Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knut (polar bear)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:32, 7 December 2007.

---

Knut (polar bear)

(self-nomination) This article has been a Good Article since August and I believe it fulfills the FA criteria. Despite it being a shorter article than some, it is exhaustively sourced and, I believe at least, the first of its kind to be nominated for FA (correct me if I'm wrong). I've largely been working on this article by myself since the summer, so I am very willing to take any concerns/ideas/questions from reviewers!

Thanks for the consideration. María (críticame) 21:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - (please note: this is not an objection)

Are there any non-news sources available? (I mean other encyclopedias, academic papers, etc.)

"While visitor numbers have reportedly dwindled from extreme highs" why reportedly here and not elsewhere?

"[...] recorded in August of 2007, which was an all time high" (not reportedly?) is "all time high" equal to "a record"?

--Keerllston 04:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• For your first comment, other than the websites that are already referenced to, I'm fairly positive that there are not encyclopedias (other than Wikis) or papers available for use. There was such a news media circus concerning Knut, news sources are what are immediately available and his popularity has yet to become a subject of academic research. As for the second, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for; are you suggesting I rephrase it? María (críticame) 14:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying remove the word "reportedly".

•  Done María (críticame) 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking whether the "all time high" was a "record for number of visitors in a month".

• Yes, but the sentence says that "There were 400,000 guests recorded"; recorded meaning "to set down in writing." Is that not clear? María (críticame) 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• to set down in writing yes, but to set/break a record is something different.--Keerllston 03:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried searching for books, ["berlin zoo" knut] [knut polar bear] found 3, two for children(Juvenile Nonfiction), a translation of one of the two children books, and a 2008 travel book. I found slightly more useful "scholarly" articles searching on google scholar. I am dissapointed.

Bear Life -look at page labelled "74" - Found through google scholar.

Celebrity meets science: Hollywood's environmentalism and its effect Political.

• The children's book(s) you referred to is already mentioned at length in the article. I'm not sure if the two articles you've supplied would be worth mentioning, however, because they mention Knut only in passing. María (críticame) 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

--Keerllston 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cont/

Thomas Dörflein doesn't have an article, is his only claim to fame Knut?

• Yes. I've removed the link several times, but it always reappears. I'll remove it again. María (críticame) 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• hmmm... how about turning it into a redirect to this page?--Keerllston 03:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Done He has been awarded the Berlin's Medal of Merit, after all -- he may have an article at some point. María (críticame) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

There shouldn't be a parenthesis in the lead, please rephrase, removing the parenthesis. His birthdate and location are significant enough to stand outside of parenthesis.

• Although I disagree because this article is, in essence, a biography, and there is no article template for animals, so I just based it (complete with celebrity infobox) on a person's biography, I'll clean up the lead. The sentences seem a little too short for me, but tell me what you think. María (críticame) 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh! sorry then. I think it looks nicer now but I think you were completely in the right as it was originally.--Keerllston 03:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• No problem, I thought I was going to have to defend this article as a biography, but I agree that the lead looks a lot cleaner now that everything's out in the open (without the parentheses). María (críticame) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"The first polar bear cub to survive past infancy at the Berlin Zoo in over thirty years, he became a popular tourist attraction and commercial success after being the subject of international controversy." Split into two sentences. Two separate issues should be treated as two separate issues.

•  Done María (críticame) 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is as important as to be in the lead the fact that he is the first polar bear cub to survive past infancy at the Berlin Zoo in over thirty years, then why isn't it noted in the body? how many polar bears had been born since the beginning of the zoo? how many survived?

• It is noted in the body. The first paragraph, in fact: "Knut was the first polar bear to have been born and survive in the Berlin Zoo in over thirty years." I don't believe that records are available to provide the info you ask for as to how many polar bears have been born since the beginning of the zoo, but it's obvious that none of them have survived in thirty years. That's the important point. María (críticame) 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• did not see that... oops. But some information about mortality rates for bears without their parents should be included. As I understand [from Bear Life] polar bears are remarkably unadaptable to zoo's due to their normal range being comparably large.--Keerllston 03:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hm, I'll do a little extra reading and see if I can add something. Knut's situation isn't necessarily a special case, since animals in zoos do sometimes abandon their young and are therefore raised by a surrogate parent, but adult polar bears' survival rate in zoos (as opposed to in the wild) would be irrelevant here, I feel. Knut's survival was only remarkable because he lived past infancy, so I don't want to run the risk of getting too off topic. María (críticame) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I understand. It seems polar bears don't have it real nice at zoos... Could a section be devoted to his habitat?--Keerllston 02:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

--Keerllston 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• There really isn't that much information available regarding his living spaces. He has his newest enclosure all to himself (the first one was shared with some kind of Asian black bear), but details, other than what it looks like, are too spare for a section all its own. María (críticame) 16:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

cont.

Currently structured "Early Life, Fame, Controversy, Commercial Success, -Environmental Causes-" Environmental causes doesn't look seem like it fits into commercial success, but Controversy, commercial success, and environmental causes fit into fame.

• I agree it doesn't seem to fit, and I was never too sure about its placement. The trouble with creating a section entitled "Fame" would be that the entire article deals with Knut's fame, and because he's still a cub, all of it is his "Early life," as well, which is why I titled the first section "Biography." I've played around with it a little bit, putting "Infancy," "Controversy," and "In the spotlight" (not sure about that one) under "Biography" and "Commercial success" and "Environmental causes" under "In the media." Tell me what you think. María (críticame) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did he receive 100 journalists that first day? Was he already famous?

--Keerllston 03:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• There were 400 journalists present on his public unveiling (March 23), so yes, he was already famous at that point. The controversy came to a head earlier in that same month. Like I said above, I've played with the headers to make the timeline a little clearer, so tell me what you think. I think I like it better this way. María (críticame) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I liked it a lot. Well done. (oops on the mistake)--Keerllston 02:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support. An interesting little test case, as María suggested in the nomination. It's short, but I believe it's comprehensively researched. I went through and made a number of edits for consistency and MOS stuff. If it's not fully MOS compliant it's close. It's a brisk, fun, and well-written article. Images are quite nice, and I believe the two fair-use images are encyclopedic and have valid rationales. --JayHenry 07:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your copy-editing, as well as your support; I appreciate your added input and agree with the changes. :) María (críticame) 13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I might be wrong but isn't the word "Biography" used for people? Isn't there an equivalent for animals? -- CG (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea if there is an animal equivalent, but if there is, I will gladly change it. I wrote this article with the Biography MOS in mind since it technically is biographical, although Knut is obviously not a person. There is no template regarding individual animals, so I pretty much had to wing it! María (críticame) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: According to our own Biography article it is a piece of writing about an individual. No mention if that individual should be human. I think calling it a biography is perfectly acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment re. in the lead. When I first read this I saw "fans rallied in support of his being hand, raised by humans", wondered if something was lost in the translation and had to start the sentence again. Suggest "fans rallied in support of his being hand-raised by humans." Just passing through. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 11:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Done, but I've seen it both ways: "hand raised" and "hand-raised." It seems to be one of those things that can go either way. María (críticame) 13:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: FA are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, and they also represent our standards of genuine open source content. Therefore – according to WP:FACR and WP:NFCC – the two copyrighted/fair use images should be removed from the article as there are enough free images available (including 2 videos), cf. the Comons gallery (which was actually started by me, but that's not the point). Additionally I would suggest to place at least one good 'non cute' image on the page. At the moment there are 4 images on the page that represent the sheer cuteness of Knut, and only 1 that shows how the animal currently really looks, but unfortunately it's only a pretty small shot of the bear himself – I already tried to add such a better image (this one preferred), but it has been reverted repeatedly. I note this so explicitly here because I believe that an encyclopedia should – optically – not only reflect the commercial 'tourist and media attraction' status, but also the actual appearance of an article's subject in a sufficient way. Well, and up to now I miss at least some facts about the pretty important weekly TV coverage (rbb Abendschau, broadcasted nationwide in Germany every saturday on ARD, cf. de.wikipedia). --Ü 20:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I completely disagree about your incorrect assessment of the article's images. The images currently in the article are not there because they are "cute," as you put it, but because they represent, specifically, points that are brought up on the article; Knut's public unveiling, his new enclosure, his relationship with Thomas Dörflein, etc. An image from Knut's highly publicized public outing, at a time in which his popularity reached its zenith, is iconic. It is common sense that the photo would have a prominent place in the article (i.e. the infobox). Also, as I've explained on your talk page, nowhere does it say that a current picture of an individual should be placed in the article, since that would be close to impossible for most subjects. The two images that are copyrighted are present to illustrate two highly important aspects as a direct result of the controversy of his upbringing and resultant popularity. Although they are not free, they are correctly tagged and given fair use rationales; therefore, they do not need to be removed or even replaced. Multiple, similar images from the same time period in this article serves no purpose and makes the article appear cluttered. As far your issue with the article's missing content, this is the first I've heard of it. RBB is already mentioned in the article, but I'll add the television program specifically to the list of commercial successes. María (habla conmigo) 00:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

… hmm, "RBB was also responsible for ..." -> RBB still is and will be, as long as the 'show goes on'. (could you correct this, or is it just some strange gramm. case?)  Done

regarding the images: I won't start editwaring here, don't worry. But if you really want to keep the copyrighted ones (which only show similar motifs compared to the free ones, and which are definitely not imperative for the article) … well, I don't want to repeat myself. But what is your reason, to not allow one more image (e.g. the one I mentioned above)? It does not need to be placed in the infobox, of course, but there's enough space for another image. jm2c --Ü 01:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against adding additional images at some point in the future. As it stands now, however, the two collections of photos on the commons page show Knut at stages in his life that are already adequately depicted. I feel that to add more from the same time period, taken seconds apart, would be repetitive and defeat the purpose of images supporting the prose rather than the other way around. I also do not want to begin a precedence in which there is a picture or two of Knut in every section that reads simply "Knut on such and such date." The images that are placed on the article now are imperative to the article because, again, they support aspects already discussed, including two important commercial aspects of Knut's popularity: his being on the cover of a national magazine and an internationally selling book. I'm not saying that more photos cannot be added in the future, but for now there is no need. A photo from Knut's first birthday celebration, for example, would coincide with the text that will most assuredly be added to the article in a couple weeks' time. I hope this answers your questions. María (habla conmigo) 02:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the concerns raised by U-with-two-dots are valid
- an encyclopedic treatment means a bit more than just cuteness - and most of the pictures are of cuteness - treating it as less as a human being and more as an animal would also be more encyclopedic- cue Animal Planet "Zoo Polar bears, also known as Knuts, eat grass and live in the zoo, they sometimes move from rock too rock, most of the time they just sleep, sleeping up to twenty hours per day. Because Polar Bear's natural habitats are so large and their daily average movement is also vast, Knuts develop paranoid schitzophenia in the their zoo small enclosure".
Also, Non-Free content should be used minimally, not that non-free content shouldn't be used but rather that free content should be strongly preferred.
--Keerllston 13:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I can reiterate this, but the images on the article as of now are not there because they are cute. They directly correlate to the article's prose. Knut on the cover of the second ever German Vanity Fair is extremely notable. An internationally sold book that was sanctioned by the Zoo itself is extremely notable and encyclopedic. That is why they are there and correct rationales are given on the description pages. There are only two non-free images as compared to three free images, so the majority is free content; would you rather I add three more free ones, crowding the page and making it appear cluttered so the scale can tip even more? Furthermore, this article is not about polar bears in captivity -- it is about Knut, who was born into captivity less than a year ago (he's still a cub), has known nothing else, and who just so happens to be cute, I suppose. María (habla conmigo) 14:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not reiterate, I read your comments the first time around. It seems the the only image of him as the rather big zoo animal he is becoming, has him almost undefinable due to it's focus on his environment - this is one right beside the allegations that said he was becoming "uncute" - I believe this is a perfect spot for a picture of him in the "uncute" version.--Keerllston 19:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've traded out the offending image and added a second one that I've had my eye on for a while; the sign at the zoo that points to the bear's enclosure.[1] Let me know if that one is too cute, as well. ;) The ratio is now 4:2 (free vs. fair use). I stand by my reason for keeping the fair use images, however; they are truly important to the article and I hope everyone can now agree. María (habla conmigo) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(←) Maria asked me to comment regarding the images. I don't really have very strong feelings on the topic, but the rationales are valid per WP:NFCC and WP:WIAFA doesn't require anything stronger than NFCC compliance. It seems to me that María makes a fair point that the Vanity Fair image is not "replaceable" by cute pictures of the bear. The encyclopedic value of the image is all about the media coverage of the bear, and that's not captured in other images. If it's worth discussing further I'd suggest doing so on the talk page, as it's not an issue that's really related to opposing or supporting the FAC. --JayHenry (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE: Discussion about image concerns have been moved to the article's talk page.
• Support This is a very good article. I was unfamiliar with Knut before I read it, but it did an excellent job of explaining Knut's significance and the various events in his (short) life. It is well-written and uses the best sources available at this time (obviously no great scholarship has been written on Knut yet - no Jürgen Habermas has theorized about his place in the public sphere).

• On images: It might be nice to have an image of the plush Knut or the candy, since more is said about those than the Vanity Fair cover, but I assume those are not permitted on wikipedia. The image with the Knut sign seems unnecessary to me, but I tend to go with the "less is more" theory.

• I agree about the plush toy or the candies, but I was afraid that it would be more difficult to explain away; a magazine cover is easier to give a suitable rationale for. I also agree about the picture of the sign, so  Done. I wanted it to work, but now it just looks cluttered.

• I have liked the magazine cover as an illustration of his fame. I agree(d) about the Knut sign being unecessary, and much better picture of him now by the way.--Keerllston 02:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would also delete the infobox. Infoboxes are optional and this one doesn't add much to the article, in my opinion. All of the information in the box is in the article and the box detracts from the image.

• Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.  Done

• I made a few copy edits as I was reading - please revert anything that you feel detracts from the article rather than improves it. Awadewit | talk 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, it looks great. Thanks for the comments! María (habla conmigo) 17:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment/Request for Content: Is a map have a map of Berlin zoo and/or of his enclosure available?--Keerllston 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware of a map of Knut's enclosure. I'm not sure if a map of the Zoo itself would be necessary, though? María (habla conmigo) 03:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing would make the article more comprehensive and a much better article, but are often not available or agreeable or considered "necessary". It is the question of context, which means the same thing as comprehensibility, somehow.

Is the Berlin Zoo in the middle of Berlin is it rather large? Is Knut's enclosure a significant part of it's size? What did the size of his enclosure mean in terms of investment?

I was rather impressed by the account in "Bear Life" of the fact that Polar Bears that survive often have psychological/behavioral problems due to their natural habitat and natural range of travel being substantially larger in size contrasted to their zoo habitat - about a million times larger if I remember correctly. Is this information true? I tried looking in polar bears but it lacks any note of zoo habitats, and only talks of the natural habitat.

from captivity (animal) "Captive animals, especially those which are not domesticated, sometimes develop repetitive, apparently purposeless motor behaviors called stereotypical behaviors. These behaviors are thought to be caused by the animals' abnormal environment. Many who keep animals in captivity, especially in zoos and related institutions and in research institutions, attempt to prevent or decrease stereotypical behavior by introducing novel stimuli, known as environmental enrichment."

--Keerllston 13:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your suggestions are appropriate in a biography about an individual polar bear; this is not the place to delve into the tangled web of animals living in captivity and the effects that it may have, since similar concerns are addressed by animal rights activists in the Controversy section. I have no idea if what you have cited is correct, but please remember that Knut was born in captivity and he's far too young (and he still has contact with humans) to determine what effect, if any, his upbringing will have on him as an adult bear. What is important is the overwhelming commercial and media success that stemmed from the controversy surrounding him, and that should therefore be the focus. Information about Knut's enclosures, as much as I've been able to source, is mentioned already. If people want information about the Berlin Zoo, or polar bears' habitat, whether it be in the wild or in a zoo, they can go to those articles, I feel. María (habla conmigo) 13:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I note it is in the category of "famous bears" -
my comment goes hand in hand with the general "movement" for treating Knut as, not only cute but also, uncute and a zoo animal.
--Keerllston 14:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but there is really no material on this matter available that directly correlates to Knut. Perhaps something will be available in the future in the form of scholarly articles and research about the bear's experiences in captivity after his brush of fame, but for now I think the article is comprehensive. María (habla conmigo) 14:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind WP:OR, particularly WP:SYN in this discussion. Only information that has been published on Knut himself can be included in this article. We, as lowly Wikipedia editors, cannot find information on polar bears in zoos generally and then apply it to Knut. This excellent policy is to prevent us from including unverifiable and inaccurate claims. Awadewit | talk 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Keerlston, it might be best if you explained how this article deviates from the published material on Knut. The unfortunate fact remains that if the published material focuses on his "cuteness", as you say, the article will reflect that. However, I did not feel when I read the article that it was promoting Knut as a "cute" bear. I felt that it was reporting the fact that Knut had been considered a "cute" phenomenon. Awadewit | talk 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As to allegations of OR and lack of sources: I quote "Bear Life" Kathryn Yussof, which I noted above. Should I perhaps note NPOV as an added incentive? I see that while the article notes the position of the animal activist and clears his name, it does not note any points of view as to the other side of his crusade.
"beyond the arguments to maintain or dispose of Knut, his appearance suggests that now more than ever these questions press upon us. Habitat is essential to the understanding and constitution of animal and plant species, including the polar bear. [...] Saving an orphaned polar bear from death may seem a heroic act, but it does little to adress the fact that zoos are less than optimal environment"
The article/paper "Bear Life" derives close to an entire page on Knut.
--Keerllston 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) It seems to me that Knut is being used as an example (very briefly) of a larger phenomenon. It seems to me that the article is more appropriate for the polar bear article. Also, could you explain what this journal is in which "Bear Life" was published? I can't quite understand it. Is it an online compendium and, if so, where was "Bear Life" originally published? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's from the Forum On Contemporary Art and Society, which I'm not familiar with. I do think that insinuating that this article violates NPOV is a huge stretch and a weak one, at that. I think you mean to say that the paper you've cited "devotes" a couple paragraphs, which are not efficiently sourced and obviously rely on emotional and ethical fallacies rather than facts, to Knut, but what they're saying is that Knut is only as good as what he can be profited from -- of course there are sources that show the zoo, and the public, feel otherwise. They're making a statement about how we as humans (badly) perceive animal life; it is completely off topic. I would venture that "Bear Life" is not as NPOV as you may think because the authors obviously have an agenda: see their project website. Again, I don't think it belongs here. María (habla conmigo) 23:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Formally Object -:D I think if people make objections they should qualify them as such
I think noting a publicity stunt and not providing the side that the publicity stunt was aimed against is strongly POV.
Saying that "Knut will grow" is different from "Polar bears usually grow" and both are relevant. One is obviously specific the other is contextual. Using a source that notes the context of Knut is a very way of improving comprehensability from my perspective.
--Keerllston 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What "publicity stunt" are you referring to? Knut has been a media darling for the last eight months, but there has been no specific publicity stunt. The article does not say "Knut will grow" -- what are you referring to? I've previously stated that I do not believe your source is suitable. I also do not believe that the context you are suggesting pertains to Knut's unique situation, which is different than any run-of-the-mill polar bear. María (habla conmigo) 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

PETA#Animal_euthanasia_and_criminal_charges seems rather relevant to the "controversy" section.
Knut's unique situation means he will live forever - or can we say as part of the article "Polar Bears generally live until the age of __ (and then die a very ugly death and then spend their afterlife in eternal damnation)"
--Keerllston 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Albrecht, who opposed that judgment, says he called for Knut's death not because he actually wanted to have the bear killed, but merely to call attention to the Leipzig decision, which would have granted the Berlin Zoo the right to kill the polar bear cub." is the publicity stunt I was referring to. I was probably unclear. On and - it's actually the section right above "Animal Euthenasia and [...]" that has the controversial stuff about PETA killing a lot of animals 'because of future environment would make their lifes less worthwhile than dying immediately' or similar...--Keerllston 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions continue to be irrelevant and off topic. A polar bear's lifespan is irrelevant; do we say that humans live an average lifespan of 75-90 years on the pope's article? Albrecht's position is explained fully and needs no other discussion; besides, that "publicity stunt" is not what 99% of the newssources reported. PETA is definitely off topic and certainly not NPOV. I'm sorry, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about in regard to this article and its purpose. It's a biography, not a soapbox. It is comprehensive as far as Knut goes. I do not plan to turn the article into a navel gazing exploration of polar bears in captivity getting the short stick, which is what it sounds like you want to do. María (habla conmigo) 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

-here we go! (awww... poor bears in captivity...)
- does the article show any reason why the bear he was ostensibly protesting was killed? It is perhaps not relevant specifically to Knut but it is extremely relevant to the controversy.
PETA definitely killed animals - and they are definitely POV - but NPOV means noting all significant points of views, not speaking in grays.
I think Knut is currently a soapbox for Albrecht - which is not encyclopedic.
--Keerllston 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it says why the sloth bear was killed. No, Albrecht was not protesting said sloth bear; the article clearly states what the issue was. Albrecht's opinion about the sloth bear's death is present because his claims about Knut were originally taken out of context; no further explanation is necessary. PETA killing animals has nothing to do with this article and/or subject matter; it provides no context; it is completely unconnected; in fact, it is ridiculous to even want to connect them. NPOV only refers to perspectives that have something in common; PETA has nothing in common with Knut's survival or the death of the sloth bear cub; these decisions were come to separately by two separate German zoos.

This article is anything but a soapbox for Albrecht; again, his comments, taken out of context, were the reason for Knut's explosive international stardom. That is why he is even mentioned at all. The article does not side one way or another, but puts emphasis on the zoo's and fans' support of Knut being raised by handlers and his subsequent popularity. That is encyclopedic coverage. Furthermore, I'm not certain if you have an agenda or not (your "poor bears in captivity" and "die a very ugly death...eternal damnation" comments are completely lost on me -- sarcasm doesn't work well under such circumstances), but the fact that you're continuously harping on what is OR by synthesis or just plain off topic seriously makes me question what you're attempting to do here. Your initial questions were relatively helpful, but now I think you're grasping at straws. María (habla conmigo) 17:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would remind to be civil - suggesting I'm is "advancing an agenda" or "grasping at straws" is somewhat uncivil. - I understand that you have some reason to think those allegations are true - I assure you otherwise (you might find that my comments on this are biased)
His comments were the reason for Knut's stardom. We agree to some extent. The interpretation of his comments was the reason for Knut's stardom - I think we agree. This interpretation can be POV - Albrecht says that his comments were taken out of context, that is one POV. The other POV is that those comments are in the context of 'animals being killed because they don't have a proper environment'
To note only one side is not NPOV.
My "Original Research"/"Context in terms of polar bears" is a distinctly different objection altogether that I have in regards to the article.
I appreciate your effort and assertiveness in this last comment.
I might have a bit of sarcasm in me, I do not mean to mock, my sense of humor is a part of me, were I in any official position I would not exercise it, since I am not I do.
--Keerllston 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I said I would not but I am not sure this is true... I'd rather say that this is one reason I would not like to be in any official position. And that I would be even more careful than I already am in regards to foul interpretation of my sense of humor... but I'd rather not lose my sense of humor.--Keerllston 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The other POV is that those comments are in the context of 'animals being killed because they don't have a proper environment -- no it isn't. That POV isn't anywhere on the map. It is off topic. That is not why the sloth bear cub was killed and that is not why Albrecht said what he said. Albrecht's comments were depicted one way in the media, and a fervor was caused. He corrected the newssources and explained his views fully, but the damage was already done. That is what matters, that is what is in the article. Your points are irrelevant, as three separate users have pointed out to you. María (habla conmigo) 13:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation was the reason for his fame. The interpretation has a context. That context should be in the article. Whether other's approve or not, whether other's disagree or not, will not change my disapproval or my point of view and are irrelevant to understanding my point of view.--Keerllston 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation, it's a misinterpretation, and it has been explained entirely sufficiently: sloth bear cub that was rejected by its mother is killed, activist objects, says that same principal should be applied to Knut who was born under similar circumstances in a different zoo, activist is misinterpreted by the press, fans and zoo rally in support of polar bear cub being raised by humans, polar bear becomes international star overnight. You are the only one who is having issues with this. Perhaps your point of view is a matter of reading comprehension or the lack thereof. María (habla conmigo) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an interpretation. There was cause for this interpretation. Whether it was a misinterpretation depends on whether you believe the POV of Albrecht after he was blasted for 'making inhumane comments.' - Whether he is or is not reliable is another subject altogether. Is albretch blue-linked? is his only claim to fame Knut?--Keerllston 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(←) Oh my this has veered off topic again. NPOV does indeed mean "NPOV means noting all significant points of views," but it doesn't mean noting all significant views to every semi-related topic which is dealt with extremely tangentially in an article. Just imagine:

• "Pope-mobile" is an informal name (though some priests propose making it formal) for the specially designed (though Honda designer Iko Morita stated in an Autoweek interview that the design is not that special [though autoweek is considered to have an anti-Ford bias]) automobile (which safety advocate Ralph Nader notes can be dangerous) that is used by the Pope (who Martin Luther said is not infallible) during public appearances (which are sometimes restricted to Catholics and not the entire public).

Sheesh, we can't even write a sentence if every single facet of every single article must contain every conceivable rebuttal. This unrelated PETA stuff doesn't belong here. --JayHenry (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't be proper advancing an agenda - whichever one I'm currently on I guess. As to my comments as to Bear's eternal damnation (I found them humorous)
But of course, this is not a minor issue in Knut - as Maria said those comments "were the reason for Knut's explosive international stardom" - I think that's a rather huge significance.- as opposed to whatever Martin Luther said about the pope, when talking about the Pope-mobile.--Keerllston 10:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not even sure what you are referring to anymore, Dwarf. The Albrecht matter is sufficiently explained and there is no other side requiring undue weight. If you are confused by the controversy, read that section again. If you're still pushing PETA, go to that article's talk page and discuss there whatever issues you have with that corporation. For the last time, it has nothing to do with Knut. María (habla conmigo) 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support. It's a great article, and even though being a good article isn't really criteria, it helps. I really think it should be featured. It's informative. Basketball110 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all this is not meant as a personal comment on Basketball110
These type of comments which say this article should be featured because it's "good" and "it's informative" - better said would have been - "Well written, and comprehensive" -they really are criteria.
Support comments are not worth as much as Opposes (and Supports from better "reviewers" -better contributors look through each of the criteria and only if they are suficiently satisfied that all criteria are addressed do they support - if they don't they oppose) Opposes on the other hand have criteria in hand and can be ignored if disagreement is voiced and consensus is reached against the opposition.--Keerllston 10:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is unnecessary; you have no right to discount !votes. But if we're playing that game, I am sure the reviewer (Raul, I'm guessing) will be able to differentiate between a support !vote, a support with constructive comments, an oppose with valid points, and an oppose with no valid points whatsoever. María (habla conmigo) 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that I have a right to discount votes. I don't believe FAC is a democracy either.--Keerllston 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But you did discount it. You stated that Support !votes "are not worth as much as Opposes" in a direct response to someone who offered their Support for this article becoming an FA, therefore disregarding their opinion based solely on how you interpret the FAC process. It's unwarranted. María (habla conmigo) 19:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not discount it. I said it's worth was less than that of an oppose or objection, or a support from someone who had criteria in hand. I would remind you to be civil.--Keerllston 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Despite living in Germany, I am pretty much unaware of the Knutmania but I watched the news today about his first birthday. I read the article and feel its pretty much comprehensive (for now) and satisfies the FA critera. Three suggestions for further improvement:

• As a result its shares at the Berlin Stock Exchange, which are normally worth around 2,000 euros, more than doubled in value closing at 4,820 euros just a week later. reads awkward because the main verb ("doubled") comes so late in the sentence.

• Changed to "As a result, its shares more than doubled at the Berlin Stock Exchange; previously worth around 2,000 euros, the value closed at 4,820 euros just a week later."

• The paragraphs starting with Knut has also been the subject of several popular songs in Germany has two also's in it, which is a little awkward once you have been wiki-trained to notice also-itis.

• Removed the first also... also.

• Written by Craig Hatkoff and his daughters Juliana and Isabella, the 44-page book entitled "Knut, der kleine Eisbaerenjunge" ("Little Polar Bear Knut") includes Knut's life story as well as previously unpublished photographs. I know the source says "Eisbaerenjunge", but the real German title would probably be "Eisbärenjunge". (Only use ae instead of ä if ä is not available, which is not the case on wikipedia.)

– sgeureka ^t•c 10:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I agree with the suggestions, especially the German translation; I wasn't aware that there could be two variations, but I agree with you after doing a quick Google search. Changes made! Thanks again. María (habla conmigo) 13:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support The article is concise and well written. User:cwpreston (User talk:cwpreston —Preceding comment was added at 20:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• cwpreston (talk · contribs)'s second edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The current article does not explain how and when Knut was named after his birth, and what the name means in German. It is a small consideration, but if added then FA status seems likely. Zidel333 (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Knut is actually a rather common name in German (from the Nordic word for "knot," apparently). Some zoo animals have raffles or a vote for the public to decide the name of the baby animal, but for Knut this was not the case. I've looked previously and just did a few more searches, but cannot find who named him or why. María (habla conmigo) 16:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. If you cannot find the info, than disregard my comment. It just seems to me its a pretty basic feature of most FAs to have some etymology aspect, and considering the name is German, most English speakers would not know what it means. Perhaps our German colleagues know of a source, you may want to ask. Zidel333 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure; it is a common enough name (as the disambiguation page shows). Etymology would be interesting if it were significant in some way, but in Knut's case it's just a name. :) I'll keep searching for just who named him and when, however. María (habla conmigo) 19:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked the available German sources for half an hour. There's nothing that would suggest that there is anything special about Knut's name. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your time and effort, sgeureka. María (habla conmigo) 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.