Talk:Christian the lion

Bill S

This article has all the date lines wrong, also showing conflicting information.

Who undid yesterdays input, he looked like he knew what was going on.

Cub born August 1969 (ill check date) 1year old August 1971 a month later flown to Kenya. So G Adamson had him from then on. First reunion August-Sept 1972 Second reunion 1973.

come on guys get your act together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio
It appears to have been mostly copied from a Daily Mail article. Deleted as copyvio. -- The Anome (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete above
I suggest the above be deleted as it serves no useful purpose.LesWeller (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Comments removed (by someone else) as of 19:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC). --EarthFurst (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fix needed
PLEASE fix this page, WIKIans! i fix some info and someone comes in and deletes my fixes and turn the information from Adamson's memoirs back into garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A bot99 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Patience, Grasshopper
the voideo is one of the biggest frauds of modern times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.236.128 (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article is hanging a bit loose, but show some patience. There's a flurry of activity from different sources right now. Some referenced material will get stomped on and replaced -- but it's still in the history and you can pull it back when things slow down. I've added some citations. The entire documentary is very good, by the way. I like it better than Born Free -- and it's a more compelling (and tragic) story. I've ordered Adamson's book so I can get exact page numbers from some of the information I've found in secondary sources. The page should start to stabilize in about a week -- two at most.Tim (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * yes, but why is this tragic?? it's great. Adamson kept up with reports of lions killings and stuff, so  if he thought Christain made it over into Meru when he left his pride, that's a good assumption. Christian at least lived as a free lion for a few years, being born in 1969. not bad, i think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.183.121.131 (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The tragedy was Boy, Katiana, and the Chef.Tim (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, well, yes. still, Adamson did a lot of great work as does tony fitzjohn and many others over the years, and today. i find that i can't focus on the negative in wildlife conservation and animal rights. progress is being made and hopefully will contimue into the future. (by the way, i DO have a wiki name and paswword, but can't ever remember them. i'll log in correctly soon. thanks for the discussion.) still, this page needs to put together better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.183.121.131 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally agreed that it needs work. I purchased the documentary, Adamson's last autobiography, and another person's biography of Joy and George Adamson for material in this article (only the second article I've purchased books for).  I'm still waiting for the books to arrive, and I can't get my wife to watch the documentary with me!Tim (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

i ordered the book too, haven't got it yet, but i had read about all of this many years ago as a kid. in fact, i saw the movie BornFree once as a kid and have never been able to watch it again.. i can't watch that movie or any movie about christian now either; nor can i persuade any family members to watch any of them to tell me how bad the bad parts are! i don't really remember the movies very well! i'm not going to watch them though; the old clip of christian with john and ace makes me cry everytime i see it. i'm trying to stop watching it.... i should have been a zoologist instead of a programmer! i was such a wimp in biology though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tay m1 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Confusion
The article confuses whether the famous reunion occurred in 1971 or 1974... suggesting that it occurred both times.842U (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The famous reunion was in 1971 (or 1972). There was a second reunion in 1974 that was not filmed.  I had clarified that some days ago in the article, but I'll take a look at it again later today.Tim (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This quote (below)... is it really describing the latter unfilmed reunion? It seems to describe the 1972 filmed reuinion.

''"Rendall describes the visit he and George Adamson made (Bourke was not present): "We called him and he stood up and started to walk towards us very slowly. Then, as if he had become convinced it was us, he ran towards us, threw himself on to us, knocked us over, knocked George over and hugged us, like he used to, with his paws on our shoulders."'' 842U (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates
Right now there is disagreement about the dates of the two reunions. I'm not against including the 1971 and 1974 dates that are listed online, but NOT using George Adamson as the source! George Adamson gives the dates as 1972 and 1973. We need separate sources cited for the different dates.Tim (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is another interview up on someone's website that is a youtube video showing an interview john and ace did for PerthToday (or something like that)in Australia. i think it's the day after the Today show interview. somewhat better interviewer than the Today show hosts.

anyway, should i put the link up on the page?

it's a better interview than the Today show one and John Rendall states that 1974 was the last time he (don't know who else) saw Christian. apparently, that's the last time Adamson saw the lion also. it's an interview in 2 parts, about 6-7 minutes each. not bad as these things go.

i suspect that the years stated will be ambiguous, late 1971-early 1972; late 1973-early1974; that kind of thing..... (i need to figure out how to sign these things...i'm new to wiki editting) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tay m1 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tone
The tone of the article has improved quite a bit: it's now more factual and less sentimental. The way the discrepancy on the dates has been handled is well done. Looking good! 842U (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Viral video as its own section
Hello. While its true that the Viral video has brought contemporary attention to this article, when deciding what to prioritize in this article we must have a perspective that is long. The question we must ask ourselves is: "Does a youtube spike warrant a new chapter in the memory of Christian the lion, or is it merely coverage of an old chapter?" If this wasn't youtube but CNN that had covered it and garnered the attention of millions, would we really be arguing for the establishment of a new section? The answer is no, at least according to my observations at WP in the past several years. Its a conduit to the story, but we must not confuse that with the story itself. While its true that Youtube is the reason that many people are now looking at this article, as far as the story of Christian the lion goes, nothing new has happened. It is a celebration of the past, a renewing of interest, but aside from the contemporary interviews with Rendall and Bourke, nothing much has changed.

Also, your fundamental understanding of this article seems to be wrong. "Nobody ever heard of Christian the lion before the youtube video" is about what you put in your edit summary. The video itself is a merely a mash-up of a documentary that's existed for 30 years, which plenty of people heard about--albeit a pre-internet generation who's interest is hard to quantify. Several books mentioning the subject were published by Adamson, so we really can't conclude that Youtube made Christian's fame--it just turned contemporary eyes.

Let's sample some things that truly did catch fire at youtube: Chocolate rain, Bo Burnham, Chris_Crocker_(internet_celebrity). Now take a gander at List_of_YouTube_celebrities, overwhelmingly the people with 'Youtube' as a section are those that haven't really done a whole lot else outside of the medium.Yeago (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 90.201.182.141/Christianthelion, please try to reach a consensus here before making future reverts. Thanks. -Roger (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User is single-purpose account that could very well be the proprieter of the youtube video. See Christian the Lion on YouTube. Just help me with reverts until they get a clue what WP is for.Yeago (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I don't have a clue. There I was, foolishly thinking WP was an encyclopedia for the world when it's actually your own private playground. Well you are obviously the fonts of all knowledge when it comes to WP so I bow to your better judgement and leave you to your worthwhile endeavours. Do please strive to get your facts right in future though; if you check back you'll find I didn't write "Nobody ever heard of Christian the lion before the youtube video". What I actually put was Hardly anyone had even heard of Christian the Lion before the video - which considering the world's reaction is quite accurate. 90.201.182.141/Christianthelion 19:25, 26 August 2008
 * You are the only one pretending WP is a private playground, creating and reorganizing articles according to your own YouTube escapade&mdash;ignoring wiki-precedent. You're clearly new here and so I'm in favor of patience and lenience. Please read above, my quote was  about what you put in your edit summary and the two quotes function about the same. Anyway, unless you have something constructive to say, I am done arguing, as you've skipped the meat of the above statement and aren't open to hearing about how things are done here.Yeago (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do have something constructive to say. You need to think long and hard about why you contribute to WP, and what motivates you to adopt the attitude you do when dealing with the contribution of others; so I'm in favor of patience and lenience; aren't open to hearing about how things are done here? There is no YouTube escapade - I saw something which I thought warranted inclusion so I included it. Have you even seen the video? Do you have any idea what we're discussing? Probably not. I've read some of the comments people have posted on your discussion page and there seems to be a recurrent 'Little Hitler' theme if you read between the lines (or just read the lines in some cases!). You seem to think you've been given omniscient power over all WP contributions. You haven't. That horse you're on looks mighty high - be careful you don't fall off it. 23:16 26 August 2008
 * Yes, I've seen an thoroughly enjoyed the video. Thanks for the psychoanalysis, Doc. You need to remain on topic rather than invoking Godwin's law and trying to wrangle the conversation to be about my motives. My motives are none other than the good organization of this article, as thoroughly explained above.Yeago (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How predictable of you to quote Godwin's Law. I especially like the part of that article which says that Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons. Keep up the good organization. 08:20, 27 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.182.141 (talk)
 * If you were actually addressing anything I said above I might agree, but you're just sidestepping it and talking about me.Yeago (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, i'm confused. is one of you saying that the Christian the Lion youtube videos should not be considered viral because it isn't a proper CURRENT and timely inclusion on youtube?? because it's old film footage?? what?? are you kidding me?? those videos have been viewed about 25 million times on the youtube site alone! (have you forgotten that youtube and the internet did not exist then??) they also hold current number 1 status in about 10 categories - and that's just stats from the views on the youtube site alone! are you saying that if i took an old film of Miles Davis on trumpet or Mel Torme singing (for example) from 40+ years ago, put it together in such a fashion that many MILLIONS of people viewed it on youtube NOW who did not know about Miles Davis or Mel Torme, and spread it around everywhere, and hit number 1 in several statistical spots, that THAT would not qualify for inclusion as a viral video?? how old are you?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tay m1 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is whether or not there should be a separate section for the viral video. -Roger (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, my bad, maybe. what is everyone getting so het-up about then?? i vote yes, but maybe there is a better way to address it. i don't know of one.(not that my vote counts...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tay m1 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't 'vote' at Wikipedia, we discuss things and reach consensus. I have laid out the reasons why I feel like it doesn't merit emphasis as a section header above. If you have some response to that, please discuss.Yeago (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

on thinking about it, i guess it depends on how unique an occurrance the whole Christian the Lion thing is. a lot happened in and around the time that Christian went back to Africa to be with George Adamson, so the whole youtube/viral video thing just adds depth to the story that existed many decades ago, and has incredible relevance today by highlighting the move to more and better conservation of our planet. it might help with the flex point in history that seems to be occurring if this story continues to spiral out of control - and it IS doing that still. the youtube videos are STILL being picked up for display on other sites. the Christian the Lion story is in the right place at the right time to help make a huge impact on how people think about conservation. so, it's NOT just a youtube phenomenon. maybe it deserves special consideration within context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tay m1 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughts!! Does the YouTube/Viral thing 'add depth' or does it simply reveal the depth of an old tale? I think you're right, that Christian the Lion does strike a nerve in our contemporary society and its certainly an article worth developing heavily. Can you give me some specific details into what the YouTube video has changed? I know that there was a reunion between Christian's keepers (noteworthy!), but what else?Yeago (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeago, what are you talking about in your most recent History not - "dodging discussion"? I haven't dodged anything. I've given my reasons for writing the article and as far as I can see I have at least one supporter (thanks Tay m1 btw). As there is no decision regarding the concerns (which I think are yours) I would kindly ask you to desist from persistently reverting this article until such time as a decision has been reached. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to start questioning your objectivity. 90.201.182.141 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't you understand that I can ask you the very same thing and we are back to square one? The only reason I revert it is because you aren't here talking about the video, as your 'supporter' above is. Unfortunately, as long as you're here telling me I'm a Little Hitler instead of addressing the issue as Tay m1 is, I'm going to keep reverting because there is no other incentive for you to join the discussion.Yeago (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, well, i don't think i can contribute anything useful. actually, i don't support either of you. Yaego is being more objective but Rodger sees the timeliness of this issue and how information is changing perception (you probably see this too, Yaego, from a different point of view.) my point was that this youtube occurrence is affective(and effective!) and has reprecussions from the past into the future thru a new venue - youtube. don't you guys see that at least one important thing the Christian the Lion youtube experience is doing is making youtube MORE relevant than just providing entertainment! to me, this was a big, delightful surprise! and how can you say that the only obvious benefit was to provide a meeting between the two men because of events with Christian 35 years ago?? that's the old story. the whole story is rich with details that show clear benefits today - the Adamson Trust was a direct result.

Adamson ORIGINALLY stayed in Kora because he wanted to provide a lifeline for Christian if he needed it. he had been semi-retired, just taking care of Boy after his serious injuries. it was after this that Adamson decided to try to put together a new pride with Boy and Christian and others. Adamson's death prompted the Kenyan Gov't to declare the Meru and Kora Reserves to be national parks. right after Adamson's death in 1989, Gareth Patterson took Adamson's remaining lion cubs into Botswana to continue their rehab.

recently (within the last 6+ years) the Park has been being refurbished to provide a safe home for some indigenious species and it is now becoming a new northern circuit on the Safari route. on the youtube site, all the links to view the Christian videos have links to wildlife conservation organizations. a lot of people are donating to these organizations who never did anything for conservation before. however, this is just beating my own drum, as Rodger is doing. Yaego may be correct, but that leaves a lot of information about causes and effects related to this issue unresolved. to me, this information is important for people to read about. it is the REASON these videos make such a mark. it's a mark on history that people will remember, because people care about this stuff. we all need to be more impersonal here. maybe a new kind of page?? (wish Teclontz/Tim would weigh in on this).(sorry, i must not have been logged in when i first posted this. User:Tay_m1(also, i updated this comment some and fixed some typos and spaced it better. fixed a misleading stetement above about eh meeting between John and Ace). Sep 2 2008 13:20 EST.

one other comment. i guess this history is really George Adamson's history that has been written about long ago. (it started with Elsa the Lion and all that story did. circa 1960.) the youtube interplay is new and so the story is made new because of it. the story has real relevance today, but i'm not sure what treatment is correct. Tay_m1 16:49 EST.

As an employee of the company that owns the distribution and broadcast rights to the documentary, speaking on their behalf, we would like to see as much relevant information regarding the story of Christian The Lion as possible. This includes the YouTube phenomenom. I feel it is relevant in the context that its popularity has led to massive increases of sales through ourselves, Amazon and direct from the Born Free Foundation etc, which in turn has meant a major increase in money being put towards the Born Free Foundation's animal conservation programmes. While this current phase of popularity will gradually die down (as will sales), we should be looking at the bigger picture and the overall benefits YouTube has provided for the Born Free Foundation and animal charities in general.
 * There is no question as to whether the viral video is notable enough to be included in the article. While its unarguably a good thing for the causes you mention that attention be brought to the viral video, these causes do not shape and drive the direction of Wikipedia articles&mdash;encyclopedic style and standards do. This article must tell the story of Christian the lion, and relative to Christian the lion the viral video didn't do much aside from prompt a meeting between the two keepers.Yeago (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think if the viral video section was significantly expanded, then it could become its own section. Or perhaps the Youtube impact is better mentioned in the Born Free Foundation article. -Roger (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be open to hearing about more examples of notable events that were spawned by the viral video. A meeting is so far the sum of it. I'd be really surprised if a truly new chapter in the Christian the Lion saga were opened, but a new chapter in the Born Free Foundation? Perhaps. Yeago (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"What are we fighting over here? Eight Square Feet?" Jerry Seinfeld... on people cutting each other off in traffic. What is the issue here? The article isn't fixed in stone if a Viral Video section is added. The Viral video is perhaps the reason the article exists. Notariety may be the only thing that happened as a result of the video... oh that and the recent interviews of Ace and John. The article could sustain the section... if there was a generous willingness to allow it. 842U (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only person so far insisting on its emphasis is the author of the viral video himself--review of content generated by single-purpose accounts is a matter greater than eight-square feet. "The viral video is perhaps the reason the article exists" - a simple check of the edit history could confirm this, why don't you do that and find out? I'm sorry this matter seems too trivial to undertake a basic analysis of the current conversation, but please do not ridicule my position before doing so.


 * "The article could sustain the section". Yes, read above, where I say I want to [hear] about more examples of notable events that were spawned by the viral video (from my last comment above)--we ultimately agree. What are these notable things? Is the content so weighty, or is there simply a spike of excitement happening now that will be forgotten about in a month like most YouTube sensations? Does a new chapter open? Ok, great, let's expand to cover the ongoing saga of Christian the Lion! Is there renewed interest in the old chapter? Ok, let's develop this and the surrounding articles!


 * As it stands, I think this is a classic case of Single-purpose_account and if you feel I have not handled it well, please let me know how, aside from telling me the whole thing is insignificant. Also, please see Articles_for_deletion/Christian_the_Lion_on_YouTube. Yeago (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it needs to be a whole section, but it should be at least mentioned in the article that the story was brought to the public once again by internet videos. There was, for example, a very positive article about it as "internet video of the week" on Sueddeutsche.de, the online edition of one of the biggest German newspapers. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, its in there. Notability isn't the question.Yeago (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

so, if this story is such a big deal (and i think it is!) why is it not even mentioned on the Viral Video page as being noteworthy?? i just looked at all the info on the Viral Video page and the Christian the Lion youtube video's are not even mentioned! Tay_m1 Sep 2 2008 15:30 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tay m1 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally Yeago I think this is a classic case of you being one of the most sanctimonious editors this website has ever had to suffer. And as I've said many times before, I'm not the author of the video, I just had an opinion that was different to yours. Unforgivable I know. 90.201.182.141 (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * By all accounts a studio movie about the reunion will soon be going into production - a movie which is a direct result of the YouTube video. Starting to stand out a bit now isn't it Yeago? 90.201.182.141 (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Studio movie > youtube spike.Yeago (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Studio movie caused by YouTube spike you 하찮은 약간 찌름 90.201.182.141 (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 実際に完全で、完全な性交のウィットYeagoである. あなたのようなうぬぼれた小さい雄ん鶏の吸盤が編集者I'いかにであることを得たか; llは決して知らない.  YouTubeから普及した何かが認識を得ていること実際にそれ虫. 私は映画が作られて得、あなたが接合する自身のページを得ることを望み嫌なやつを小さいろばのワイプ食べない.  90.201.182.141 (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If indeed this is the case, the article can move in that direction.Yeago (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Images
Can we include an image of Christian hugging his previous owners in the article? I have to imagine that finding a free image of a lion that's been returned to the wild would be pretty hard (if there isn't any already, that is), so I don't think it would violate fair use.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, snippets from the documentary are available via free/fair use. The viral video used them afterall. Yeago (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

John and Ace
Would like to know what John and Ace are doing now. Did they marry? Have any children? And do they plan on republishing their 1971 book called A Lion Called Christian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.183.160 (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

it's already known that there will be a newly published version of the book that Anthony Bourke wrote. don't know when. there is also talk of a new movie at some point (maybe...(another fabulous moment in history for Hollywood to screw up)). John Rendall and Anthony Bourke may prefer to maintain their anonymity. they gave only 2 interviews right after the video hit in the USA - the Today show one and the PerthNow one. any followup of them should be on new pages made FOR THEM, with their consent (or at least by someone who HAS their consent). there's been no new news of them for weeks. they aren't acting like publicity hounds, so maybe they should be left alone. Tay_m1 Sep 2 2008 13:20 EST —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Musical Track
would it be of any interest to list a link to the group Pentangle? they did the music for the original documentary - Christian the Lion at World's End (or Christian the Lion Who Thought he was People)? it's wonderful music, matches the movie perfectly. they have an extensive page to themselves at Wikipedia, we could link to it here. Tay m1 Sep 5 2008, 12:05 pm EST.
 * Do it up.Yeago (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Tragedy struck"?
Is this really an encyclopaedic way to describe the fact that animals in the wild fall prey to other animals? Lampman (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The sequence ends with Boy killing Adamson's assistant. Tragedy seems appropriate.  It nearly destroyed the entire project.Tim (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can can refer to it in the context of their lion-reintegration project rather than using 'tragedy'. I agree with the OP: a lions killings lions isn't a tragedy, its regular business.Yeago (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lions killing lions wasn't the tragedy. They just led up to it.  The tragedy is the death of Adamson's assistant -- a human being.Tim (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That paragraph doesn't even mention Adamson's assistant.Yeago (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

oh, don't be absurd Skywriter/Tim. i expected better of you. you sound like someone who has been watching the youtube videos and crying a lot but hasn't researched the whole story.

for goodness' sake, at the end of the MOVIE AND THE BOOK it is stated clearly that Christian - the last remaining member of the pride that Adamson had put together - formed a new pride, had female lions and cubs of his own by 1974! even Rendall and Bourke speak of this CLEARLY in both tv interviews that they did. yes, Boy was killed after he killed one of Adamson's assistants. ok, so that is not a nice thing - Boy was over 12 by then and recovering from some terrible wounds that obviously left residual problems in his mind. Adamson himself was murdered by Bandits in 1989. another human life lost!

so what exactly is your point Skywriter??? there has been tragedy and death everywhere and for all time. what is your point of bringing up maudlin points w.r.t. this story of Christian the lion? should we write a littel sob story here? the rehab of Christian went very well, actually, and Adamson accomplished MUCH for wildlife conservation in his lifetime (he lived to be 83)and SINCE HIS DEATH ALSO. life is a process.

anyway, Yeago, i'm bowing out of this, sorry, i have no patience with the way this silly discussion is going; you are basically correct with what you want to do with this information, so go do it. carpe diem and so long. Tay m1 17:25 EST. —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

Need to add a reference
I'd like to add the following reference to the end of the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the First Reunion (filmed) section:

Thanks. Earthsound (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. I'm assuming that is where you wanted it. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, however, I mistyped. The reference should replace the "citation needed" request at the end of that entire paragraph. Thanks! Earthsound (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reference request
I'd like to add another reference to the end of the 1st paragraph of the "First Reunion (filmed)" section:

Just the 2nd one (to YouTube), as the reflist is showing the reference from my last request, as well.

The video was created and uploaded to YouTube by the Born Free Foundation. Thanks! Earthsound (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Article is no longer protected. --- RockMFR 16:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Christian the lion
Christian the lion was a very increadibul cub he grow up in a flat with two men and then became a main lion to a group a very amasing lion to be apart of your life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.31.209 (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Birth and Death
Do we know when the lion was born and when it died? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A lion in a department store?!
Frankly, this article raises more questions than it answers. What on earth was a department store doing acquiring a bloody LION (of all things) in the first place? And why did Rendall and Bourke want to buy one?

(Also, how much is "250 guineas" in modern British pounds? Were Rendall and Bourke rich? What was the average British salary in 1969?) 86.143.54.223 (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Christian the Lion (1971 film)
Why is the 1971 documentary not treated and referenced like a film on Wikipedia? Throughout the past forty years, "Christian the Lion" has been considered by some to be the third in the trilogy of Adamson-related films (along with "Born Free" and "Living Free"). I personally saw the docu-film thirty years ago as a Sunday afternoon movie on TV. See the imdb.com listing here .... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074315/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.121.14.11 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian the lion. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080825224758/http://www.kimbawlion.com/couch400.jpg to http://www.kimbawlion.com/couch400.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)