Talk:Flocke

Flocke is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 15, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 8, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
October 6, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 6, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that at only five weeks old, Flocke the polar bear cub from Nuremberg Zoo was touted by Bild to be the future "Mrs. Knut"?

Current status: Featured article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flocke article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Zoo

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles

Article name

Is there any reason this shouldn't be moved to Flocke? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! Moved. María (habla conmigo) 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flocke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I read through the article and made a few minor changes. At present, it meets most of the criteria: it is well-written, it is verifiable, it is neutal, it is stable, and there are no problems with the images.

I have two concerns:

Switching between the Berlin Zoo and the Nuremberg Zoo in the "Infancy and controversy" section is a little confusing. I'm not sure which zoo is being discussed in: "A couple days after the initial media backlash against the zoo". If this is the Berlin Zoo, it should be clarified, and it should also be clarified again in that paragraph that Vera and Flocke are at the Nuremberg Zoo. If the backlash was against the Nuremberg Zoo, I'm not sure what it was about, since there doesn't seem to be any mention of it. Done
My other question is about the breadth of coverage. There is a lot of discussion about the events that have taken place in Flocke's life, but there is little discussion of Flocke the bear. Could more of a description be added? I think there is a good start toward the end of the article (the foods Flocke enjoys, Flocke's weight), but more information would be nice. Of course, Flocke is less than a year old, so there might not be a lot of information available yet (other than "she's so cute"). I would appreciate it if you could look into this. I remember reading about her nose being crooked when she was younger, but that could be considered fairly trivial.

I will put the article on hold for seven days to allow these concerns to be addressed. If you are able to get some work done and then need more time, just let me know. The hold can be extended (if necessary) as long as there is work being done. Please see what can be done about these two issues and then contact me. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GaryColemanFan, thanks so much for the review and the helpful copy-editing. Both of your points are valid and I've tried to address them. I see the confusion regarding Berlin vs. Nuremberg; I think it's important to mention how Berlin's media circus influenced Nuremberg's initial rejection of handraising, but it wasn't worded very well. I hope it reads clearer now?

As for "Who is the Real Flocke", I was really trying to be less fawning and more encyclopedic, but of course I can add a few more personal details, thanks for asking. :) I added the scrunched-nose detail, which ties in nicely with the zoo's assertion that she needs less hands-on attention. I also added a little more detail about her early development and care. Other than that there isn't much info out there (like you said, she's barely seven months old), but hopefully in the future there will be more available regarding her quirky personality. I'll keep looking for more, however, and may add some further information regarding her early care (feeding, playing, etc) later on. If there's anything else that needs work in the meantime, just let me know. María (habla conmigo) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's hard to balance the description of a young polar bear with the desire to remain an encyclopedic tone. I think you've done a good job of adding detail about Flocke to the article. In order to maintain the proper balance, I urge you to continue to add to the article as information becomes available. For now, I'm satisfied and I will have this listed as a Good Article shortly (within half an hour at the most). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I'll definitely keep up with the news and continue to add pertinent information once I find it. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My copyediting

I'm going through and doing some copyediting of this article, to help assuage Tony1's concerns at FAC. Feel free to revert anything I change; my judgment has been known to be erroneous once in a while. Scartol • Tok 13:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't cause an edit conflict just now; I was rushing to address some concerns at the FAC and after my first edit I remembered you were working on the c-eing. :( Thanks for the work so far, and feel free to grumble and curse my name if need be. María (habla conmigo) 16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear trademarking article

This was recently added to the article, but I'm not sure if it warrants mention here since it specifically -- aside from one section that does go into detail about her early life -- does not relate to Flocke herself; it seems to be about the business of trademarking zoo bears (Knut, Flocke and Wilbar) and the legal conflict it may cause. I'm also concerned that although the ref seems to be from an academic source, it does not appear to be notable in that I have not seen it referred to in any of my regular sources for Flocke/Knut.

In October 2008 a legal article was published which discusses some of the trade mark law issues surrounding the marketing of Flocke and other high profile zoo animals [1].

If someone thinks it's important to discussion of Flocke, I'll integrate it back into the text. (ETA: this same addition was removed at Knut for similar reasons.) María (habla conmigo) 13:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in this article

I noticed that the dates follow the DDMMYY format. Is this the norm for Wikipedia? Morenooso (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses European date formatting because it's essentially German; while not standard, many FAs associated with a specific country tend to follow the formatting of their affiliated country. American-related use American spelling and date formatting, British-related use British, etc, etc. María (habla conmigo) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Ortmüller and Court Challenge

I'm curious how this became a featured article when this portion of the article has incomplete information.

Any idea why more info is not included, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.227.180 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed changes by Yllosubmarine 13:43, 29 October 2011‎

"(rm unsourced claims and speculaion; do you have refs to back this up?" These are NO speculations! I'm from Germany as well and there it is a generally known fact that Vilma and Vera are sisters and that Felix was the father. In one newspaper they even showed Felix mating with one (I forgot who it was) and declared that she was his favourite among the sisters. Knut spent most of his time with Dörflein, he even had to end his easter vacation after just a few days, because Knut was suffering. Again, this was all over German media. I saw more than one report on television declaring that the zookeepers in Nuremberg wanted to avoid this and they chose 4 keepers so Flocke imprints on all four of them. If you want sources I'm afraid I can only provide German ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.119.218 (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vilma giving birth in November: http://www.stern.de/wissen/natur/eisbaeren-geburt-werden-knuts-nachfolger-ueberleben-606895.html Vilma and Vera are sisters: http://www.nnn.de/nachrichten/home/top-thema/article//eisbaer-kommt-zurueck-nach-rostock.html Felix was the only male polar bear in the zoo. Dörflein ending his vacation: http://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/berlin/article893196/Er_will_nur_seinen_Job_machen.html Flocke and her 4 zookeepers http://www.google.de/search?q=d%C3%B6rflein+osterurlaub&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy-ab&hl=de&client=firefox-a&hs=3xy&rls=org.mozilla:de%3Aofficial&biw=1067&bih=557&source=hp&q=flocke+4+pfleger&pbx=1&oq=flocke+4+pfleger&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=4451l11600l0l11796l22l18l2l0l0l2l1715l14109l5-3.8.2.2l17l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=64f3071ced8a3015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.119.218 (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion. I know it's frustrating when one's edits are reverted, but reliable sourcing is really very necessary, especially in a Featured Article such as this. Just because something is "well known" does not mean it's suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia -- after all, we value verifiability, not truth! I can't read German, but I don't believe the links you've provided prove what the additions assert. Felix was indeed the only male in Nuremberg, but don't zoos sometimes rent studs from other places to breed in captivity? Despite that minor speculation on my part ( ;) ), I'll definitely look into the matter further -- with a reliable source, this will certainly make for a notable addition to the article, so thanks.

My main issue with the additions is the original research regarding Knut's "suffering" while being separated from Dorflein, and how this differed from Flocke's situation. First, this article is about Flocke, not Knut. While Knut's article mentions the speculation regarding the cub "plainly miss[ing]" his keeper, this is couched with a heavy dose of "he said, she said", as you can tell by the wording. One cannot say for certain what the bear was feeling, or that such feelings can even be attributed to a human equivalent. We don't have any way to prove that Knut suffered, and Flocke did not, due to their separate upbringings. While it may be the case that Nuremberg decided to use multiple keepers to raise Flocke -- in opposition to how Berlin handled matters -- that's not what the addition stated. Again, without a reliable source, it's original research. I hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 01:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but that Flocke had four keepers is currently mentioned in the "Fame" section: "Four zookeepers took turns bottle-feeding the cub with 140 milliliters of artificial milk every four hours". María (habla conmigo) 02:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay to clarify things: This link http://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/berlin/article893196/Er_will_nur_seinen_Job_machen.html states "Dörflein, der seinen Osterurlaub wegen Knuts Geschrei nach 36 Stunden abbrechen musste..." "Dörflein who had to end his easter vacation afer 36 hours due to Knut's crying" http://www.bild.de/news/2007/news/tier-berliner-zoo-weltstar-1642280.bild.html mmentions that Knut hit and scratched his other keepers and that the daily Knut show had to be cancelled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UYLxGN0YGk At 2:02 the conversation goes: "We are four people." "And why?" "Because we don't want to do it like the people in Berlin, like Knut, or Mr. Dörflein, Hats off to that colleague!" "But you don't want Flocke to be too dependent on humans." "Right that's the goal, that's why we are four" "Even though you don't want Flocke to imprint on just one person you all have close contact with her..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.92.130 (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that's very helpful. It's important to point out, however, that to combine these two separate articles and make a conclusion (that Knut "suffered" because he had one keeper, and that Flocke did not because she had four) is original research by synthesis. Synthesis is when a conclusion is drawn by combining material from different sources, when said conclusion isn't mentioned by any of them. Here, one source only states that Dorflein had to cut his vacation short to take care of Knut, and the other states that Nuremberg decided to give Flocke four keepers so that she wouldn't become too dependent on humans. These conclusions may be related, but they're not equal. María (habla conmigo) 13:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Flocke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Flocke. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flocke. 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://archive.is/20121209140808/http://global.nytimes.com/?iht to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/28/europe/EU-GEN-Germany-Polar-Bear.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]