Talk:Marius (giraffe)/Archive 1

Inappropriate Article
"Deaths of notable animals and other organisms are also reported here if they first have their own page."

This animal did not first have its own page. This article should not exist. Death should not be reported on Death Page.


 * Agree. Also, shouldn't it just say ′giraffe′ and not ′Danish giraffe′? It looks as though you can get French and Chinese and English giraffes. Memassivbeast (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no background information about this giraffe in the article, further proof they are using this page for their own agendas. I can't tell if Marius was a natural born citizen of Denmark or an immigrant. Article obviously isn't about the animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.115.192 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

disclosed email as source
DrChrissy, I saw you removed my contribution about the life of Marius. An email is indeed just as low quality source as the snowden files, but at least it is a source. Unfortunately, I could not find the information on the web elsewhere. I do think it is valiable to an article called Marius to include information about the life of Marius, as in a biography. I received this letter by email from the Dutch Zoo Federation. They are located within the zoo Artis in Amsterdam, just like the organisation EAZA. So these are direct lines. The email is not faked. I would not have the time or interest to fake a 2 pages long letter and only use a snippet of it. When I try to be objective, I do think it does not look like suspicious. Email conversations are also accepted in court cases. Moreover, there are enough articles on wikipedia that are completely unsourced. I would argue to start first with deleting all those, before removing my contribution. Lastly, if a source is unreliable, there are templates for this. For example [unreliable source?]. I hope you will take these argument into consideration. Thank you. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the email source as being potentially unreliable. Using just any source is not acceptable on Wikipedia as indicated at Identifying reliable sources.  By the way, please keep your comments related to the article and its content.  It is not acceptable to comment on editors.  I do not like being called "a pain".__DrChrissy (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Apologies for the caused agitation. Timelezz (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the citation to the email, and replaced it with a citation needed tag. As was explained at the help desk, unpublished (or unreliably published) private communications (letters, email, etc) are not acceptable as cited sources in Wikipedia articles. A dropbox posting is not "published" in any meaningful sense, in my view. It is also a copyright infringement, unless permission was given by the sender to post or publish it (and such didn't seem to appear in the email itself), and so Wikipedia cannot link to it under WP:ELNO. DES (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see tht in this edit has reverted. This is, in my view, a clear violation of policy. I explained the reasons above. This violated WP:RS by citing an unpublished source, and violated WP:ELNO by linkling to a page that infringes copyright. What justification is there for the revert?  would you care to comment? DES (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Identifying reliable sources says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources and later Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited." The policy {{Wikipedia:Verifiability]] says: {{tq|Source material must have been published}} and later {{tq|Unpublished materials are not considered reliable.}} WP:ELNO says that we should not link to: "{{tq|Sites that are not reliably functional and/or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time.}}" and that we should never link to {{tq|Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it.}} This link probably violates the first of these, and clearly violates the second. DES (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And Linking to copyrighted works says "{{tq|if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.}}"


 * Thank you for engaging in the discussion. Apparently I reverted the edit ignorant of the fact that you've provided an explanation here. As discussed above, there is a concern with low quality sources. No doubt about this. As was discussed in the Helpdesk as well, it largely depends on the context as well. Here I believe this context justifies the source. Above I've already pointed out that there is no one who really disputes the email. The information is not contested, or controversial, and I believe it is objectively obvious this is not a fake. The concern is pointed however at the type of source and its quality. Which is a legitimate concern. Let me first clear some allegations. There is no concern of copyright infringement since this is not published on Wikipedia itself. I can assure you that this was a public mailing that went out to many readers and I've requested to make it public as well. But even in the case there was no agreement, still it would not be copyright infringement pertaining to Wikipedia. WP:ELNO and Identifying reliable sources are advises but are not definite rules of sources that are absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia. So it is really good that we talk about this, but it aren't strict rules. The argument that the upload location is unstable can easily passed by, by using websites that archive the web. If this is the argument, I suggest to take appropriate measures to archive the document. That would be a reasonable solution. The other arguments point at the fact that the quality of the source is low. This is correct. The choice is between either a low quality source or no source at all. Logically, adding no source at all reduces the verifiability. I would reason that in this case, having a low quality source is better than no source at all. The content of the email itself is not contested and provides a source of verifiability to the reader. With I've agreed to add a template to the source that questions the reliability of the source, which provides a decent warning to readers. In this case, I deem that a perfect way to go about this. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There very much is a concern with copyright infringement. You, by publicly posting someone else's email without permission, have infringed their copyright. The web site where that was posted should therefor not be linked to. You cannot legally archive the document without such permission. Unless the zoo issues a press release or public statement covering the content of this email, or gives you permission to publish it, we can't use it. Identifying reliable sources is a guideline, yes, not an absolute rule, but WP:ELNEVER which contains the prohibition on linking to copyright infringements is not optional, it is an absolute rule. DES (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view the proper course is to remove this source, and if an acceptable source for the content cannot be found, to remove all content supported only by the email. "Unsourced content may be removed if it i not sourced after being challenged." DES {{sup|(talk)}} 19:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been an independent member on several zoo committees and I would NEVER publish an email circulated to other committee members unless I had the written consent of the Chairperson. If the editor who created the link to the email does not have this permission, then it is a breach of the committee's confidentiality.  To publish this anonymously on Wikipedia, could bring some very unfavourable (perhaps legal) attention to the project.  My suggestion is to delete all the information related to this e-mail.  It is a minor point anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 February 2014‎
 * Apologies for not signing previous message.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Other Zoos
Cracow Zoo entry: a simple google translation of the Polish source overall confirms the wording of the given source, communication with EAZA etc. The director however doesn´t specifically express disappointment with the killing "method", but the killing and the public dissection.Joen Elmbak (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Related incidents in European zoos

 * I have deleted this section for several reasons. First, several of these incidents are only remotely related to the culling of Marius.  We all know that culling goes on in zoos, but it the 'genetic superiority' reason and the fact that Marius had been offered places at other zoos that are different in this case. People wanting to delete this article will use the argument that it contains irrelevant information.  Second, there is probably a mass of information on "related incidents...".  This will likely develop into an endless list and completely dilute the culling of Marius.  Third, why is the list only European Zoos?  Marius was a giraffe who just happened to have lived in Europe.  If this incident happened in e.g. Australia, would we limit expansion only to "related Incidents in Australian Zoos".
 * By making this large deletion, I am trying to reduce "ammunition" that might be used by those proposing deletion or merger of this article.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Making this about culling practices in EAZA member zoos may help this article more than hurt it. It's better for preserving the details here, and allows long term coverage. This is a phenomenon that happens within EAZA zoos because its rules differ from AZA or other zoos. I'm against merging it into Copenhagen zoo, because there, people will trim it. - Sidelight 12 Talk 22:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree about increasing comparisons between zoo organisations. The article at the moment has the name of a single animal. For those wishing to delete or merge it, they will argue that it discusses too much material that is not related to Marius and so should be renamed or moved. There are mentions in the article about these zoo differences - perhaps these can be strengthened?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It will prevent the article being merged into Copenhagen zoo, where it can easily be trimmed. This is part of a larger issued that was allowed because of EAZA practices, and this was brought to light by this event. The information here is preserved better this way, because the events and responses strengthen the position of an article on EAZA zoo culling practices. The second Marius is a separate incident, but it is related to this one. Also, where can this second and other EAZA incidents be included? - Sidelight 12 Talk 23:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * EAZA has its own page. I suggest you could write a section on the page, perhaps headed "Controversial policies" or similar. --unsigned DrChrissy (talk) 23:45, February 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a page about this section's topic, but I think it got deleted. If it hasn't been deleted, can anyone provide the link. I'll start a page at Articles for creation, after which the title can be renamed. I'll consider adding a section to EAZA's page.- Sidelight 12 Talk 04:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidents of killing animals in zoos here it is. Add content here. - Sidelight 12 Talk 05:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is rather related to the European Endangered Species Programme the organization EAZA. Timelezz (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Came across this which tells that "In December the two old hippopotamuses were euthanised to make room for Californian sea lions, Malayan tapirs and Asian elephants." Unfortunately, don't know where to add it. Timelezz (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a working draft for anyone to contribute to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zoo incidents. Work on developing the title and content. Please don't rush it into mainspace, until its ready. - Sidelight 12 Talk 02:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Culling
The inserted reference to the quite detailed press release is essential. The quote from it here is not just a random one or too vague, since it represents key words to policy, including possible short lives for the animals. Joen Elmbak (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The quote mentioned above was replaced by another poster. The current version "As the Zoo was unable to find a suitable place for the giraffe, and considered sterilization as a loss of "space for more genetically valuable giraffes",[5]" is much too simplified, IMO. The zoo press release (Why does the zoo not use contraceptives) and the quoted text by Young in the section Notable Persons both say that the zoo doesn´t sterilize because of the animal´s life quality. This part of the decision-making should definitely also be mentioned, IMO Joen Elmbak (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Have inserted the life-quality aspect of the decision, with sources Joen Elmbak (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Marius?
Does someone have a photo of marius, free of any copyrights that we could use? Timelezz (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sterilization
SkaraB, this was correct. The Zoo did consider sterilization a loss of space. Think it through: sterilization means you keep the animal. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Also this edit is incorrect. It was not only related to sending Marius to others zoos, but also keeping Marius themselves was considered a loss of space. Please read the source. Would you be so kind to correct this mistake? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Who owned Marius?
The text says: "the Copenhagen zoo does not own its animals, but governs them", while the graph box has Copenhagen zoo listed as owner. That is inconsistent. So who was the owner, AZEA, or no one? Timelezz (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Subspecies?
So which giraffe subspecies was Marius? Most are not at all endangered according to our article... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

He was a reticulated giraffe - Lise, Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.96.15 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's not classified as endangered, then. It seems doubtful to me that specific breeding of the ~450 zoo giraffes could be necessary to preserve genes when there's some 5000 wild giraffes of the subspecies according to Giraffe... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Age
All media say dead aged 18 months, but it seems that the zoo´s own webpage indicates aged 2 years (Zoo.dk Facebook, nyheder, Februar 2012). Trying to find out ^^^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joen Elmbak (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to find out as well. Did some google searches for the year 2012 but could not find any article about a giraffe born in Copenhagen Zoo. Media does not report as well. There are photos of a Giraffe born in the zoo posted on Feb 8 2012 on Copenhagen Zoo's FB page. But that might as well be a different giraffe. Timelezz (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A giraffe born at 6 february 2012, and 19 May 2012 . But could not find any other. I did however find a statement by the zoo that in 11 years, 8 clubs were born, of which only 2 were females. They say in the article that the bulls are not desired for breeding programme purposes. In other words, males are less 'useful'. Timelezz (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Acoording to the zoos own news zoo.dk (in Danish) there was only born two giraffes in 2012, one being a male (February 6th) the other a female (May 19th), it is therefore most likely that the giraffe born in February is "Marius". News articles about the male giraffe born in February in Danish: http://www.dagens.dk; http://ekstrabladet.dk; http://www.dr.dk TruelzDK (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * May be likely, but unconfirmed. To state as fact is WP:SYNTHESIS. We need a reliable source that states Marius was two years old, if indeed he was. WWGB (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You will never get article from 2012 Saying a giraffe named Marius was born, simply because the Zoo never named the giraffe! I would say the fact that only two giraffes was born in the zoo in 2012, one being a male and the other being a female is more than enough evidence to suggest that the male giraffe is in fact "Marius"! If that is not enough evidence would a mail from the zoo stating when the giraffe was born, be good enough as a reference? Also there a at least one interview with Bengt Holst (the scientific director) correcting a journalist that the giraffe is not 18 months old but 2 years old, would that be sufficient as a reference/evidence? TruelzDK (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The interview response ... yes. WWGB (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay the interview can be found here: http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/frontalt/article2215859.ece it's 12:30 minutes into the video, the interview is in Danish though.TruelzDK (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The website mentions at least two born giraffe. It does not mean there were ONLY two giraffes born. The ones born in Feb and March. Marius allegedly was born in/around August 2012 (hence the 18 months). So this says nothing at all. You could inspect their official annual reports which probably list how many giraffes were born. Timelezz (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

According to Channel 4 News, the giraffe is two years old. Channel 4 News, 4 minutes into the interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin nielsen (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you found the Talk Page. Please stop the edit war and resolve this in a polite discussion to come to a conclusion together. I hear the Channel 4 News interviewer at 3:56 say "2 year old" to Bengt Holst. On the other side The Guardian, Yahoo, Telegraph, NBCNews, USAtoday, etc. report that Marius was 18-months old. So we need something more substantive than what may be as well a simplification by the Channel 4 News reporter. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see CNN, Russia Today, Examiner, and Time say "2 years old". The CNN article says about Holst: "He said the giraffe was 2 years old". Obviously Marius can't be both. I do not find any direct quite that has Holst saying that Marius was 2 years old. Perhaps journalists interpreted like this as Holst did say: “Our most important objective is to ensure that the animals have the best life they can for as long as they live, whether that’s 20 years or 2 years. Breeding and parenting are especially important behaviors for a giraffe’s well-being. We didn’t want to interfere with that.” (spamfilter blocks Examiner, so please google "Giraffe for lion: 2-year-old healthy giraffe Marius fed to lion in front of kids". Until now, I find overwhelmingly more articles that report 18 months that those reporting 2 years. Timelezz (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I´m in favour of giving up the 18 months as an established age. There are no sources from the zoo saying 18 months either; the only zoo source (FB) indicates 2 years. There are some media reports saying 2 years too, and my (speculative) impression is that they have become more plentiful than before. It would be great to establish a chronology of the origins of the "18 months"-information, but it seems impossible, at least now. Joen Elmbak (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the birth videos of the February and May baby giraffes. I've compared them to this photo] of Marius, where you can see his distinctive 'open area' high up his neck, with just a small white stripe. I could not spot that on those birth videos, although I have to say it was difficult to see and perhaps I am wrong? I am positive that the May video is not Marius. On the left side of the May giraffe's neck the white stripes make a cross, which is not on Marius neck. I assume these stripes do not change over time Timelezz (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ps. the FB source of the Zoo does not say it is Marius. It only says it is a baby giraffe. So it is not enough. Timelezz (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * At least, both age options should be mentioned, such as "24 or 18 months". It weakens the article´s credibility to ignore that much talk and possible evidence of the age being 2 years, and this in an introductory/highlighted part of the pages, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joen Elmbak (talk • contribs) 06:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a link (I have already posted this once here) http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/frontalt/article2215859.ece 12:30 minutes into the video Bengt Holst corrects the journalist who claims the giraffe is 18 months old, Bengt corrects him saying it's 2 years old.TruelzDK (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the source I hoped for. I don't speak Danish, but he clearly corrects the interviewer and says "two". I have added this in the Article now. I retained a mention that most media wrote "18-months". This may be important as some people would find the age of the giraffe relevant for their opinion on the culling. So historical reasons, it is good to keep record that the media portrayed as if Marius was 18 months old. In the infobox written that Marius was 2 years old, and added an asterisk (*) behind that, signifying that there is a background story with it. Timelezz (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem with References Missing
Could somebody fix - parts of the reference section have gone? It doesn´t matter, if my recent contribution will be deleted, I can easily make a newJoen Elmbak (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can not find a problem. Where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timelezz (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) On my computer screen, only 27 reference notes visible, versus +50 numbered in the article? 2) By the way, is there a maximum quantity of references, if anyone knows? Joen Elmbak (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 27 referenes, in total 50+ times used. Notice in the reference list 'a,b,c,d' prior to some references, for every usage. Timelezz (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw a broken link. I fixed it now. Timelezz (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It might have been my fault. Joen Elmbak (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mennesker of Medier
There is a reference to http://www.dr.dk/p1/mennesker-og-medier/mennesker-og-medier-101 but it seems to be no direct link to the video. Could someone Danish please fix this? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's actually not a video, it's radio interview. The direct link to listen to it is here (should open in a popup). http://www.dr.dk/radio/ondemand/p1/mennesker-og-medier-101 I would write it in myself, but I am not sure how to edit a reference and I'm worried that I'll break something. --81.161.183.55 (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added your reference. Thank you! Ps. you can always preview your edit before publishing. Timelezz (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
Several of the recent edits to this article have been unsourced or definately POV. This article is being considered for deletion and these type of edits are not helping prevent that. In addition, it is taking a considerable time to revert or otherwise correct these edits. Writing neutrally can be difficult for this type of article. There should be more use of this Talk page to discuss edits, perticularly those which might be contentious.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the votes, I highly doubt this article will be deleted. But much can be done to make the article better. A lot of people just copy paste random snippets of text, which is not really helpful. I've helped to wikify it a bit more. But as a non-native, it is inappropriate for me to be omnipresent. I highly doubt the necessity of all the quotes of people. Timelezz (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed there would appear to be a lot of hearsay and POV that adds no fact to the wiki entry. Given there could well be a second Giraffe called Marius about to be put down, this article could confuse more than it could educate. Worldwide media attention lasted 2 to 3 days and regardless of individual editors POV's, there has been little to bring eduction and information on the whole euthanasia / cull policy that Zoo's around the world have in place. Scaredmo (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Sociozoological Scale", a concept to introduce in Wikipedia?
Would it be an idea to introduce the concept of the "sociozoological scale" in Wikipedia? Increased attention to culling, if oncoming, will inevitably bring up this term (meaning the position of various species on a scale regarding human sympathy, apparently introduced in a text by Arluke & Sanders 1996, cf. p.3 http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/21835601/AnimalFutures.pdf) ... Too early/unknown ? Any expert comments? (hopefully not too off-topic here, for a short remark) Joen Elmbak (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Googled the term. Only 100+ hits and a couple of books. So it is not widely used. Hence, it is not for an encyclopedia to cover this concept. Timelezz (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is no the role of Wikipedia to encourage debate or bring the attention to any particular subject or aspect. It serves only as an encyclopaedia. Scaredmo (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Was Marius inbred?
Phys says so, but a spokesman for EAZA said "Marius was not particularly inbred", BBC reports. Did Phys make that up or what? Timelezz (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Since some genes are considered better/more diversifying, others must have an element of "inbreeding", one could argue. Or - if one says "not particularly bad", another says "not particularly good" - who´s right? Maybe "inbreeding" is just a fluent definition, or constantly changing, in that system. However, this is complicated material (the zoo press release, versus the various expert remarks, versus the journalist´s wordings etc.), and these are my - very superficial impressions. Others might disagree. Maybe a news story with facts evolves Joen Elmbak (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 23:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Physorg could have had a mistake, by assumption when the word inbred was used a lot. I haven't seen other reports of that. The reports said he's genetically similar, which could easily be misinterpreted. Family members are genetically similar. It's better to confirm by another source, or inform the writer of that article for fact checking. The BBC quote is too vague to positively confirm anything. - Sidelight 12 Talk 04:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They are breeding with a couple hundred giraffes. I think the EAZA spokesman refers to that limited herd as 'not particularly' inbred. Probably a mistake by Physorg; but it was used in article headers on other websites, and it caused some online discussion with users arguing that it was okay because the giraffe was said to be inbred. So it is to some extent relevant to mention, but we should not talk too much about it, as it is probably not true and just a minor thing. Hope you like how it is now written down in the article. Timelezz (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I know there are no rules for this, but I think we should remove it. Your insertion was neutral, but it looks bad, as it doesn't help the article. I'm not supposed to insert my own interpretation, but the physorg article could possibly be a mistake. The news outlets repeating over and over again, "Marius is genetically similar" can cause someone to draw a faulty conclusion. Remember how the euphemism fed to the dogs, was literally interpreted for Kim Jong's uncle? One metaphor caused other news sources to catch on and multiply a mistaken story. In the search, I see the same quote used from the physorg article. Also, its too closely paraphrased. We both questioned physorg's report, from the start of this thread. I suggest we find a better source, or use Physorg's dubiously. Paradoxically, Copenhagen Zoo would be the one to know this, and they commented quite vaguely.
 * I just found this The Telegraph.
 * Here is an unreliable mention, so it can't be used. It states that the Copenhagen zoo said he was slightly inbred. If this is not fabricated, the answer will come from Copenhagen Zoo itself. If the answer isn't here, more opinions wanted. - Sidelight 12 Talk 12:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, your edit was good, except, copying word per word needs parenthesis. - Sidelight 12 Talk 13:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is a case of Danish-English translation gone wrong, or a case of people confusing inbred and "well represented in the gene pool". Beyond the above English sources that mention inbreed, I've not seen any saying this. For example, despite the massive media coverage, I've yet to read even a single Danish article that has called this giraffe inbred. However, it has consistently been mentioned that his genes were well represented in the gene pool of the numerous zoo giraffes in Europe. The zoo said it clearly in their press release (ephasis mine):
 * "Copenhagen Zoo’s giraffes are part of an international breeding programme which aims at ensuring a healthy giraffe population in European zoos. This is done by constantly ensure that only unrelated giraffes breed so that inbreeding is avoided. If an animal’s genes are well represented in a population further breeding with that particular animal is unwanted. As this giraffe’s genes are well represented in the breeding programme"
 * In short, no mention of this exact giraffe being inbred, but explicitly states that his genes already were well represented among the many zoo giraffes (= if it had been allowed to breed, a good chance it would be with a female with similar genes; their offspring would be inbred). 62.107.210.245 (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reiterating what I've stated. I've worded it in a way that does not claim that Marius was inbred, but rather that there was a report (an article) that inserted this. I will add Telegraph as another source. It is more likely that the EAZA spokesman responded to these reports than assuming that EAZA spokesman inserted out of the blue that Marius was 'not particularly inbred'. We don't have to do research to the extent of which Marius was inbred. We just present what was said on the matter. I'll reconsider the paraphrasing. Timelezz (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the parenthesis to fix it. In this case, it is better to use their quote word per word. It's better left as it is, to acknowledge the news stories reports. - Sidelight 12 Talk 15:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Problem with the quote is that this is not was the EAZA spokesman said, but how he was parafrased. Though, the article now suggest this is a direct quote of the spokesman. Which is incorrect. If you can come up with an improvement/solution, that would be great! Timelezz (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I know what you're saying. There lacks distinction that the quote is not directly from the spokesman. I can't easily think of the solution to this, but it still needs quotes. - Sidelight 12 Talk 02:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Politics
Found newspaper mentioning of a local city council politician in Munich taking up the case, in relation to the city´s zoo politics - I considered it not really important enough to be relevant for this article. Maybe similar cases will turn up, however Joen Elmbak (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Timelezz (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Placement offers
DrChrissy, shall we shorten the section on the placement offers a bit by something along the lines of "One individual and two non-EAZA members - The Dutch Landgoed Hoenderdaell wildlife park and a zoo in northern Sweden - offered a place."? It omits all the trivial details. I think that would be an improvement. But would like to hear your consent before I move on. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Making edits to this article or any other does not require my consent. I do not own any articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, just to be sure. Though I might be a bit too much cutting away here. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added in to the second statement in the first line - all offers were declined on the ground they did not meet the requirements of the EAZA.  YWP stated publically they contacted Copenhagen Zoo but did not receive a reply whilst they also contacted the ESB to offer to relocate in to the Bachelor herd and again they did not receive a reply before the cull took place. If a reliable source is available for the declined offers that would help the article, otherwise is currently holds contradictions in the form of public statements released by EAZA members. Scaredmo (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to me you have some more information on the matter. Could you go and try to formulate it according to your sources in the article? I also have to add that it is unsure how EAZA responded to each offer. So perhaps it is in some cases better to say "did not make use of" instead of "declined". I'll leave that one up to you. Timelezz (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The information I have would add nothing to the article other than to clarify some very minor points, and minor in terms that are trivial in the broader picture. Whilst the Giraffe program is under the EEB, movements are made through the ESB. I can't publish that on the entry as I cannot publish a source as the official line is that it all goes through the EEB program. Thanks for clearing it up though Timelezz - i'll re-word some of the English text a little later as it seems one or two IP addresses appear to be making a hell of a lot of changes! Scaredmo (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Article is now semi-protected for a week. So have a go! Timelezz (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Name
The main content of this article is not a biography of Marius. Apparently there is not much other information about his life than the controversial culling. Hence, I think it is better to rename this article to something like "Giraffe culling" of Culling in Zoos. Marius could be explained as the lead to the controversy, and other giraffes that were/will be culled can be covered as well. Timelezz (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are several articles about the culling of a single animal which have the name of the animal as the title - see Topsy (elephant), Mary (elephant), Chunee. These animals appear not to have been notable before their being killed  - it was the killing and events immediately before and after the cull that made it notable.  I totally agree there could/should be an article on Culling in zoos, but I believe the issues here are so different that it deserves to be its own article.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a section called Culling in Zoos to the article Culling. Could you be so kind to correct my spelling/wording (non-native English speaker). Perhaps some would like to add at that place. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WWGB You removed a footnote, then rewrite it with syntax errors. Great work! Can you explain why you remove footnotes for being not a reference? How else to add a footnote? Timelezz (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the "syntax" in the revised sentence I wrote. The criticism is a bit rich from someone who writes "despite the zoo only named those animals with prospects of living for several decades" and "why you remove footnotes for being not a reference". If you want to add footnotes, add a Notes section and don't clutter the reflist to make a point. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Those two sentences come from two someones, not one. But please excuse me my ignorance on how to make footnotes. I did not know how to do that. I've now looked it up and made it a note as is described in the help sections. I thought one can use refs for this as well - I have seen this before. Hope for your understandings. If you want to be thoughtful of the fact that I am fallible too, that is much appreciated. Timelezz (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Culling
So, let's have a word about the meaning of the word 'Culling'. DrChrissy said it is the same as killing, but when I look up culling, it means that you separate an animal. And in order to seperate an animal from the herd, you do not have to kill it, right? Timelezz (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct to a point. Culling (which is not only animals by the way) does not necessarily mean death, but I think it usually means the culled animals will be killed.  If an animal was killed because it did not meet a criterion, it was definately culled.  By saing "the same", I was meaning that in terms of Section headings, having material seperately under "culling" and "death" seems rather pointless.  Bring the material together and nothing is lost by removing "Death".__DrChrissy (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that death and culling go very well together. I would indeed prefer those to be combined in one section, as they are so much interrelated. I suggest to have 'culling' as the H1 header and 'death' or 'killing' as a H2 header within the same section. 'Placement offer' is a bit odd there. Perhaps rename that to 'alternatives'? We might even include a section about their stance on neeutering and sterilization. Timelezz (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, I am content with the current headers. Timelezz (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Article needs to be expanded
(( Are the following talk passages relevant any more ? I don't think so, since the questions have been more or less answered)): -- unsigned comment Joen Elmbak 19:16, February 12, 2014
 * Concerning comment on my editing (deleting) of the previous entry: I totally agree, being a newcomer I wasn´t aware of the set of rules, the procedure to cross comments, or the automatic deleting of entries after periods without response. I was worried of overloading the place. Automatic messages informed me about the set of rules, and it was very early in my contributions here Joen Elmbak (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, we all make 'mistakes' in the beginning. That's part of learning. So far, I think you are doing a great job, being critical about your own writings and keeping a balance in the article. Keep that spirit and hopefully you will like to contribute to more articles as well! Timelezz (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The euthanasia of Marius seemed needless because another zoo was interested in taking him. For the article to be of lasting value it needs to have more information. What were the recommendations that he be destroyed based on? Do European guidelines differ from the ones followed in the United States?

Has his death resulted in a reconsideration of policies?

If this article was linked to other articles it may serve a useful purpose. I think I should not be merged with the Copenhagen Zoo article but it could referenced and then linked to its own page.

That an healthy animal was put down has raised many questions. If the article is developed it could be useful and informative. If all it does is record an event then it should be deleted. If this death leads to changes in policy or public forums it should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnccain (talk • contribs) 02:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the article, and follow the news to answer your questions. The article and its linked video show that Jack Hanna says this practice doesn't happen in American zoos. This was done for reasons stated by Bengt Holst. (two of your questions answered) Ok, sorry, these edits and linked information occurred after your questions. - 21:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is better merged into an article about (European) zoo practices, but enough sources must be found first. This can be used to expand the article, focusing on European zoos. http://world.time.com/2014/02/10/marius-the-giraffe-not-the-only-animal-zoos-have-culled/ - Sidelight 12 Talk 21:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why give 'orders', when you can do it yourself? Timelezz (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did the work to answer the two questions before reading this. I was asking for collaboration and input, because I know it would get rapidly deleted if it didn't have support or have the right topic. A conceptual draft is at Articles for Creation that I did contribute to. - Sidelight 12 Talk 12:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Article is kept. . Moderator said:

The result was keep. Discussion in this AFD changed from supporting deletion or a merge/redirect to supporting a keep based on the number of reliable sources currently available and the current ongoing coverage. That said there were a large number of new accounts and IPs who edited this AFD and made the result somewhat unclear. For those who voted to delete/redirect/merge my suggestion would be that you give it a month and see if the coverage continues and hence the depth of coverage. Callanecc 09:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So we need to keep working on this this article and keep an eye on follow-ups. Timelezz (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Notable individuals
1) Lots of people have commented on this case globally. Would suggest expanding this section and re-naming it something like "International debate and notable individuals" or the like. Of course, that section shouldn´t be "inflated" too much. Have collected 7 representative examples of views, expressed by columnists and experts, but appearing again and again in the debate, including a good 1-2 line summary of their content. But am unsure of whether to post. There are 5 mainly negative views on the Marius events, and 2 mainly positive views. 2) One could also list short summaries of this critique / appraisal, and then give sources for them in the notes. 3) Additional: some other, more colourful figures who have commented on the case are the Chechen president and the actor Ricky Gervais, but I thought the inclusion of them would definitely "overload" the page Joen Elmbak (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was the editor who named this "Notable individuals". On reflection, I think I meant "Expert Individuals".  A lot of celebrities out there are now campaigning on animal welfare issues, but these are not people I would include as experts.  Perhaps we could have a hierarchy of "Notable individuals" with 2 sub-sections of "Experts" and "Celebrities".  That way, if people complain about whether celebrities are notable or not (which will almost certainly happen), just that sub-section will be affected.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

1) Being a relative newcomer - should I try to post the mentioned, condensed views from the debate for others to evaluate (7 more, after the Hanna and Young entries?). Apologize, am only learning procedures, including the Wiki system of posting reference notes. After posting them, I´d take a break for others to evaluate, unless factual faults turn up. Maybe there´s a problem in presenting such views, though they all contain some broadening perspectives and of course aren´t just emotional responses ... The international debate is very poorly represented in the article so far, and some more examples should be given, IMO. Most of the entries are from people with Wikipedia biographies.

2) as some predicted, press coverage seems to move on into much larger perspectives now, including lots of reporting on the total number of zoo killings on an international level, the background and reasons.  Joen Elmbak (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have inserted the mentioned 7 debating entries, one of them under "Zoos" Joen Elmbak (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I have re-instated the packet again, for consideration. Campaigning could drown the attempts at objectivity in this article Joen Elmbak (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Recent article entry "Keeping animals in European zoos is regulated by EU Council Directive 1999/22/EC. This makes no provision for the slaughter or public dissection of healthy, non-aggressive conservation animals.[57][58] -->: I don´t understand the wording here; the insertion in this section seems misplaced: and I personally don´t find any passages in the (short) sources relating to "slaughter or public dissection of healthy, non-aggressive conservation animals" Joen Elmbak (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have re-read the two short sources given and I don´t think they verify the accompanying remarks given above. They don´t contain wordings like that and don´t deal with those subjects. As said, the inserted remarks also don´t belong to this section. I am going to delete this entry in 36 hours, unless others find things worth mentioning on the entry Joen Elmbak (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. It is in the wrong section, and it's original research. One reference didn't support the passage at all. The other one while it takes time to look at it uses original research. - Sidelight 12 Talk 07:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Educational Purpose"
There needs to be quotations. The use of the term was/is suspect otherwise it is assumed that what it was.I am not paraphrasing anything, There is a whole lot of Harry Potter wizardry going on here .Masterknighted (talk) 10:28, 24 Timelezz (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is difficult for me to read your style of language, but will try to address your points.
 * You have been paraphrazing and then added quotation marks around. You can not claim that to be a quotation, since nowhere in the article is that quote to be find. Alternatively, you might use the quotes as a Scare Quotes, but those are to be avoided. If you want to emphasize that they said it was for educational purposes, you can phrase it like 'According to the zoo it was for educational purposes'. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)