The person in the video, an identified spokesman, does not say that either. She says "macabre publicity stunt", which is why I replaced "cheap PR stunt" with "macabre publicity stunt". "Cheap PR stunt" in quotation marks is an invention by the anonymous writer who wrote the RT text, and not based on any identified sources. Therefore, there is no doubt that "macabre publicity stunt" is more correct and based on a real, identified source. If an anonymous journalist makes a summary of a statement, replacing an identified interviewed person´s wording with a new wording, the person´s original wording is preferable. Joen Elmbak Joen Elmbak (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 80.62.116.187 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC) 06:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Joen Elmbak (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.Chrissy, since you want to keep the phrase, once again - have you read my entry above, and could you please inform, who was it exactly that called it "a cheap PR stunt on the part of the zoo officials"? Joen Elmbak (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did read your comments and I understood them - I just happened to disagree with them. Apologies this is taking up your time - it is often a natural product of reaching consensus. If you wish to raise an issue of ownership - please go ahead, but beware the bommerang effect. I believe the comment about "cheap 'PR stunt'" should remain in the article for the following reasons. It is a verifiable source. Just because it is anonymous, does not mean it should be deleted. There are many, many citations on Wikipedia where reports in newspapers are not attributed to the individual journalist but to the publishing source itself. This does not make the source unverifiable. The fact that the source does not say individually who did the branding of "PR stunt" is irrelevant. The main Marius (giraffe) article states "Copenhagen Zoo managers confirmed that staff, including its head of conservation, received death threats by phone and email following the culling of Marius" - this does not state who sent the death threats. I do not like the edit of "macabre publicity stunt" for several reasons. First, and perhaps most importantly, I thought the topic of the paragraph was the educational value of the dissection, not whether it was tateful. Second, it is a little cumbersome to expect someone to listen to an interview to verify the edit. Third, who is the organisation the woman is a spokesperson for...are they possibly a fringe group? I don't know. Despite these dislikes of the edit, I have not removed it in the interests of reaching a compromise.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was you who added the RT article + video source, to verify sources talking of PR stunts, not me. Both Animal Defenders International and the state Russian RT television are biased media players, we can agree on that. If you find what you consider better, but identified sources, that´s fine with me. I can´t say that I agree with your arguments, and am quitting work on this article, since the conditions are unacceptable to me Joen Elmbak (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Please note, the previous comment has been edited with one significant deletion and two subsequent additions which completely change the meaning. I have not reverted, because it is generally considered bad form to change messages on Talk pages.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this quote is inappropriate, citing wp:quotation:
"Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."
Can we paraphrase, lose the rhetoric and move on? EG, "According to an article in RT.com, some considered it a PR Stunt." That sounds silly, though, truly; can we find this claim in any other RS? If not, perhaps the entire sentence isn't notable enough to include. Bienmanchot (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted this entire sentence to avoid criticism from other editors. I had paraphrased it earlier and others complained - by including the entire sentence I was simply trying to make something uncontroversial that for some reason, some read as being controversial. I would be happy to see it paraphrased again. Part of the problem here is POV regarding parentheses. I always use parenthses to indicate quotes and not as "scary quotes" (I think that is what people call them). If an editor has a preconceived POV about an article, then "xxx" will be seen as either a quote, or scary quotes, depending on their POV.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft page for related incidents

[edit]

For related information that is separate from Marius, there is Draft:Zoo_incidents. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Marius (giraffe). 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marius_(giraffe)&oldid=1233740789"