Talk:Knut (polar bear)

What did the activist really say?

Someone posted a link to a place where he posted his opinion. [1]

Can anyone translate German?--Steele the Wolf 03:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation of Activist response

"It is absolutely incorrect that the animal rights activist who filed charges against the Berlin zoo over the hand-raising of Knut (case number 52 Js 698/07) demanded that Knut be killed as well. Animal rights activists fight for the recognition of the right to live of non-human animals. The activist's press release concerning this ended with the line "Therefore, they also have a right to a life", too. It's also not correct that the sloth bear baby who was killed in Leipzig didn't have a chance. The little one had already been accepted by a female dog, he was already drinking again and was being kept warm. It was precisely this important fact that was ignored by the prosecutor's office in Leipzig when determining whether there was a reason for the killing. [Note: the grammar's quite wrong in that last sentence, but I *think* that this is what the author wanted to say.]

Animal lovers were very surprised by today's statement by the director of the Leipzig zoo that this hand-raising of a bear was "an entirely different case" now; after all, the director, Dr. Junhold, also made the following statement in the past: "For the hand-raising of wild animals is not appropriate" ["appropriate" in the sense of "good for the animal"]. However, those who are wondering now and who're asking for the reason for these two different statements are not getting an answer from the zoos. I've got an answer for them: Zoos want to decide from now on who is allowed to survive, when and where. This ethically-morally reprehensible goal of the zoos, this sanctimony and hypocrisy must be exposed first and stopped immediately. This was precisely the reason why I filed charges against the Berlin zoo."

Credit for translation goes to Schneelocke --Steele the Wolf 21:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The activist said he only wanted to show an inconsistency in argumentation, since the Leipzig Zoo had put to sleep a small bear (of another species) some time ago. However, the activist alerted the local prosecutors that the Berlin zoo was committing a felony in upbringing Knut. Either he believed that to be true, or the activist committed a felony himself, for it is a felony in Germany to accuse someone of a felony which was knowingly not committed. (I am a German natural speaker, so excuse my language errors.) 91.1.132.5 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your English is very good as far as I am concerned. I appreciate the help, thanks. --Steele the Wolf 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Bild watch blog

Bild is apparently a very popular newspaper in Germany that has a record for a lack of quality in their fact checking, especially when something suits their POV. So I have been told by a few German sources. Below is some information on other articles and webpages who corrected the Bild story.

http://www.bildblog.de/?p=2150

However we must tell you also something sad, something, which one does not learn in the zoo: You were clean-put. Knut should not be killed at all. Nobody had seriously demanded that. You (and obviously also the adults) a “false alarm”2 mounted, as one says in such a way. Exactly the same as many media3, which history from the “pictures” - newspaper far-counted. Therefore is not unfortunately also correct, what today in the “pictures” - newspaper over you stands:

-Google translation [2]

No, a wrong quotation. On 24 January, thus, franc Albrecht, which investigates since sixteen years of animal protection offences in German Tierparks, sent scarcely six weeks away after Knuts birth a press release. Therein it communicated that it had indicated the citizen of Berlin to zoo because of offence against the animal law for the protection, because of the not kind-fair attitude of Knut.

-Google translation

Link to photo gallery about Knut

A few days ago I've added a link to a photo gallery about Knut. Today the Link wasn't here and I could not see why and who has deleted. The link points to my own page, all the photos are taken by myself. I allow linking to this side. If this is not desired, please leave a short notice. Thanks, Jens Koßmagk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.191.111.217 (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I've just replied to your talk page, anon IP, but I will also reply here. I understand that the link you are attempting to provide is your own personal website, and that you give permission for its use. However, the linking of personal websites (meaning those not written by a recognized authority) is discouraged on Wikipedia because of their lack of reliability and notability. Please read Wikipedia:External links for more info. Please refrain from adding links to blogs and personal websites in the future. Thank you. María: (habla conmigo) 12:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had problems in logging in. Thanks for your reply and the information. A second sorry for the trouble. Best regards, Jens —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jensk369 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

No problem, I'm glad you're willing to listen. Oh, and for future reference, to sign your name to posts (because it's helpful on talk pages), just add four tilde (~) after your comment and it'll automatically add your username. Thanks, and welcome to wiki. :) María: (habla conmigo) 13:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Colbert link

What happened to the Colbert link? Isn't it relevant? I think it is because there's a significant issue worth discussion on the main page about how the zoo rallied public media support, and Colbert was one of the first in the United States to cover Knut. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.79.158.200 (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

It is not an official, reliable source; it is a clip of a faux news program in which Colbert jokingly refers to Knut as number 0.5 in his "Mini-Threatdown" despite his cute little button eyes. Therefore, it's irrelevent. Besides, Colbert was certainly not the "one of the first" in the US to cover the story; CNN, MSNBC and FOXnews, among others, got there before him. That's why it was removed. María: (habla conmigo) 13:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a hator! Colbert is always relevant ^CHANDLER   23:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a huge fan, believe me. It's just, you know, reliable news sources take precedence over Colbert calling Knut a "killer" on his Mini-Threatdown, all the while trying not to laugh...  :) María (habla conmigo) 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Colbert link should go back in the "in the spotlight" section; it may not be a serious news source but it still highlights some of the publicity surrounding Knut. Katierunner (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The "link" mentioned in this section (from almost four years ago! wow!) is in reference to a YouTube video that was once present in the External Links section at the end of the article. ELs do not belong in the body of an article per WP:EL. If you can find a reliable, third party source in reference to the Colbert coverage, than it can of course be mentioned in the "In the spotlight" section. I agree it was a notable highlight in Knut's international acceptance. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

German-language sources are okay

To summarize the point I made on my talk page, Wikipedia:Attribution#Language explicitly states that "Sources in other languages are acceptable if no English equivalents have been found," so information from German-language sources should not be deleted, but we should try to see whether or not we can find alternative English-language sources. Calbaer 19:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest something like this http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1887892.htm I don't have time to put the content from there into the article, though :( 121.45.41.8 04:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Knut's name

Does anyone know what the name "Knut" means?

It's a common name, actually. According to Behind the Name, it's "derived from Old Norse knútr meaning "knot." María (críticame) 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't we need a new picture?

I just looked at the picture from Reuter's, and apparently Knut is not a baby polar bear like depicted in the picture on this page :(. Merumerume 02:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary, since Wikipedia is not a primary source and doesn't necessarily need to be up to date with news stories, including recent pictures. Because the image in the infobox is so iconic, I believe it is very befitting to the article. If others wish to see other pictures that are not included, including ones that may be "up to date," they can click on the link to the Commons at the bottom of the page. María (críticame) 15:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Knut's not on a diet

Although many media in and outside Germany reported that Knut is overweight and forced to go on a diet, Dr. André Schüle, the vet of Zoo Berlin, talked in a German TV show Abendschau of Aug. 3 [3]that the "diet" story is some misunderstanding. He explained that Knut is now given less milk porriage for babies, and more "adult foods" such as fish, meat and vegetables, and he is neither too fat nor too thin.--Eryniel 05:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

GA tips

For GA, expand the lead. It should summarize the article, right now it is way too short. Also, format the refs properly and consistently, they should look similar to the current footnote number 30. Dates in article are not formatted consistently. Rlevse 12:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have put the article on hold until the following issues are addressed:

1. As said in the above section by Rlevse, expand the lead to better summarize the article (maybe another sentence or two). All of the footnotes should have an author, date the information was created, and the date it was accessed. Also, go throughout the article and wikilink full dates.

• I've expanded the lead somewhat, but I may play with it further. I've also formatted all of the citations and wikilinked the dates.

1. "After the unproblematic gestation time of the 20-year old polar bear Tosca". Add a hyphen between year and old.

• Done.

1. Did his brother have a name?

• No, he didn't survive long enough. Added "unnamed" and also the fact that he died from an infection.

1. "Tosca, who is a former circus performer, rejected Knut and his brother." Are you able to elaborate on how the polar bear rejected the two bears? Wouldn't feed them, avoided them, attacked them, etc.

• This is difficult to say; most sources merely say "rejected," while a couple mention a threat of Tosca mauling Knut, which has already been mentioned.

1. "zoo keeper Thomas Dörflein" I don't think he needs a wikilink around his name, it's not likely he's going to have his own article. "As a result, Dörflein has become a minor celebrity." Celebrity where, in Berlin, worldwide, specify if you can.

• Removed wikilink, and added "in Berlin Germany," which is what the citation says.

1. "Around 400 journalists visited Berlin Zoo" Berlin Zoo doesn't need to be wikilinked again.

• Done.

1. "After reaching seven months old and 110lbs in July of 2007" Add a space in between 110 and lbs.

• Done.

1. "On the August 1, 2007, Knut" Remove "the".

• Done.

1. "Knut was put on a diet by reducing the amount of meals from four to three and stopping treats such as croissants, due to him putting on too much weight too early. [12]" Are these daily meals? "stopping treats" should be reworded, sounds awkward. Remove the space between the inline citation and the punctuation.

• Done and done, and specified.

1. "but merely to call attention to the Leipzig decision, which would have granted the Berlin Zoo the right to kill the polar bear cub[17]." Inline citation goes after the punctuation.

• Done.

1. "As a result its shares at the Berlin Stock Exchange, which are normally worth around 2000 euros, more than doubled in value closing at 4820 euros just a week later.[20]" Add wikilinks for share and euro.

• Done.

1. "Not only the zoo has profited from the attention surrounding Knut: several companies offer Knut-related products from ringtones to cuddly toys." Reword the sentence, perhaps start off with "Various companies have profited off of the attention surrounding Knut by developing themed products such as ringtones and cuddly toys." or something to that effect.

• Agreed, I like the way you put it; done.

1. "Candy company Haribo has decided to release a raspberry-flavored Cuddly Knut sweet in April 2007" It is now past April 2007, did they release the sweet?

• Good question, I've updated this with new info (the gummies sold so well they had to open up a new factory to keep up with the demand!) and a ref.

1. "One company even made Knut themed cough-drops." Add a hyphen in between Knut and themed, remove the one between cough drops. Also add an inline citation for the information.

• I couldn't find a ref for this, so I just deleted it.

1. "Knut was also the subject of several songs. The most successful were the single "Knut is Cute" and the song by 9-year-old Kitty from Köpenick titled "Knut, der kleine Eisbär" (English: “Knut, the little polar bear”) which was also released as a single." Combine the two sentences.

• Done, and cleaned up.

1. "Knut also appeared on the March 29, 2007 cover of the German Vanity Fair magazine." Include any information about the significance of this or if there was an inside story about Knut.

• There was a spread in the magazine, but I'm still looking for refs to prove it.

1. "Knut: How one little polar bear captivated the world" Check and see if this book has been released yet. If it has, update the information about it.

• It has been released, so I've updated the info.

1. See if there are any other categories that can be added to the article. Not a requirement, but the article could be easier to find if readers could search for it from other areas.

• The Category:Famous animals categories are rather spare, but I've created and added a 2006 animal births category to the article so there are now two.

The article is well-referenced and it's great that you have the two free images. Address the above issues within seven days and I'll pass the article. The majority of these shouldn't take too long to fix. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 00:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sure! I'm surprised it was nominated for GA status (no way did I think it was advanced enough, and I even mentioned that to the individual who nominated it), but if you feel it's close, Nehrams2020, I'll work on it tweaking it as you suggest. There are tons of sources available, so I'll see what I can do. María (críticame) 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw the note on his page only after I had completed the review. It's obviously nowhere near FA status, but the article is close to reaching GA when the above are addressed. It would be great if you continue to add more information from the abundant sources, as the more information you provide with sources to back it up, the article will continue to improve. You have seven days, so improve it as you like and I'll let you know if anything needs to be fixed further. Good job on addressing some of the points so far. --Nehrams2020 05:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've completed most of what you suggested and am still adding more information. I'll let you know when I'm finished. María (críticame) 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a few more things

Good job on addressing the above so far, but there are a few more things that should be addressed:

1. In the intro, "After a German tabloid magazine (Bild) ran a quote", reword to "After the German tabloid magaizne Bild ran a quote..." or "After Bild, a German tabloid magazine, ran a quote...".
2. "Knut even has his own blog, in German, English and Spanish, that is written by a journalist at the regional public broadcaster, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, and has been the subject of several DVDs." Split this into two sentences. Maybe mention some more details about the DVDs if possible (are they documentaries, cartoons, etc.) Also, consider rewording to "A blog is also maintained with updates about the polar bear by Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, a journalist at the regional public broadcaster, and it has been translated to German, English, and Spanish."
3. Split the inline citations at the bottom into two columns. Look to other GAs for examples.

Once these are addressed, I'll pass the article. It's great that you are continuing to look for more information, which helps to expand the article. --Nehrams2020 03:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've completed all of the suggestions! I slightly reworded the blog suggestion so it makes more sense grammatically; Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg is the broadcaster, not the journalist, and since German was the original language, it was not technically translated into it. Other than that, the rest I did to the letter. I'm still working on adding info, and plan on writing a "Future plans" section that will include info on the zoo's plans to stud Knut out once he reaches sexual maturity. Oo la la! María (críticame) 13:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

Excellent work on improving the article compared to what it was when the article was first nominated. I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. Keep improving the article, and the expansion plans you listed above sound like they will make the article better. Ensure that all new information is properly sourced so that the article maintains its high quality. If you have the time, consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to allow other editors receive a quick review of their articles to be improved to GA status. Again, good job, and I hope you continue to keep improving articles on Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 05:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) María (críticame) 12:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image concerns moved from FAC

Uhm, I still don't understand what is so special about the cover of the German Vanity Fair that it has to be noted with an extra copyrighted image here. The book … well, it's the only notable book which has been published up to now (mainly because of the author, not because of the actual content though), so I can - to some extent at least - follow your argumentation regarding that image, but this magazine? Could someone explain please? --Ü (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The book is notable for several reasons, actually, including the author who has had success with another children's book about a pair of popular zoo animals. As I said above, Craig Hatkoff's book is the first to be authorized by the Zoo itself and it's being published internationally. As for the German Vanity Fair cover, it was the second ever issue of the magazine, which I think is notable in itself, and although I'm not German, and I certainly can't speak or read German, for me it made sense to have a German magazine in the article rather than, say, one of the numerous other magazines from around the world that had stories about the bear featured on their cover. Another possibility was the American Vanity Fair's Green Issue featuring Knut and Leonardo DiCaprio, but like I said, a German magazine makes sense because that is where a majority of Knut's popularity has taken place; not to mention he's from there. María (habla conmigo) 23:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps you are (naturally, no offense meant) not aware of how intense the media coverage in Germany actually has been. But the German (and btw weekly) VF is rather unimportant here (fairly low circulation). It's just one out of many magazines and newspapers that put Knut on the covers (not to forget all the TV shows). From a German point of view I would really suggest to leave out that unfree image. It's completely sufficient to note VF within the text, if you think it's reasonable, but there's no need especially for that image (due to an obvious "lack of relevance" of this magazine within Germany). And afaik the international/US issue didn't have Knut on its cover, right? Please note, that I only insist on this issue (the images) because I am positive about encyclopedic value of the text itself. (see [4] in addition) --Ü (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as an American, I can only guess from afar at the intense coverage in Germany, so I'll take your word for it that the German VF is not as notable as I've been lead to believe by my reading -- there were quite a few comments about it in the articles I've read. If it were removed, would you suggest replacing it with something else? Should I just bite the bullet and upload the American Vanity Fair (which is monthly and rather popular -- it was also the first Green issue, as I've said before)? Or what about a picture of the candy or stuffies, as Awadewit suggested below? María (habla conmigo) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Vanity Fair Germany is not even a year old and not really succesfull, so far.--85.180.9.204 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? Would the American Vanity Fair magazine cover work better? María (habla conmigo) 16:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured article?

I'm actually surprised this article got featured recently. There are some severe problems with the text, imho. The article suffers from strange and unnecessary exaggerations throughout and constantly overstates its own prominence. For example, does it really have to be a "mass media phenomenon", wouldn't a "media phenomenon" have been enough? Who "highly anticipated" the celebration of the first birthday; from what I heard most people were actually surprised that Knut was already one year old. How exactly did "fans rally in support" and how did the "worldwide public outrage" look like, except for some brief mentions as a 'cute item' in the news? The article regularly fails to put statements into perspective, e.g. the massive surge of Berlin Zoo shares where very short lived [5], the "popular songs" where not that popular after all, Knut, der kleine Eisbär only peaked at No. 29 in German charts, the "weekly television program" is long over, actually there were only ten episodes from what I understand [6], and I would also be interested in a source for the live broadcast of Knut's birthday; I doubt that any station except the two very small German news channels N24 and n-tv reported live about this. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There are sources that support the adjectives and elaborations, and frankly it has been scaled down somewhat for the article. Phrases like "mass media phenomenon" appear again and again in a lot of the sources that have been used, so I trust that is how Knut is thought of by those who write the news. It is not a matter of how you may interpret Knut's popularity, but of how the media has. The entire article is adequately and reliably sourced, although I wouldn't be adverse to changing a little of the wording so that it does not seem heavy handed. btw, there is a source for the live broadcast of Knut's first birthday (ref 28), and I remember various other articles mentioning it. María (habla conmigo) 15:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

EOTS, Mass media does not mean "massive media". It's a term that has a distinct meaning. It's not an exaggeration of something. A "media phenomenon" would mean something different, so I don't think that can be changed. I think you're right that some of these other points could use clarification and follow-up. Your points are all quite minor though, could be fixed in only a few minutes really, so I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to say there were "severe problems" with the text. --JayHenry (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My criticism remains that the tone is inappropriate at times. I was merely pointing out examples above, there are more in the text. "News of Knut and his life at the zoo was still being heavily reported internationally in late 2007"? I really don't know how Knut's life could be described as "heavily reported" international news in the last couple of months - this would have been a stretch on the height of his popularity in the spring. The statement "visitor numbers have dwindled from extreme highs in March and April", which might be technically correct, could be interpreted as they are still very high, just not extreme any more, while in fact there are no longer any crowds at Knut's enclosure. The decline of Knut's popularity isn't dealt with at all - or even properly mentioned really. I don't care about the FA status of this article, all I'm saying is the text would benefit from being toned down somewhat. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'll work it. María (habla conmigo) 13:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I think it's definitely an improvement. It might still be a good idea to mention the peak chart position of this Knut song for example, though I don't have a citable source for this right now. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually rather surprised about the impression of global importance this article is trying to communicate. If this polar bear cub has been the center of global media attention, then I find it alarming that I read the first thing about it here on wikipedia since its today's featured article. Is it possible, that this English article reflects the perception Germans would have? I could understand why anyone in Germany would think that the rest of the world pays the same kind of attention to the things that rock the boat in Germany, but honestly, this is rarely the case. So perhaps the article should reflect the regional character of the media hype, rather than give the impressing that the whole world was looking at Knut for days, or weeks even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.83 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The article makes it quite clear that although Knut was a media darling and phenomenon worldwide (come on, he appeared on the cover of countless newspapers and magazines around the world at the height of his popularity), a good deal of his notability has to do with the impact he has had on the Berlin Zoo's financial status. This is described in figures as well as anecdotes about products and features. I believe this is explored well enough in the article, although there is always room for expansion once more information becomes available. María (habla conmigo) 17:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

featured? - how in tarnation is this notable at all? Z1perlster (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer you seek can be found in the lead of the article. Although he's only 14 months old (and ursine), Knut is indeed notable, as the Berlin Zoo's shareholders would be able to tell you. ;) María (habla conmigo) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have deleted that as uncontributive sarcasm. Alientraveller (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was tempted, but I think I hit my limit of reverts for today. Oi. María (habla conmigo) 23:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparison

Has there ever been a comparison with Inuka? Out of curiosity. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing explicit, no; the media has such a short memory. Of course, now comparisons are being made regarding Knut and Flocke, a polar bear cub orphaned at the Nuremberg Zoo this past December... María (habla conmigo) 01:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is he brown?

I'm sorry if this is not relevant, but I was just wondering why Knut was brown. Polar bears do not shed their coats for summer, so why is he darker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.45.148.97 (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He's not brown in that image, he's just filthy! He likes to roll in the dirt. ;) María (habla conmigo) 01:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarify: Two separate people?

There are currently two paragraphs in the Controversy section. The first paragraph gives a quote from someone named Frank Albrecht, and then an unrelated quote from someone named Wolfram Graf-Rudolf. The second paragraph explains more about the Albrecht quote.

This is quite confusing. Assuming these are two unrelated people, shouldn't one paragraph discuss Albrecht and another paragraph discuss Graf-Rudolf, instead of jumping back and forth between the two? It's even more problematic because the introduction -- featured on Wikipedia's home page today -- implies that "the animal rights activist" might have been misquoted. But there is never any suggestion that Graf-Rudolf was misquoted. In other words, the Controversy section says that the "head" of the Aachen Zoo called for the animal's death, and has never claimed to have been misquoted; this seems more significant than an individual self-identified activist whose quote is disputed.

Finally, is "head of the Aachen Zoo" his actual title? I find that hard to believe.

Sorry to carp on minor details, but a "featured article" should be cleaner than this. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 02:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the quotes are unrelated; they have the same sentiment, after all. One comes from an animal activist and one from a director of a German zoo (the source does indeed state "head", but he's in fact the director of the Aachen Zoo), so I feel that both are notable: one for the controversy it caused and the other because of Graf-Rudolf's prominent position. Albrecht's comment was the one that was taken out of context and is therefore the most important part, but there are those who agreed (and continue to agree) with him, so perhaps it would be less confusing for you if this fact were made more explicit with Graf-Rudolf used as an example? María (habla conmigo) 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Graf-Rudolph quote was cited to the Spiegel article, but is not mentioned anywhere in that article. I have therefore removed it. If a real source for that quote can be found, feel free to re-add. Mike R (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added the info with the real source; I think I just got the two ref-names confused. Thanks for pointing that out, but it would have been less of a hassle for you if you had brought it up here first! Sorry all your work was for naught. María (habla conmigo) 20:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't too much hassle. At least, I didn't intend for it to have been :-) Mike R (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hibernation?

The article says something about weight gain in anticipation of hibernation, yet, according to our article on polar bears, polar bears do not hibernate. Can someone who knows please clarify?--24.85.68.231 (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The source that was given said nothing about hibernation, it just mentioned that Knut was gaining weight in anticipation of winter not in anticipation of winter hibernation. Someone who did not understand the basics of a polar bear (a bear that can be active during harsh winters) must have interpreted that as hibernation. 128.227.142.107 (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A new contender appears

Flocke is the new Knut. 128.227.171.29 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does the section say 'Later life'

Knut is still a cub (although a very large one.) The section should be renamed 'Recent events' or something like that. Later life makes it sound like he's dead. FinalWish 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that it may imply that he's dead; obviously he's still treated as alive in the prose. Someone had originally named the section "Adulthood" but, like you said, he's still a cub. I don't think "Recent events" is a good replacement, however, because not everything there is "recent" or will continue to be so. If someone has a more acceptable replacement, I'm glad to hear further suggestions. María (habla conmigo) 20:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Milk

It doesn't make sense that Knut could have survived on "milk" for the first four months of his life. The milk of a polar bear is about 40% fat. Marine mammal babies in captivity are usually fed a mixture that includes things like cream, fish oil, vitamins, and chopped-up seafood. Can anyone find out what was actually being fed to him? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 22:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's referred to simply as "milk" (and the later concoction is referred to as a "milk porridge") by numerous sources. "...pictures of Knut hungrily drinking milk", "...feeds Knut milk six times a day with a bottle", etc. Most media sources weren't too keen about the specifics about this early part of his life. Corn syrup, a secret that has since passed onto Flocke, was used as a supplement to ease digestion, but I'm afraid that's all of the information about possible mixtures of his early milk concoction that I've been able to find. There is a description about his porridge in the article already, however, mostly because I thought it sounded so... tasty. :) María (habla conmigo) 22:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Good news though - I found something[7] and will add it. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 23:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. María (habla conmigo) 13:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Knut going psycho

Sad to see, but perhaps we should put in a sentence or two about his unhappiness at being separated from his "father" and his desire to always be around people. Perhaps those crazy environmentalists were right about not letting them become pets, because the zoo doesn't treat them that way.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=544849&in_page_id=1811

Saying Knut is "unhappy" and "addicted to fame" is one thing (i.e. unwarranted bear psychoanalysis), but the quotes from one of his keepers is another; it isn't as OR by synthesis on behalf of the media, I think, and although stories such as Knut goes psycho have been circulating for months, I guess it's time it was acknowledged -- not as fact but as common speculation. I'll add a little blurb in. María (habla conmigo) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Saw this today... wasn't sure if there was anything of use from the article. Just providing a heads-up here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Same old, same old. No facts, just speculation. :p María (habla conmigo) 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is the IPA pronunciation on this article correct? According to the following, it is pronounced "Kuh-Noot." (I hate IPA.)

http://www.productwiki.com/home/image/knut-berlin-s-cute-and-cuddly-polar-bear.html

18.172.6.58 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Kuh-noot" is correct. To my ears, that's how the IPA tool pronounces it; it's just said quickly with a heavy German accent. :) María (habla conmigo) 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, I'm from Germany and the right pronounciation is "k-noot". The German "u" is always pronounced like English "oo". Furthermore consider that every letter in German has to be pronounced (not like the "k" in "knife"). Could I help you? --139.30.18.236 (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the previous anon user merely wanted to establish that the IP tool is correct, which it is. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Doerfin has been discovered dead

I just read in the Daily Mail (UK) Thomas Doerfin, the man credited with raising Knut has been discovered dead in his flat in Germany. He apparently did not commit suicide but had been apparently ill for some time probably depression. Coincidences to his family :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.190.163 (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's very sad. A small mention (with source) of his premature passing has already been added to the article, although I don't think a paragraph of info is necessary. This article is about Knut, after all, and not Dörflein. Perhaps Thomas Dörflein should become an actual article? He's surely notable enough. María (habla conmigo) 12:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A note on this ... I removed the phrase "of natural causes" from the mention of his death. Per the citation he had been ill and no foul play was suspected though the investigation was still under way. In other words, it's premature to declare a 'cause of death' just yet, though 'natural causes' is likely. Bapaveza (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense. María (habla conmigo) 16:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the paragraph about Doerfin has been removed. Why? I understand there is a need to provide clear facts as they do not yet know the cause of death but surely there should be a mention or even a paragraph?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.93.225 (talk • contribs)

The article succinctly mentions Dörflein's death in the "Infancy" section. Although out of chronological order, I thought it made more sense there rather than anywhere else because that is the section that goes into detail about Dörflein's duties and impact. Again, this article isn't about Dörflein -- it's about Knut. Therefore, I don't think his primary keeper's untimely death, its circumstances, his personal life, etc, need to be discussed in great length. Remember that this is a Featured Article and one that must attain a certain amount of prestige. If anyone has any suggestions, however, that would great. María (habla conmigo) 17:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Knut in Taiwanese song

It appears that the Taiwanese band 1976 references Knut in their song "努特" ("Knut").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1tRXLnFm_0
My Chinese isn't good enough to know for sure what they're singing, but in that music video it looks like there's clips of a baby polar bear similar to Knut. Knut's name is also transliterated to the same characters that are used in the 1976 song. See 努特 (Knut the polar bear in Chinese Wikipedia) This might be notable to go under "Effects of popularity".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.202.110 (talk • contribs)

I doubt that this incredibly minor mention of Knut, and many others for that matter, warrants inclusion in the article. It doesn't add to the understanding of Knut's popularity to list multiple references to him in song and video throughout the world; IMO, it's enough to simply state that they, as a whole, exist. There's always a risk of this section becoming fancrufty, so we should be careful to limit it to only the truly notable references. María (habla conmigo) 17:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox?

I was thinking if we could have an infobox like the other German polar bear Flocke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHøstbo (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not a fan of infoboxes in "biographical" articles simply because they don't add anything that isn't already listed in the lead. (Is it sad that I consider a celebrity polar bear's article a biography? Wait, don't answer that.) I had actually removed the infobox from Flocke's article before I saw this comment here, simply because they aren't mandatory, but if others out there agree it may be a good idea, let's talk about if we should make it standard for famous bears. María (habla conmigo) 01:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I know infoboxes are non mandatory, but I think they do add value in general, even as a summary of information already in the article. One reason being, it's a consistent presentation style whereas each article is written a little differently. Another being, it's a framework for some basic facts which may be lacking from the article. There is precedent in at least two cases: Bart the Bear and Old Ephraim. My preference obviously is to have infoboxes, as I added it to Flocke (later removed by the editor above). As a point of reference, WikiProject Motorcycling has been adding infoboxes to motorcycle articles wherever possible and our consensus is that it improves the articles within the project's scope. — Brianhe (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad this discussion is taking place. I feel I should point out that neither of the articles you mention are Featured Articles, whereas Knut and Flocke are; in fact, a precedent has been set for FAs of famous animals to not have infoboxes: Laika does not have an infobox, nor does Billy (pygmy hippo) (those are the only other two I can think off the top of my head of individual animal FAs). In fact, an earlier version of this article had an infobox, but it was removed at the request of another editor during the FAC process. Whereas I can see the usefulness of an infobox in highly technical articles, such as those used by science-related WikiProjects, or even the Motorcycling Project you note above, which include numbers and measurements and other listy-data, in a simple cultural/biographical article such as those dedicated to celebrity German polar bears, it serves no purpose other than a decorative one. Any other thoughts? María (habla conmigo) 21:50, 16 February 2010

(UTC)

I remain unpersuaded but admit that I could be in the minority especially given that the FAC process recommended deleting the infobox here. But this seems an inditement of infoboxes for all non-technical subjects, and if this is the right point of view all the articles with Infobox person are wrong, for example Thomas Edison. This doesn't smell right to me. — Brianhe (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Edison isn't an FA, either. ;) All kidding aside, I'm not concerned with infoboxes elsewhere; what matters is that there seems to be no precedent to include infoboxes in high quality articles dealing with individual animals like Knut, Flocke, Laika and Billy. What I said about regarding infobox usage in articles such as these as opposed to technically-rife articles is entirely my own POV, which obviously may not be shared with other editors. I merely stated as much to prove I'm not on a war against infoboxes or anything -- I just disagree with its usage here. María (habla conmigo) 23:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that infoboxes are the one and only way some automated tools (such as DBpedia) can extract information from Wikipedia. 190.189.227.89 (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that infoboxes are still not required. I've removed it yet again; let's not include one unless consensus is reached. María (habla conmigo) 14:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In honor of Knut

We should try to push to have his featured article on the main page as the featured article of the day. It is a newish featured article, but highly topical. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 03:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

US Secretary of State Warren Christopher died March 18. Should we be honoring a bear? :) John Milito (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's show some respect for the dead and our fellow wikipedians John. And though Christopher's article would take precedence, if we proposed March 18th, it doesnt matter, since I don't believe his article is featured, so it couldn't be featured article of the day anyway, and I'm not proposing any specific day, but it would be nice to feature Knut soon so it's topical. Perhaps someone could propose it? Judgesurreal777 06:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you offering to bring the article to Featured status? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• The article is already featured.
• It was on the Main Page already over two years ago. We generally don't rerun Main Page FAs.
• All this information is clearly visible in the banners at the top of the page. Daniel Case (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What Daniel said. Been there, done that on all accounts. María (habla conmigo) 14:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, I did not see a date it was on the main page, if it already happened I guess we are set, rest in peace Knut! Judgesurreal777 15:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's at the top of this page, as Daniel said: the article became an FA in late-2007 and was TFA in early-2008. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Studding?

There's a bit under the "In the Spotlight" heading that states: "Knut's future role at the Berlin Zoo may include his becoming an "attractive stud" for other zoos in order to help preserve his species." It looks like Knut died at four, and the wikipage for polar bear states that males reach maturity at 6, so I assume this never happened. What should that sentence read now, or should it still be included? John Milito (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe this has already been taken care of; someone has amended the sentence to read "may have included". María (habla conmigo) 14:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Watered down?

I object to the suggestion that I'm attempting to water down the section about the media controversy around Albrecht. Just because a German tabloid mirepresents someone, initiating a blog and media frenzy (including stories from the king of the British bandwagons, the Daily Mail), does not mean that the wikipedia article should reflect that side of the story. The facts in the sources when read as a whole speak for themselves: Albrecht was drawing attention to something else and it got very out of hand very quickly - his mistake was to think he could use Knut to get publicity for his own cause and it backfired bigtime.

When I first saw this section, it was full of many little, unecessary backstabs against Albrecht, using classic "words to avoid" and weasel words to echo the tabloid press angle. I suggest Wikipedia should try to uphold better editorial standards than to mirror the opinions of hack journalists out for a story. GDallimore (Talk) 15:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Section headers

We've got a couple of problems here:

1. There's a "Controversy" header over a couple of paragraphs, only one of which deals with controversy, and which smacks of news content which has long passed (it's certainly not the case that the subject is best-known for Frank Albrecht's comments at this time). The simplest solution to this is to get rid of the header entirely, as the content logically flows from the previous section (it concerns the bear's abandonment). The reason a header marked "controversy" is a bad idea is because it attracts negative attention to the section in question: this goes hand-in-hand with the comments above about how material is being "watered down", as readers and editors automatically assume that a section labelled "controversy" will have a negative rather than a neutral tone.
2. The prosaic "In the headlines" over the paragraph concerning the bear's public debut. This makes no sense when the preceding two paragraphs have been all about the news coverage of the bear anyway. If "Public debut" is seen to be misleading, then "Debut and first year in the public" should suffice. The current headline is too magazine-ish.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering the amount of scrutiny this article has received over the past few days, this is small beans as far as problems go. :) However, I agree with your second point. "Debut and first year" is okay, but seeing as how "Infancy" also counts as the cub's first year, it's still misleading. I believe back before the FA nomination, the section was titled "Fame" or something else as simple, before it was suggested that I rename it. Which works better? As for your first point, I believe combining this section with the too-innocently named "Infancy" is -- again -- misleading. The two paragraphs under currently-titled "Controversy" deal entirely with the controversy surrounding Albrecht's claims, and the genesis for Knut's fame as people worldwide rallied behind the zoo and their decision to handraise him after his abandonment. However, the section was titled "Controversy and media coverage" before it was removed -- do you feel this is a better title? Maybe the addition of "media coverage" makes it seem less negative? María (habla conmigo) 17:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair compromise. Are we good to go here? Ordinarily I'd be fine with leaving this for longer discussion but I imagine the article's getting a fair bit of traffic right now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the traffic is fairly high at the mo -- both good and bad. I'll go ahead and make the changes: "Debut and first year" and "Controversy and media coverage". Thanks for your help. María (habla conmigo) 19:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Citations in lead

Per WP:LEAD, citations are not required unless a statistic or quote is present in the lead, and the lead accurately summarizes the points made by sources in the body of the article. After Knut's death, as a result of the high readership, someone cited almost every sentence in the lead. This is unbecoming to a Featured Article, and I'm requesting they be removed. In their top form, FAs are supposed to be models for other articles to follow and this certainly gives an inaccurate impression of what a lead is supposed to be.

I am not averse to removing the citations myself, but I wanted to make sure this is seen on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to well-meaning newcomers, most of the citations that are present now in the lead were also present before Knut's death. Five then, 6 now; the additional one is for the announcement of his death. (I did remove a few unnecessary cites that were listed for Knut's birth-date, etc., but that was several days ago.) I'm not a fan of so many citations in the lead either, but most of them were originally added to safeguard against {{cn}} tags placed by those unwilling to read further than the intro. It happens, right? Statements that should probably remain cited for this reason: "he became a tourist attraction and commercial success", "'Knutmania'... spanned the globe and spawned toys, media specials, DVDs, and books", "estimated at about five million euros, at the Berlin Zoo in 2007", and "increased by an estimated 30 percent, making it the most profitable year in its 163-year history". These are big claims, especially for one little bear -- although of course cited later in the article, they are facts that may cause contention. So I think double-citing or whatever is acceptable in these few circumstances, at least by WP:LEAD's standards. What do you think? Should we at least remove the other two citations for now? María (habla conmigo) 22:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Death photo needed

If, as the article states, Knut drowned in front of 600-700 people, there must be some images out there of the bear's last moments. Has anyone checked German photo-sharing websites to see if anyone has uploaded a copyright-free photo? Did anyone post a YouTube video of the death? If so, the article should probably link to it if it's copyrighted. If it's not copyrighted, then it should be uploaded to Wikipedia and placed in the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In what way could such a photograph possibly be "needed"? Point me to the style guideline that states "If in existence include link to photo/video of subject's dead body". This is Wikipedia, not Faces of Death. María (habla conmigo) 12:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

merge Dörflein?

Much of the content is duplicated from here anyway and the person is only notable in relation to knut. RafikiSykes (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Dörflein's article exists in eleven separate versions of Wikipedia, not including English. He's certainly notable, as his death was widely covered in the international press. Going by what is covered in the German Wiki, more information about his early life and career can perhaps be added. The man is notable because of Knut, but there is more to be said about him that what Knut's article suggests. Merging is not necessary; more research is. María (yllosubmarine) 18:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've just added quite a bit of information to Dörflein's article that is not present here in Knut's: early life, praise from fans, notes on legacy, etc. I've no doubt more can be added. Again, a merge is not necessary, and now would in fact be detrimental. María (yllosubmarine) 19:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

He may have recieved coverage in reliable sources but even his obituary is titled Knuts keeper. Pretty much every single source used to verify the information in his article is either from an article about knut or is refering to him as knuts keeper. I tried searching for reliable sources about him pre knut and can't find anything. Do you have anything showing notability that isn't related to his work with Knut?RafikiSykes (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There may be additional sources in German, but I'm afraid I don't speak the language. The obituary from Speigel Online contains information pertaining not just to Knut, so I feel that your classification of it is misleading. Dörflein's death was a huge deal in Germany, and made international news. He had a long career at Berlin, and he became a media celebrity due to, and in conjunction with, Knut. I've made it clear from my additions to Dörflein's article that there is material pertaining to his life and legacy that can be substantiated outside of Knut. To merge it here into Knut's article would be detrimental to what is currently a Featured Article. Therefore, if you don't feel Dörflein is notable, nominate his article for deletion -- I'm sure it will be kept per WP:NOTE. It is reliable, it contains secondary sources, and there is significant coverage that significantly refers to Dörflein and his role in Knut's upbringing. Again, there's no reason to merge. María (yllosubmarine) 22:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: a few more additions, with German sources. María (yllosubmarine) 14:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been several weeks since there has been any input in this discussion. Unless there are other concerns regarding Dörflein's article, which has been greatly expanded, I suggest that this section be closed and the merger template removed. María (yllosubmarine) 18:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been mentioned in this thread. María (yllosubmarine) 19:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Whilst the keeper article has been expanded all the sources used are about him as Knuts keeper etc. Whilst info about other parts of his lif may be included they are just extra bits of info coming from material focused on him in connection with Knut. What actually shows him as notable beyond this role. Beyond a few stats of his earlier life much of it is just stating the same content as is in this article.RafikiSykes (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Please read the article in full; that I added only "a few stats of his earlier life" is highly disingenuous. Almost the entirety of the "Death" section includes material separate from Knut's: details on Dörflein's family, manner of his longtime illness, death, funeral, posthumous honors, etc. There are also differentiating facts present in the "Knut" section: that he received marriage proposals, and when he was barred from physical contact. The article stands on its own. For the fourth (?) time, merging is not a good idea. On a side-note, thank you for taking the time to point out the deadlinks in the article. I'll address them shortly. María (yllosubmarine) 21:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

RafikiSykes, you state: "What actually shows him as notable beyond this role." I find this POV confusing, seeing as how WP:NOTE says nothing about having to include more than one "role" in order for someone to be notable per Wikipedia. Were this the case, Seung-Hui Cho (known solely because he committed the Virginia Tech massacre) would not be considered notable. Yes, Dörflein is notable because of Knut. However, Dörflein has recieved significant coverage by reliable and independent sources that address him in detail. These factors mean that the article is covered under General Notability Guidelines. More than once source goes into detail about Dörflein's legacy in his role as Knut's keeper, especially after his death. In my view, notability is well established. María (yllosubmarine) 23:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't merge, Dörflein has plenty enough sourced content for his own article. I am removing the merge tag from this tag as it is a featured article, but I will keep it on Dörflein's. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep separate: As Dondegroovily states, there are enough references that support Dörflein's own notability independently. Also, I think this proposal has had a reasonable time and has achieved no consensus to merge, it should be closed and the tag removed. If there's contention, you can request for a formal closure at WP:AN/RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice, TopGun. Since I'm obviously invested in this dispute, I would rather someone else remove the tag from Dörflein's article. Perhaps RafikiSykes, since they added the tag in the first place? However, if no one does so within the next couple days I'll remove it myself. María (yllosubmarine) 13:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've removed the tag as an uninvolved editor. This proposal was made on December 18, progress should not halt for that long on the article to wait for a pending merge (which is not happening). If it is added back use WP:AN/RFC for a formal closure of this discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't believe there is enoguh independant notability for the keeper and still feel the sources for his article in large reflect that: 1.^ a b c "Obituary: Knut's Keeper Remembered". Spiegel Online. 23 September 2008. Retrieved 18 December 2011.

2.^ a b Boyes, Roger (10 July 2007). "The little polar bear that grew too big for any more cuddles". London: The Times. Retrieved 11 August 2007.
3.^ "He's too cute to bear..". The Daily Mirror. 26 January 2007. Retrieved 9 August 2007.
4.^ "Knut's Keeper Confesses: 'Sometimes I Could Hurl Him Against the Wall'". Spiegel Online International. 11 April 2007. Retrieved 10 August 2007.
5.^ "Knut's keeper gets medal: Arise, Sir Dörflein". Spiegel Online. 1 October 2007. Retrieved 11 November 2007.
6.^ "No More Bear Hugs: Knut Ban for Berlin Zookeeper Thomas Dörflein". Spiegel Online. 13 November 2011. Retrieved 18 December 2011.
7.^ "Knut's Keeper: Thomas Dörflein Found Dead". Spiegel Online. 22 September 2008. Retrieved 20 March 2011.
8.^ a b Conner, Steve (21 March 2011). "End of the furry tale: the life and death of Knut". The Independent. Retrieved 21 March 2011.
9.^ "Knuts "Papa" hatte Krebs" (in German). RP Online. 24 September 2008. Retrieved 24 December 2011.
10.^ a b "Love story: Knut mourns his keeper". The Independent. 24 September 2008. Retrieved 18 December 2011.
11.^ "BZ-Kulturpreis für Schlingensief und Lindenberg" (in German). Welt Online. 26 January 2009. Retrieved 24 December 2011.
12.^ "Berlin Zoo Honors Dörflein: Knut Keeper's Death Mourned Around the World". Spiegel Online. 26 September 2008. Retrieved 26 September 2008.
13.^ "Knut: Eigenes Grab neben Dörflein" (in German). Berliner Kurier. 4 December 2011. Retrieved 24 December 2011.

Though if consensus is against merging in this article I will instead look at things over at the Thomas article. RafikiSykes (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:POINT in that case as there are atleast three editors in disagreement with you. Ofcourse you can take this to dispute resolution if you still have reasonable arguments for this to be merged. But at the moment, I see no consensus to merge the articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

RafikiSykes, have you actually read the sources, or are you simply looking at their titles? Just because Knut's name appears in most of them does not mean that they pertain only to Knut. Before you continue a merge discussion, I ask you to do your research first. María (yllosubmarine) 14:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read them but i still feel that if he had notability own his own his own name would be presented more prominently and have more recognition on its own. I won't be pursuing the merge of the 2 any further but over at the Thomas article I will ask for some other opinions purely on it alone.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Very one-sided article

I'm surprised this became a featured article, it barely touches the topic of the zoo administration using Knut for commercial gain and how other zoos were against the treatment it received. The article is in Danish, but google translate should work pretty well in translating. One quote is of interest: "We will under no circumstances be compared with Knut. He was a disaster, which was only used to sell teddy bears and tickets. That is why we do everything we can to be distanced as far from Knut as humanly possible" - Frank Vigh-Larsen, director of Scandinavian Wildlife Park

Zoos should seek to preserve the species and keep animals as wild as possible, not tame them like in a modern circus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus Storm (talk • contribs) 12:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, that's just one viewpoint from a recent article upon the birth of a supposed heir to Knut, based on one zoo administrator's personal opinion. To give weight to such an opinion, when others obviously were behind Berlin Zoo's raising of Knut, would be WP:UNDUE. If you have other sources that say as much (preferably in English), that would help it seem so one-sided. As for your belief as to what the purpose of zoos happens to be, that has no place in the article. María (yllosubmarine) 13:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

Looking at this older featured article as part of the ongoing FA sweeps. It looks like there's a bit of touching up to do to align with the featured article criteria.

• "It will later be used for an exhibition on climate change and environment protection. Museum spokeswoman Gesine Steiner stated that "It's important to make clear we haven't had Knut stuffed. It is an artistically valuable sculpture with the original fur." - not sure that the present tense is still warranted here
• Daily Mirror is used, it is no longer considered to be particularly reliable and needs replaced for FA status

This one's in pretty good shape - as far as I can tell, this one has been kept current and up to date. Hog Farm _Talk 22:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)