Talk:Marius (giraffe)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Visual Sabotage etc. on the page

Around 8:30today - major case of visual sabotage, mixing old material and destroying visual appearance. I think I have fixed re-instating everything - check out AZA-section though Joen Elmbak (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Had to reinstall Responses: Copenhagen Zoo too - forgot that previously Joen Elmbak (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. 92.18.15.213 moved parts around like crazy. Petitions by the public are now under 'animal rights organisations'. Seriously? The whole of the public has become an animal rights movement? No one told me about that one. I seriously think we need to protect this article now, since there is so much vandalism going on. I have no experience with that. So if someone could request that, please. Thank you. Timelezz (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Joen Elmbak, thank you for your attempts to restore the vandalism. I have a tip for you that would make that easier. On the History page there are text links to restore a previous version. And you can also view a previous version, edit that one and save it again, which will overwrite the current version. That will save you a lot of time. Though, I really appreciate your work! In the mean time, I've rolled back to the latest version before 92.18.15.213's vandalism. We should be fine now. Timelezz (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, good work. I think the article is overall valuable. Am very much in favour of some sort of protection. Kind regards Joen Elmbak (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just got to write that, only to discover new vandalism deleting Dyrenes Beskyttelse support for the zoo. Maybe more than that too Joen Elmbak (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous that supporters of the decision to kill a healthy young zoo animal keep hysterically "sterilising" the article so as to cover up. You may not care about the morality of breeding animals to be used as a public spectacle, but most people do. Even more insane, are the attempts to remove the article altogether. Why remove it? Look on Wkipedia and you can find articles on every subject under the sun. So why not this "cause celebre"? No reason - except that this brings to light some very shady practices and threatens the career of someone unworthy of a career in "animal welfare." Stop removing what I have posted. I can verify everything - and have done. Mess with it again and your bias becomes obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.15.213 (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as it is at these low levels, I'm not convinced the article require protection. This single IP has done some vandalism (changing sentences w. citations so it appeared as if the new version was supported by a citations; unreasoned deletion of sections), but it was reasonably easy to deal with. He/she has been pointed to citation policies by an earlier editor. If you, IP 92.18.15.213, have reliable sources as you claim, you should include them. Simply saying that you have them isn't sufficient. As this entire matter easily evokes a lot of feelings, it may be a good idea to revert all large edits that fail to provide supporting citations, per WP:BURDEN. If there is a rise in vandalism, there may be a requirement of protection (requested --> WP:RFP). 62.107.210.245 (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Hope 92.18.15.213 will come down a bit and engage in discussion. It may help a lot to provide actual sources. Timelezz (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Report of new vandalism by 92.19.189.24. Adding POV, unsourced texts and trivia. He was kind enough to even add his motivation for his vandalism to the article.

My comments were removed and cut and pasted from one page to another I a dizzying manipulation I cannot even follow. I cannot reverse my typo because I cannot find themMasterknighted (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

== Demand To Remove Marius (giraffe) Wikipedia Article ==
A number of those who support the zoo's decision have asked to have the article 
Marius (giraffe) deleted, or merged into a general article on Copenhagen Zoo.
Those who condemn the zoo's actions oppose this, and question why a cause celebre
should not have a separate article.  Wikipedia are currently considering the matter.

It is very much telling. He seems new to Wikipedia. I've warned him on his profile. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just requested semi-protection. Timelezz (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Article is now semi-protected. We can take a breath now. Timelezz (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Marius shot with a rifle?

Joen Elmbak, I've reverted your edit. I don't think that riffel in the sentence "så tog jeg min riffel og skød ham lige igennem hjernen" translates to Rifle. It could as well refer to a stun bolt gun, which also penetrate the brains. Also, it is a quote from a veterinarian. It would probably a violation of Danish law to use a rifle shot gun, instead of a regular stun bolt gun. In other words, the interpretation that it would be a rifle gun makes no sense. I rather expect that the vet did not want to complicate his story to his (very) young audience who probably never heard about a stun bolt gun. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I´ll look into sources to check if possible. As you know, the killing instrument is mentioned two times in our Wiki article. Please have patience if I make yet revision on the subject and check my reasons; but your explanation makes sense. Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joen Elmbak (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC) ... Joen Elmbak (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

A captive bolt gun does NOT enter the brain - editors on this page are over-stepping their knowledge and potentially posting falsehoods. This comment was added by DrChrissy

Dear DrChrissy. I fully agree with you. Someone here is absolutely over-stepping his/her knowledge and didn't check any source before making a statement. It for sure was not the guy who previously has read extensively on the use of different types of captive bolt guns in slaughter houses. Let's see:

“ In the penetrating type, the stunner uses a pointed bolt which is propelled by pressurized air or a blank cartridge. The bolt penetrates the skull of the animal, enters the cranium, and catastrophically damages the cerebrum and part of the cerebellum. Due to concussion, destruction of vital centres of brain and an increase in intracranial pressure, the animal loses consciousness. This method is currently the most effective type of stunning, since it physically destroys brain matter... - Captive bolt pistol#Variations ”

Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If a penetrating captive bolt gun was used, this would have left blood on the head of Marius. HHave any of the photos of the dissection shown blood on his head?__DrChrissy (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Timelezz (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

RIFLE: There´s too much evidence in favour of a rifle. The bolt gun reporting seems to be based on an outdated source, mainly the original zoo press release, released before the killing, which says bolt pistol (http://www.zoo.dk/BesogZoo/Nyhedsarkiv/2014/Februar/Why%20Copenhagen%20Zoo%20euthanized%20a%20giraffe.aspx). RIFLE: 1) Interview, also video, with the vet after the killing, detailed. He says, that the animal was given its favourite snack and shot when chewing it, shot under the mouth into the brain, with a rifle, http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article2214291.ece The journalist has added "Winchester rifle". 2) This article says the same. It has a note stating that earlier mentions of a bolt gun were wrong - it had been a rifle, as also added by the main Danish news agency, Ritzau. But the newspaper is cooperating with the first newspaper and is probably just referring from the video interview http://politiken.dk/indland/ECE2203882/koebenhavns-zoo-har-aflivet-giraffen-marius/ CNN choose to write rifle also http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/10/world/europe/denmark-zoo-giraffe/ 3) the animal wasn´t sedated. Sedating and shooting with a bolt gun was the content of the zoo´s predating press release. 4) Speculating: killing a giraffe is a very rare incident, the zoo apparently hasn´t done it in recent times, and they had to reflect on the method. Sedating is considered somewhat dangerous to giraffes, since they risk to break their neck if the fall to the ground. Also, this Danish article for instance about a pony killing says that horses (which of course have a very different head and bone structure) have small brains and that killing them with a bolt gun is risky, since one may not hit the right area. Therefore, rifles are mostly used in stead. An "electronic device" can also be used http://ekstrabladet.dk/flash/dkkendte/article2023878.ece Hoever, the predating zoo press release says bolt pistols are used for killing horses and cows. I have found no sources specifying why the changed their original decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joen Elmbak (talk • contribs) 08:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds pretty solid. But no comment on this matter from the director after the event, apparently. So we have two different stories. The best way to go about this is to mention both stories. In a fashion like 'The zoo stated that the giraffe would be killed with a bolt gun, but reports say he was killed with a rifle, probably a Winchester'. Including the reference at the right places. Could you add it like this? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What comment from the director? The predating press release? Concerning the zoo´s policy of openness, chances that the responsible vet should be lying are small 09:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joen Elmbak (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I partly misread your wording. But I think we cannot equal the two pieces of information. The past cannot overrule what I would call present quality information, unless alternative information becomes available. I have inserted the original scheme for the culling in a parenthesis, though) Joen Elmbak (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Following further consideration, I´ve changed the wording towards your suggestion. Perhaps some of it is better reserved for liner notes later; I´ll let other decide. Kind regards, Joen Elmbak (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made some additions to it. We can not be sure they 'changed' their mind. Perhaps it was a miscommunication, or perhaps those who wrote the announcement did not contact the vet first. I think the current version is fine now. Timelezz (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is now a radio interview statement by Holst as well - it was the mentioned rifle procedure http://www.dr.dk/p1/natursyn/ at around 4:00. Sorry, forgot to sign Joen Elmbak (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Safaripark Beeksebergen

DrChrissy, you wanted clarification. The transcript of the audio is (from 4:02):

“ Het is een kwestie van opvatting. Het is een cultureel verschil wat je wel of niet aanvaardbaar acht. In Scandinavië is men daar makkelijk mee. Heeft men deze redenen er voor. Terwijl wij in Nederland hebben gekozen voor vrijgezellengroepen en anticonceptie. Google Translated version ”

So, he says that 'they in Scandinavia' are 'easier' on the question whether the killing of a healthy animal is (morally) acceptable. I have written this as "A vet said that Scandinavian zoos have a more hands-down attitude towards culling" which does depict it fairly well, I think. What is your take on it? There must be a reason why you think it is not clear enough. Timelezz (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A "more hands-down attitude" means nothing to me (A native English speaker), so there is something lost in translation - at least to me (other editors please comment if you wish). Even being "easier" on a question does not entirely make sense. Does the statement mean that in Scandanavia, people/zoos are more sympathetic/favour/open to the idea - of culling?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As above, the term 'more hands-down attitude' means nothing to me (also native English). I would suggest it is a translation loss with it's meaning that they are 'less against' or 'open minded'. Scaredmo (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Although I considered it a proper translation, it clearly is not correct when you guys have no idea what it means. Could you help me, and my limited vocabulary, finding a better word to put it? Allow me to describe what I'm after. He does not claim the scandinavians are more open-minded to killing or are less against it. Rather, he says, the scandinavians do not consider it as a big issue as other zoos would find it. Other zoos would find it more problemetic -- obviously pertaining to moral implications -- while the Scandinavian zoos do not find it such a big deal and consequently do not think very long about the killing (relatively). In some way the Scandinavian culture has less reservations with commiting a kill on a healthy animal. This is as well in line with another Dutch commentor that said that he thought that Copenhagen Zoo did not think long enough about the killing. Kind regards Timelezz (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

How about "Scandanavian zoos find it less ethically reprehensible" (perhaps a bit POV) or "Scandanavian zoos find it less ethically problematic".__DrChrissy (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Almost, I've made it to " A vet said that Scandinavian zoos find culling less objectionable". If that is fine with you as well, we have it cleared. Timelezz (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

DrChrissy, you requested again clarification for the same section. We've already discussed it, and you come again with the same thing, as it seems. You've added no additional information in the template nor in the summary of your edit, nor here on the talk page. So I've reverted your request for clarification. If you want clarification for something, it would be constructive to also explain for what you want clarification. Thank you. Timelezz (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It is inappropriate editing to unilaterally remove a clarification tag without discussing this first. You should have brought this to the Talk page BEFORE deleting the tag. We have discussed this section before, but due to poor editing, there is another new clarification needed. The sentence is now ambiguous - who supports sterilization and bachelor herds? __DrChrissy (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear DrChrissy, I honestly do not see why you think it is ambigious who supported sterilization and bachelor herds in this sentence.

“ A vet said that Scandinavian zoos find culling less objectionable than Dutch zoos which instead choose to use bachelor herds and birth control ”

Thinking that 'which' refers to Scandinavion zoos would absolutely make no sense, and to my knowledge of the English language one would relate it to Dutch zoos, for it is the nearest subject in the sentence. But perhaps you can provide a suggestion that makes the sentence outstandingly clear to you?

Ps. It is absolutely not unappropriate to delete a template when the one adding it did not provide any account of why it is ambigious. forgot to sign previously, but it was me, Timelezz (talk) on 24 February 2014 (UTC)

To the previous editor - please sign your postings. The ambiguity of this sentence is because it contradicts the main thread of the article. Marius was an animal from a Dutch zoo but he was not placed in a bachelor herd and was not sterilised (at least, not to the best of my knowledge). Therefore, this is contrary to what the sentence says about Dutch zoos, and relates much more closely to Scandanavian zoos - hence the ambiguity. If it is a quote we can not change it (but should include quotes). Otherwise I suggest something like -

A vet said that culling is considered less objectionable by Scandinavian zoos than by Dutch zoos, which instead usually choose to use bachelor herds and birth control, however, in the case of Marius, Copenhagen zoo had chosen culling. I cannot check if this is actually what the vet said because the source is in a foreign language.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Copenhagen is in Denmark, which is in Scandinavia. Things that come from Denmark are Danish, including Marius. Beeksebergen is in Holland/The Netherlands, which is not in Scandinavia. Things that come from Holland/The Netherlands are Dutch. Judging from your post, you are mixing up some geography.Joen Elmbak (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Arghhhhh! What a fool I have been. Thank you so much for pointing this out. My apologies to you and other editors for wasting their time on this matter. I will delete the template immediately.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I´ve seen international news reports calling Marius and Copenhagen Dutch too, likewise revising European geography, so maybe you got it from there :-). Joen Elmbak (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but it is an embarassing mistake for me to have made. Might be a bit too much late night editing! ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I did not see that one coming, haha. Indeed, it mind-boggled me why there was a request for clarification. This shows once again it is really necessary to provide somewhere an explanation for the requested clarification. Previously, you left it up to me to find out what was so unclear about it, for which I had to stretch myself. But I'm glad we've resolved this now. We are all fallible, so apologies accepted. And I am grateful to Deor who phrased the syntax even better than ever before. Timelezz (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Educational purposes and trickery

I am not going to put the quotations around educational purposes because in the end the term is a paraphrase , not as has been indicated by one my paraphrase. I do not know what is going on here on this talk page but there are awhole lot of games being playedMasterknighted (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

One game, making it an encyclopedic article. I saw your recent contribution, which changed "dissected in public for educational purposes" to "dissected in public for what had been described as educational purposes". Personally, I do not see a real need for that, as the term 'for' already described that the zoo did this with that intent. I could revert the contribution on that ground, but I'll leave it like this. Considering the energy you've spent on the edit, I'm sure you think it is highly relevant. Timelezz (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's about intent, regardless of anything else. If the zoo said he was dissected to summon a demon, we'd say it was for summoning purposes. Whether it works as intended is irrelevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)