Talk:Freya (walrus)

August 2022
This particular Walrus has been spotted in various other places around the North sea in the year leading up to her untimely demise. All of this is well documented in the media. Maybe include some other sightings in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.88.206 (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd love to, could you help perhaps by pointing out any sources (most of the media attention is focused on her death at the moment, making it hard to find any other sources!)? Thanks for the suggestion! HenryTemplo (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm coming across quite a few in Dutch but this one is in english. She made the news then when she was using a submarine of the Dutch navy to sunbathe in Den Helder, the Netherlands. https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/10/travelling-walrus-hitches-a-lift-with-dutch-submarine/ 143.176.88.206 (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, Thankyou so much! Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The BBC picked her up in Scotland. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-59636151 143.176.88.206 (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, last one I can find quickly. This is a guardian article on Freya snoozing on the submarine. Don't know how wikipedia rates its sources but this might be considered more reliable than Ducth News. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/03/walrus-leaves-arctic-comfort-zone-for-snooze-on-dutch-submarine 143.176.88.206 (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thankyou! Although I don't think the reliability of Dutchnews is a problem, although it's always worth to be sure! Have an amazing day! HenryTemplo (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Sank
The hook was amended per discussion at WP:ERRORS. It now reads:


 * ... that a walrus named Freya was spotted riding a Walrus-class submarine, and later sank several boats in the Oslofjord?

Potential photograph available
Hi @, this likely isn't going to be of use for the DYK due to quality, but I've just seen that here a photo showing her in front of a (censored) crowd is captioned "Free use of photos with credit." I'm not sure how to interpret this, but it could mean that we might be able to have it in the article. Would likely involve some work determining what license this could be interpreted as. -- LordPeterII (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the photo @LordPeterII! I am no means an expert on copyright, but we could try posting this to the relevant noticeboard (perhaps the help desk?). Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph about Walrus "Stena"
Greetings @, I have removed a paragraph you added about another walrus named Stena (source), which also happened to be in the news recently. I don't see how the incident fits into this article, specifically into the Criticism section. And altough I agree that these incidents beg the question of "why did they travel so far south?", we need to be careful lest we add WP:OR into the article, so we first need sources that discuss this question. We can discuss here how to proceed. LordPeterII (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I don't agree with your opninion. Stena did not survive the rescue effort, thats the matter. And critics will have to consider the harms of failed rescue attempts. Thats what I wanted to point out. Also I sure did appreciate your interfering and speedy deletion... Good evening, Sir!--Kresspahl (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I understand now what you meant to say. We might be able to add that in some fashion, as a sort of background info why a transport might not have been considered. I will try to come up with something, and then you can see if you like it, okay? --LordPeterII (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added back in the news about Stena, in a different way. I have also added a section about the "why did she travel" question. Are you okay with how it looks now? --LordPeterII (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The lacking info now is, that Stena too came all the way South and then headed for the eastern Baltic. She was no zoo animal... But up to you.--Kresspahl (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added in a "wild" to hopefully make it clearer that she was not a zoo animal. However, I feel that we should keep the information on Stena minimal in this article, as it is about Feya explicitly and not the "wandering walruses" (not an official, just my term) in general. If you want, you could try and create her own article at Stena (walrus), that would be better imo. --LordPeterII (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Is "murder" really an accurate word?
Is "murder" really an accurate word? Seems less-than-charitable to the Norwegian Gov't. Ignoring the "human being" aspect of that definition, do not they define what is lawful and what isn't in their country? Especially given she was euthanized for her own safety. "She was murdered, her cause of death was euthanasia." seems logically incoherent to me. We generally wouldn't say a senior citizen who undergoes medically assisted suicide has been murdered, by analogy I think this fits this scenario as well. If anyone murdered her, it wasn't the government, but the plebian. 2001:56A:FC0D:DA00:C70:B532:1D25:CB4C (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't, since murder is legally defined as the unlawful killing of a human being (not a walrus). I strongly believe that "euthanize" is an equally inappropriate word, as euthanasia is what is done to an animal if it is suffering, without hope of recovery, from an illness or injury. What was Freya's illness or injury? The words "euthanize" and "euthanasia" are BS with regard to Freya. I believe that every occurrence of those words in this article should be replaced with the words "kill" and "killing". After all, we don't use euphemisms here on WP. I'd like to know what others think before I make such an edit. Kelisi (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree with you, @Kelisi. Freya was suffering, with vets concluding that she was likely stressed and not getting enough rest, and most other options (like moving her) would of likely led to Freya suffering more. In other words, she was not likely to improve in her condition, or at least the Norwegian authorities believed so. Other people disagreed with this assessment, and this is discussed in the article. And of course, most of the sources used in the article (ignoring the oft-sensationalised headlines) use "euthanised" or some other euphemism (eg. "put down"). I don't believe that euthanasia is a euphemism for killing in this particular context. It's made clear in the article that Freya was suffering and that the only option that the Norwegian authorities thought they had to alleviate or end that suffering was to euthanise her. Therefore, I don't think it would be appropriate or helpful for the reader to substitute "euthanised" with "killed". Regardless, have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What editors think is of no relevance - we do not editorialise or seek to right great wrongs. We should use the term used in reliable sources, or a neutral synonym.  Most such sources seem to say "euthanise" or "put down", rather than "kill" or "murder", and so should we.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As much as I sympathise with the feeling that her death was unjustified, I agree with that we must stick to what the sources call it. So the question is not: Was she murdered (certainly not per definition, although it may feel like it), killed or euthanised? But: What do the sources say?
 * Interestingly, for the latter two options there is actually some reason for debate. I'll list those sources currently in the article by what their headlines call the incident:
 * Euthanised (or related euphemisms like "put down"): BBC, Guardian, Sky News, Sky News #2
 * Killed: CNN, Life in Norway, Washington Post, NU.nl ("gedood" = "killed") New York Times
 * Other (e.g. murder): – (none)
 * This actually results in x5 killed vs x4 euthanised (although we could discuss whether "Life in Norway" counts as a very reliable source). I was personally leaning on "euthanised" being the appropriate term (since they did consult vets and stuff), but just from the sources we might well have both. Opinions on this? An alternative might be to explain the issue in the article, though I'm not sure how that would best be done. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: This was only a brief check based on the sources currently in the article. There are many more out there which – for a thorough anaylsis – we should consider as well. For example, many German sources like this one seem to use "euthanasia", even the notoriously sensational (and mostly unreliable) Bild, whereas an Austrian one goes with "killing", and thenGerman Euronews simply declares her "dead". My French is much worse, but again I see a lot of "euthanasia", e.g. here and here. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that the suggestion for using the word "kill" is not "editorializing". "Kill" is, in fact, the most basic, neutral term for ending a living thing's life, whereas "euthanize" is –let's face it – nothing but a euphemism for "kill" here, as the grounds for using that word are pretty flimsy (what kind of examination did they do to determine that Freya was "likely stressed"?). In the interests of accuracy, I think the word should be "kill", as there is no question that they killed the animal, and quite a bit of debate about whether it was warranted. Saying "euthanize" is editorializing, taking the Norwegian authorities' POV (although, having said that, a Norwegian official on the news last night said "kill" rather than "euthanize").Kelisi (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that "killed" is a somewhat neutral term – but I think it is not perfect in all circumstances. Just consider any controversial topic (which I don't want to drag this discussion into, it's merely used as a example) like e.g. abortion: Do you say "kill an unborn" or "abort"? This is controversial as f*ck (well, at least in the US), and we can thus not easily infer the proper word just by using the most basic term.
 * I also disagree with your other point, that the reasons for using euthanaize are "flimsy". what kind of examination did they do to determine that Freya was "likely stressed"? This is a valid question, but it is not our job to determine whether the examination by a veterinarian was done appropriately. None of the organizations criticizing the death, either, knew anything about the health situation of Freya (with the sole exception of Rune Aae maybe, who actually seem to have studied Freya)! I am not a veterinarian, so I would likely have had no idea whether she was healthy if I had stood before her (which I wouldn't have because it was forbidden, but that's not the point) . I only know that sometimes, euthanazia is warranted (if you've had pets, you know).
 * I am very sympathetic to the animal (heck, why else did I contribute so much to the article?), and am personally as angry as anyone about not knowing whether this was appropriate or not (I actually feel that it was not). But I'd personally like to keep this just to the sources, so as to stay as NPOV as possible. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, but I maintain that "kill" is the nearest thing that English has to a neutral word for the act. Other words meaning "kill" are used to specify what kind of killing is being referred to. To take your example, it is abort if what is being killed is a foetus. Further, it is execute if the one being killed is a condemned prisoner; assassinate if it is a killing of a political figure committed for political reasons; slaughter if it is an animal being prepared for butchering; and of course euthanize if it is an animal suffering from illness or injury with no hope of recovery. Each one of those words is being misused if the context doesn't fit the word's specific meaning. You don't "abort" a pig to make bacon, ham and pork chops out of him, nor does an abortionist "slaughter" a foetus. A political opponent who shoots a country's leader dead over political differences is not said to "execute" him, and a firing squad does not "assassinate" a convicted criminal. And so on. And I still see that the justification for using "euthanize" here hasn't truly been established. It continues to be a highly debatable point as to whether killing Freya was warranted, not only among animal lovers, but even among experts. Incidentally, slay is a neutral term too, but only in literature; in the folkspeech, though, it has come to have a bit of a visceral effect and is not neutral and thus not appropriate, however literary WP seeks to be; so it won't do.Kelisi (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly impressed, this is a really fine reasoning. I'm tempted to be convinced; however, I would like a few other opinions (mini-consensus) before making the change. And even then, I'd still like to preserve the information on the usage of the term euthanasia in several sources in some way. Maybe have a small note with an explanation on why some sources say euthanised, but we don't follow. And I'd really like at least one source that actively questions the usage of "euthanasia" (it may be that some of the critics have said that, but I can't find it atm), i.e. not merely calling it a killing, but calling it a killing because euthanasia is not the right word. Then we'd have a watertight reason.
 * As you have previousely participated in this discussion, what do you think @{u|Ghmyrtle}} and ? --LordPeterII (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I studied languages in university, including things like semantics. I, too, have been hoping for a few more opinions. I am not averse to it being pointed out that some sources call the killing "euthanasia". Yes, let's hear some further opinions.Kelisi (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick with the euthanasia wording, for a couple reasons. I'll start with one that hasn't seemingly been explored yet, namely that as far as I can tell, the Norwegian authorities intent was to euthanise Freya, as in they wished to stop suffering that she would (as far as they were concerned) not recover from, which fits the definition of euthanasia.
 * Regarding a source for this debate for "euthanise" vs. "killed", this I think reflects what the real debate is. People are not objecting to the use of the word "euthanised" in reference to Freya, instead they object to the the descision to euthanise her. Paralleling the Abortion debate again, people (generally) don't object to the use of the word "abortion", they instead object to abortions. In fact, those who push for "abortion" to be called "killing" generally want to push a POV, and I feel the same could apply here. Thus, "kill" can just as easily be used as a non-neutral term, especially in some contexts. "Euthanise" in this case can be more reflective of what actually happened, the intent was to euthanise her, as I discussed. Personally, I think the best course of action for us here on Wikipedia is to wait a few weeks or months, see if any sources discuss this dispute of wording, and come back to this discussion to establish some firm consensus based on some retrospective analysis by reliable sources. :)  HenryTemplo (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also a valid aproach. Reminds me of the whole capitol affair (ugh I really don't want to start on that), where the article title has changed over time as the dust settled and the sources became clearer in what to call it. @ if it would be okay with you, we could shelve this discussion, and return to it later. For now, I'd definitely add a small note that mentions the use of "kill" vs "euthanize". --LordPeterII (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

On a related matter, how exactly did they kill Freya? Firing squad, like Harambe the gorilla? The sources seem curiously coy about this. Muzilon (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, we don't know. I remember reading "humane", and I certainly believe they weren't trying to be cruel. Likely how usual euthanasia is done; there was no apparent time pressure here like with Harambe (and this was, after all, not Texas. Carrying guns around in Norway is only a thing in Svalbard). I'm personally convinced it was a peaceful death; the issue is rather whether there had to be any death at all. For Stena (walrus) the sources confirm that she was not healthy, yet she didn't die by euthanasia, but likely from stress/malnutrition/bad health. For Freya, we don't really have the veterinarian's assessment (yet?), which certainly would help to determine whether the euthanasia claim about her health was justified. Who knows, in time sources might become available on that. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Only been a few days, but the BBC has done this article: Freya the walrus: Did she have to be euthanised? . Thought it might be useful! :) HenryTemplo (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The walrus was shot with a rifle. The minister was coy about the ammunition but presumably it was a high-powered rifle (see report for typical walrus hunting details).   I have added details and sources for this.  As the walrus was shot, and then cut up we should state these plain facts rather than use inappropriate and imprecise terms like "euthanise".  See MOS:EUPHEMISM. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, these sources were exactly what we were looking for I think! Previously, we only had the official statement claiming a "euthanasia" vs the criticism; but we didn't know anything about the procedure (I also stand corrected on not assuming a firing squad). MOS:EUPHEMISM was discussed throroughly above, I think; neither nor I were unaware of this. I'd like to point out that animal euthanasia is not listed there as an example directly; and actually, in the animal euthansia lede we are given euphemisms for euthanasia, such as "put down". But although I don't believe the term animal euthanasia is inappropriate and imprecise categorically, I agree that with the sources you found, in this case we can state "shot" and "killed" without a doubt. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thankyou Andrew for these sources, it certainly clarifies a lot of questions I and others had. I would now not object to the lede stating "shot" or "killed", although I still think it is important to mention in the article that the procedure was "euthanasia", at least as far as the Norwegian authorities were concerned (and as described by multiple reliable sources like the BBC). Again, thankyou for finding these sources, and have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: In the current state, "euthanasia/euthanised" is now only used thrice: In the infobox, the explanatory note and the director-general's statement. I'd let these instances remain, as they're all related to the official statement(s). --LordPeterII (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * English speaker living in Norway here. Just a quick note on a translation issue that might be adding to the confusion: in Norway the word nearly universally used in the media (and in the Directorate of Fisheries' official statement) for what happened to Freya is "avlive", literally "to de-life" (also used on Freya (hvalross)). This is the term used for euthanasia of sick pets but also for "put down" in a wider sense, e.g. it's what's done to animals that are healthy but causing a danger to humans. But I think Norwegian vets might be primed to translate "avliving" into English as "euthanasia", and that might be influencing the translation of the official statement and the reporting about Freya. (I have no particular strong feelings about what should go in the infobox but perhaps "shot by the Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries" is a factual and neutral description.) 82.164.29.114 (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. For example, Aftenposten says "Fiskeridirektoratet har vært sparsommelige med detaljer om forløpet da Freya ble avlivet."  We should refer back to the original Norwegian for clarity when citing contentious quotes so I sought out that source to establish exactly what the minister said about the ammunition. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I made a good search for sources about the killing and the two which I used in the recent update were:
 * The New York Times provides a detailed account of the stages in the operation and uses a variety of phrases to describe it including "mob-like hit", "executed", "slaughter", "death squad", " controlled operation to put the animal down", "killing", "execution", "assassination".
 * Aftenposten makes it clear that a rifle was used with the ammunition normally used to kill that sort of creature.
 * My view is that we should only use "euthanised" for the attributed statements of parties like the minister and PM. They naturally want to use a bland euphemism in their PR but the fact that they are officials does not mean that we have to copy them – see WP:CONTENTIOUS.  "Euthanised" is not a good general term as it suggests a lethal injection and this is not what was done.  "Shot" seems more precise.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * we currently barely have any mentions of euthanasia left. I recognize you're a prolific editor, but at present I can't agree with your stance. The New York Times article you linked above reads like the textbook example of sensational /emotional language; frankly I'm surprised such a paper would use these words. In any case, this is not in the least any point in favour of changing out wording. Moreover, I fail to see how euthanasia would exclusively imply an injection (see animal euthanasia, and although that section of course is not sourced, there are sources). I don't want to dismiss your points, but "they naturally want to use a bland euphemism in their PR" – that's reading a bit too involved, imo. I've also been in contact with WP:CONTENTIOUS previously (and heplped defend it from some bogus attempt to add "conspiracy theorist" to it), but I don't see how that applies here: Euthanasia is not per se a contentious or value-laden word (unless referring ofc to human, involuntary euthanasia), and we have at least half a dozen reliable sources that use it in the context of Freya's death. We are all entitled to our own opinions (and as I have hinted at above, I do NOT think the killing was justified), but we must not get too confident in what words are appropriate, lest we stray into WP:OR territory.
 * I'm formally opposing any more changes to the article's use of "euthanasia" at present, per reasoning given above. Let's keep cool and distance ourselves ( WP:NPOV ); I believe we didn't bring this article up to shape for both ITN and DYK to engage in an endless discussion about terminology, but because we wanted to bring attention to the incident and Freya herself. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Could there potentially be a compromise here? "Killed", "Shot" and "Euthanised" are all arguably accurate terms in this context. Perhaps something along the lines of "Freya was killed via euthanasia by gunshot". A little wordy, but I feel that way of saying things ensures no-one misunderstands what happened and best facilitates the reader to from their own opinion. What does everyone else think? HenryTemplo (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "killed" tells us what happened. The word "shot" tells us how it was done.  The word "euthanized" puts a value on it by telling us that it was a "good death".  But that's the POV of the people who did the killing.  Lots of other people think that this was quite bad and so WP:NPOV requires us to use value-free language except where we are attributing the opinion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to find a compromise, but it does seem a bit wordy and clunky. Not really the best solution.
 * I just realized I'm a little invested, too. Gotta remind myself that I don't WP:OWN the article ( "I believe we didn't bring this article up to shape to" – yeah that reads a bit protective... ), and I can't stand in the way of consensus. However, I still believe that you are not right, and can't accept that change in good conscience. I've problems with your reasoning, I'll try to explain:
 * But that's the POV of the people who did the killing. No. Yes? Maybe. Wait, what do you mean by this? The people who did this might reasonably not think it was a good death. They might think it was bad, or they might think that Freya was a stupid old animal that was be fun to slaughter. We don't know. What we know is: This was reported as an euthanasia. People claimed that they had to put Freya to death, to euthanise her, because she was a) sick and b) a threat to society (latter one likely more important). And then we have several independet reliable sources who report it also as that, as claimed, an "euthanasia". Did they not question it? Why were those sources so stupid, to repeat a word that is not accurate, because it wasn't an euthanasia?
 * Lots of other people think that this was quite bad – including me, yes. Wait, which people do you mean exactly? You, me, ? This NYT reporter who makes it sound like the Norwegian authorities sent assassins? I sure hope you don't mean Twitter? You probably mean those people/organizations whose opinion was reported in reliable sources (Martinsen, Aae, Seal Rehabilitation and Research Centre, Norwegian Green Party etc). Were these "lots"? Well, I was trying to determine that above, but the discussion moved on.
 * You can not, or you have not been able to yet, convince me that the reason for using "killing" is solely to make the article more neutral. made some good remarks regarding language above, but frankly while I believe that reply was good, it doesn't numb my remaining issue: This was reported as an "euthanasia" – and yes, that implies something. But likewise, using the simplest possible term is not always the solution. Sometimes we have to use words that reliable sources use. Shinzo Abe wasn't just "killed", and neither was Caesar. In its simplest form, yes, they died, and they were killed. But we don't write "killed", because sources reported an assassination. Assassination isn't value-laden when discussing an assassination, it's the best word to use. And we have good reason to believe that these were assassinations, and not e.g. executions. (Let's stick with Caesar as an example, more distance.) But maybe lots of people thought that Caesar deserved to die? Maybe he was terminally ill, and Brutus really did him a favour. Do we really know? Do we? ("Severus . . . please..."). I think not. I think we must, until we are absolutely sure (i.e. there is proof), assume that the people who saw (and killed) Freya must have spoken the truth, so long as reliable sources report it as such. Yes, a lot of people on Twitter thought this affair an outrage. I thought it an outrage. Several animal rights or conservation organizations thought it an outrage, not just the ones from Norway, but also e.g. from the Netherlands, too. But did they criticise the decision, or did they provide proof that the killing was unjustified, that animal welfare was being maintained and that this wasn't "euthanasia"? I believe the former, and not the latter. And even then, criticism does not mean by definition that the critics are right, just that we must consider them.
 * As you can see, I'm still somewhat invested. Yet I believe I am not mistaken in my judgement, at least to the best of my ability, even after sleeping on it. And thus, I would get back to 's earlier suggestion of waiting for the dust to settle. I'll move to other places for a while, and let this rest. Feel free to react of course, but I'd suggest that we all come back here much later – it is much easier to discuss the assassination of Julius Caesar, after all, since it's not a fresh shock to us all. (I'd sure not have liked to have a discussion on how to keep his article neutral in March 44BC; I'm glad Wikipedia didn't exist back then.) --LordPeterII (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You can not, or you have not been able to yet, convince me that the reason for using "killing" is solely to make the article more neutral. made some good remarks regarding language above, but frankly while I believe that reply was good, it doesn't numb my remaining issue: This was reported as an "euthanasia" – and yes, that implies something. But likewise, using the simplest possible term is not always the solution. Sometimes we have to use words that reliable sources use. Shinzo Abe wasn't just "killed", and neither was Caesar. In its simplest form, yes, they died, and they were killed. But we don't write "killed", because sources reported an assassination. Assassination isn't value-laden when discussing an assassination, it's the best word to use. And we have good reason to believe that these were assassinations, and not e.g. executions. (Let's stick with Caesar as an example, more distance.) But maybe lots of people thought that Caesar deserved to die? Maybe he was terminally ill, and Brutus really did him a favour. Do we really know? Do we? ("Severus . . . please..."). I think not. I think we must, until we are absolutely sure (i.e. there is proof), assume that the people who saw (and killed) Freya must have spoken the truth, so long as reliable sources report it as such. Yes, a lot of people on Twitter thought this affair an outrage. I thought it an outrage. Several animal rights or conservation organizations thought it an outrage, not just the ones from Norway, but also e.g. from the Netherlands, too. But did they criticise the decision, or did they provide proof that the killing was unjustified, that animal welfare was being maintained and that this wasn't "euthanasia"? I believe the former, and not the latter. And even then, criticism does not mean by definition that the critics are right, just that we must consider them.
 * As you can see, I'm still somewhat invested. Yet I believe I am not mistaken in my judgement, at least to the best of my ability, even after sleeping on it. And thus, I would get back to 's earlier suggestion of waiting for the dust to settle. I'll move to other places for a while, and let this rest. Feel free to react of course, but I'd suggest that we all come back here much later – it is much easier to discuss the assassination of Julius Caesar, after all, since it's not a fresh shock to us all. (I'd sure not have liked to have a discussion on how to keep his article neutral in March 44BC; I'm glad Wikipedia didn't exist back then.) --LordPeterII (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to pop in here – are there other example articles of wildlife that got put down on Wikipedia that we could draw from, in terms of wording? I agree that euthanised in a clinical veterinary setting brings to mind a sedative followed by a lethal injection, but in a non-clinical veterinary setting, especially for wildlife control, I wouldn't assume that a), a lethal injection would be used, or that b), just because a rifle was the given method, it wouldn't count as being euthanised. Walruses can really fucking move on land if they want to, and no way is anyone getting close enough to an animal that big, with a hide that thick and teeth that large for an injection to be reasonable – you can imagine the chance of it going wrong, and causing further distress to both animal and human, making it an unsuitable choice for putting a Very Large Fighty Animal down.
 * Instead of euthanasia, which I think does bring to mind a peaceful injection too much to be used, I'd propose shot, as this is the most accurate description of cause of death, and instead of killed, which can sound a little emotive, I'd propose euthanised, which describes the reason for death – her own health and safety, none of which could be assured in this situation – accurately as well. I hope this makes sense. I have to admit I did pop on this article and think "killed? That seems a bit much".--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 15:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Euthanasia" in the infobox really pops out as a strange word for a walrus being shot. I agree with using "shot".St.nerol (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Cause of Death
I changed the infobox cause of death from "euthanasia" to "shooting", with the word linking to Animal euthanasia and the footnote saying that "euthanised" was in the official statement. St.nerol (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A good compromise, I agree it can stay this way. "Shot" is actually more precise than killed, but still neutral. And since shooting is a possible way of delivering euthanasia, we are now leaving it to the reader to decide on whether or not they want to see this as an act of euthanasia, or an unjustified killing. I hope that this also works for you @. – LordPeterII ( talk ) 09:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's better. It's not quite clear which official statement is being referred to though and I'm not sure we have a link or citation yet.  Presumably it's this one: Hvalrossen i Oslofjorden er avlivet.  This uses the word avlivet which may be translated in various ways – Wikitionary has "kill, put to death, put down".  The word "euthanasia" seems to have appeared in English-language media but their choice of language has been criticised.  I found the latter follow-up after noticing that there was a spike in readership recently and Google News put this at the top of their news search.
 * So, I'm thinking we should expand the note to clarify and explain more, while we still have fresh links.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * sounds good to me. an explanatory note sounds ideal, and should hopefully avoid problems in the future.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 10:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the explanatory note is lacking an explanation. Feel free to amend that if you have time Andrew. Ideally, we should give both the official Norwegian source and the English media thingy. It might likely not have been euthanasia, but we need something to explain why so many reliable sources used that word. I think that's my remaining issue: Dropping "euthanasia" completely from the article text without explanation would create a disparity between sources and Wikipedia article, which might confuse readers. The Sentient Media source is maybe going a bit far with their general criticism and speculation of motivation ("Some critics have suggested that the action was taken to protect the fishing and whaling industries of Norway from the public developing too much sympathy for marine mammals" – even if you believed this bordering-on-conspiracy-theory, then it spectacularly failed); but the non-reflective use of "euthanasia" by the media (especially if it doesn't correspond 100% to the Norwegian wording) should be mentioned. – LordPeterII ( talk ) 10:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just like to chime in and say Thankyou to @St.nerol for providing a neutral compromise! I would just say it might be useful to ensure the entire article is consistent with this wording, but I'll see if there's any consensus to change. :) HenryTemplo 15:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

statue
The story, it would appear, is not quite done. Apparently she is getting a statue. (source in Dutch) https://nos.nl/artikel/2473247-standbeeld-in-oslo-voor-dwalende-walrus-freya 143.176.88.206 (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look around, no English source that I can find as of yet but there is one from the Norwegian state broadcaster NRK. https://www.nrk.no/norge/freya-statuen-avduket-1.16392565 143.176.88.206 (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)