Talk:Copenhagen Zoo

Tasman devils

when I was a kid the los angeles zoo had tasmanian devils in the nocturne house

just sayin'

Well since they don't breed in captivity that doesn't say a whole lot (depending on how long time has passed since you were a child). But now I have added the missing reference.Ramblersen (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other Devils in captivity outside Australia other than the two pairs in Copenhagen Zoo that bred successfully last year? Scaredmo (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sure Bristol Zoo had one, perhaps about 10 years ago. But I have looked it up on the current web-site and they do not list it as one of their animals. I struggle to believe there were no others outside Copenhagen Zoo.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki entry or Zoo promotional page?

The page seems to have been written in terms of a publicity page. There are a lack of references in the Exhibitions section and to some extent replicates some of the information in the ZOO TODAY section. There also seems to be some concerted effort from IP 31.48.108.88 to remove sections that could be deemed damaging to an enterprise therefore remove the articles WP:NPOV Scaredmo (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've rearranged to put things where think they make a bit more sense. The Exhibits section didn't have references, but it follows the map pretty closely, and other than the "visitors can see" statements (and now the part about the elephant house) is mostly just a listing of the animals. I generally use "is home to animals such as...", but I don't see the current wording as "ad like". These sections in zoo articles generally contain a list of selected animals. Don Lammers (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism and WP:NPOV violations due to recent events

The whole giraffe thing seems to have triggered a stream of vandalism and violations of WP:NPOV. Might be in the best interests of the article and the encyclopedia to place it under semi- or higher protection. 68.113.83.71 (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, there are updated that have been added without consideration for WP:NPOV and bringing personal opinions in to the article. In addition there have been attempts to remove all reference to the incident, given its worldwide interest the removal of information surrounding the event would also be deemed vandalism and against WP:NPOV Scaredmo (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that with the recent lion culling, vandalism is back. Perhaps a semi-protect is in order for a few days? WikiEnthusiastNumberTwenty-Two (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2014

Such a wonderful zoo that loves and protects endangered species so much that itkills an innocent baby giraffe and then delights ( and is actually PROUD) of the fact that it butchers the poor animal in front of childeren. Disgusting. The head of this zoo needs to resign immediately. 109.176.253.69 (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done That's a PoV, not an edit request. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Giraffe Image Title - misleading

The title of the image in the Giraffe Culling Controversy is misleading and should be renamed. Currently it's title is 'Giraffe publically killed and chopped at the Copenhagen Zoo.jpg', that gives the impression that the animal was killed in front of the general public, which did not happen. Yes the animal had a public autopsy and was dissected (and butchered) in front of the general public. Suggested title would be Giraffe undergoing autopsy at Copenhagen Zoo I'm unable (or lack the knowledge) to make this change myself. Scaredmo (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

agreed.Vt catamount (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Giraffe Controversy - Undue Weight

There are four paragraphs in this subsection, and a sentence devoted to the controversy in the lede. While the controversy is hot news at this hour, the notoriety will not be lasting. Much of this subsection should be culled. From wp:criticism "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Recommended action at this point is to remove entirely from the lede, and chop the subsection in question down to a summarizing paragraph. Thoughts appreciated.Vt catamount (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the worldwide attention the event has attracted it would be better to have a balanced section giving details of the lead up, the reasons why the cull had to take place and the efforts others made to prevent the cull. The information doesnt need to be in the lead title section though as that is then giving undue weight to one particular aspect of the Zoo's history. The cull section in its current form would appear to hold an WP:NPOV. I'd say it doesnt need reducing in size, there are other more important changes needed (image title for example). Scaredmo (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with reducing the size. Zoos are widely thought of as being places of great ethical worth. This culling raises several issues that readers are interested in. Whilst I agree with one of the comments by one of the zoo staff that people would not give this a second thought if it was a pig, because it is a more unusual species, it is raising zoo culling and the idea of maintaining genetic diversity as an issue. This section does not even raise the issue that if the giraffe had gone to Yorkshire Wildlife Park, he would have been in a bachelor herd and would not have been used for breeding, therefore, he would not have contributed to inbreeding. If he was taking up valuable space, this would be a decision for Yorkshire Wildlife park. Having said this, I do believe the issue is "time-stamped" and therefore may not be appropriate in the lede. By the way, in the Zoo article, I have been writing about this in the section "surplus animals".__DrChrissy (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! In regards to your argument, I do not believe that this article, about the Copenhagen Zoo, is the appropriate place for the wider ethical discussion (WP:SOAP), so again I think a lot of the copy can be removed/summarized - but I'm grateful to hear out other editors' opinions. So thanks again! Vt catamount (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

if / should there be a page dedicated to the ethical discussion on incare animal culling then I would agree and suggest a smaller section linked to the separate page. As there isn't plus the weight of public interest and the differing policies of EAZA member institutions the I would have to say that the Copenhagen Zoo page is the relevant page for the facts to be laid. Another line of thought would be for the information to be held within the EAZA page, but it is then as relevant, look upon it from an information seekers perspective and where they would expect to find the facts! Scaredmo (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think four paragraphs of coverage are excessive, and it quite fairly covers the issues of the incident despite how emotionally charged (and IMHO wantonly unnecessary) this action was. The controversy has engendered some interesting commentary on animal rights in European papers (where there are active animal rights political parties, etc.)...including some who think the zoo employees should be culled and fed to the lions. Regarding forking it off to another article, I'd disagree with that...it would appear like whitewashing if it were moved elsewhere and marginalized here. As for the lede, one sentence about it might be necessary in the lede if the story persists after a week or there's some official blowback from the incident. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I am indeed suggesting that Wikipedia is not the place for the ethical discussion, at all, in any entry as Wikipedia is not a Soapbox; Wikipedia is a place for facts pertinent to a subject. Though this news item is hot right now, it will very quickly fade into the background, and it is but one of many facts that tell the tale of the Copenhagen Zoo. It will not stand the test of time, as an encyclopedic entry should. ETA: As for my original argument, I've found another piece of relevant WP Policy, "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

No one in the dissent has addressed why this subsection should remain in spite of its clear conflict with wp:criticism (see original post). I would be very interested in hearing that argument, if anyone's game.Vt catamount (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV policy form a large section within WP:CRITICISM. To show balance there should be present both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources for any article. As Criticism/controversy is a greater debate catalyst than positive stories, it therefore would need a more indepth coverage on Wiki. The controversy here encompasses the Copenhagen Zoo, EAZA, ethical standards, other EAZA institutions, public perception and a worldwide interest from the general public and animal charities/political parties. To only have a single line reference to it would, as stated above, have the same effect as whitewashing over the subject and fail WP:NPOV where as in it's current form it provides background information (genetics), standards of the gene pool as governed by EAZA, the efforts made to other institutions to save the animal, details of the events itself and statements both from the Zoo and opponents. IMHO the article is quite balanced showing positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources meeting NPOV and CRITICISM.

To quote from the same WP:CRITICISM, "Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources - other than the critics themselves - provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism." WP:CORG The controversy gained worldwide news coverage and prompted political debate over ethics and genetics within incare animals. The whole page is not overly long as to warrant a separate page for the criticism/controversy itself, the only other information I could see being beneficial is a link or comment from EAZA relating to their Stud Book genetics policies. Scaredmo (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

To my mind, one of the reasons why this belongs on the Copenhagen Zoo page is that despite the offer of the Yorkshire Wildlife Park, the zoo elected to go ahead with the culling. This is a decision by Copenhagen Zoo, clearly contrary to the standpoint of YWP which is a member of the same organisation relating to genetics, biodiversity, etc. in European zoos. Such a divergence in course of action means this should be linked to Copenhagen Zoo.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a new article Marius (giraffe) which obviously discuss this issue. It has been proposed to delete this article. So, if Marius (giraffe) was deleted and information regarding the incident was deleted from this page (as proposed above), Wikipedia would contain no information at all about the culling!__DrChrissy (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Good arguments for keeping mention of this incident here! Agreed. I still think it should be summarized, as Wikipedia is Not News and this subsection is a clear example of WP:Recentism. Vt catamount (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the statement from Stine Jensen of the Organisation Against the Suffering of Animals is relevant. I can find very little information about this organisation, their website (www.oasa-dk.dk?) doesn't list how many members they have and contains only a few pages. The website's news section contains 5 articles of which 4 only consist of a headline and the last is about Marius. Their facebook page (https://da-dk.facebook.com/oasa.org) is more active but I still don't believe that the organisation is relevant enough to be quoted. 194.255.31.3 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but unfortunately this is the only criticizing voice we have to quote, which neutralizes the subsection. I'd be happy to remove this, but I'm also of the opinion that only the first paragraph really matters to the encyclopedic merit of the story, so I'm biased :D Vt catamount (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reversed the edit of Timelezz whom had unilaterally removed the entire section to be replaced with a single line entry stating that "In 2014 the culling of a giraffe named Marius generated worldwide media attention and public upset." This lacks information, sources, accurate time/date information, background and the POV's from both sides. Whilst the Marius page is under review for deletion / merge / redirect to Copenhagen Zoo, it would be, IMHO, best to leave the current page intact awaiting the outcome of the AFD. It would be pointless to have options on the AFD for redirect or merge if the information here has been already removed!Scaredmo (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I think the Recentism tag should be left alone for another week or so. The article is still fluctuating. Bienmanchot (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Autopsy / necropsy / postmortem examination

There has been edits and revisions over the use of the word Autopsy. Given the differing opinions it is best to talk them through before concluding on an agreed wording. From my perspective the word Autopsy was used by the Copenhagen Zoo scientific director Bengt Holst, whilst dissection would be a more appropriate word the gathered audience for the public event were talked through the process under the guise of an autopsy. Scaredmo (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

News sources are using the word "autopsy".1, 2, 2, etc. --Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Scaredmo. The word "autopsy" usually means "thorough examination of a corpse to determine the cause and manner of death and to evaluate any disease or injury that may be present" quote from Autopsy. The clue about the cause of death was that a captive bolt was put to the giraffe's head and the trigger pulled. I have seen no reports about the giraffe having any suspected diseases before, or found as a result of, the dissection. I suspect the word "autopsy" was used by the zoo to sanitize the incident, or perhaps someone's English or translation is lacking a little. To be honest, because the animal was cut up for meat, the most accurate term is "butchered", however, I feel this would not get past those concerned with the reader's sensibilities being shocked. I believe that "dissection" is the most appropriate word because the cutting up was conducted as a teaching exercise. If we are to retain the word "autopsy" on the basis that this is the word used by the zoo, it should be placed in quotation marks.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It was definitely not a post mortem examination (autopsy). It was a strightforward public dissection, whatever the zoo may say. It should be described as a dissection in the text. We are not here to address readers' sensibilities in this matter. And while we're about it, I don't think the word "cull" is entirely accurate. "Kill" would be better. 141.6.11.14 (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Hazhk and the majority of reliable sources covering the topic. An autopsy was performed by veterinarians in front of an audience. No scare quotes necessary, that is what happened.Vt catamount (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Look up the definition of a post mortem/autopsy. That is not what they did. And if a source calls it such, then it's not a reliable source. 141.6.11.19 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hazhk did not actually state a view to be agreed or disagreed with, they simply indicated this word was being used in sources reporting the incident. Just because the zoo uses the word inaccurately, and this word is perpetuated in subsequent reports, does not mean that Wikipedia should repeat the mistake.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Concur with DrChrissy, to retain a reliability and accuracy, it is not for Wikipedia to change the definition of a word. If it is to continue being used then Autopsy should be quoted in speech marks, if it is changed then dissection would be preferable. As for the word Kill - this is inappropriate and carries with it an emotionally charged statement, where as the definition of Cull is the selective slaughter of an animal to reduce the population. Scaredmo (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not a case of Wikipedia changing the definition of a word - autopsy technically fits (every dictionary I've perused first defines it as "...to determine cause of death," then provides a more vague definition "post-mortem examination", which is a return to the original meaning of the word, "eye-witness" or "self-seen"). Generally it's good practice to use the language of the sources we use to tell the story. But, it was also a dissection, so I wont be losing any sleep if the consensus is to change it. Having said that, I'm definitely against putting autopsy in scare quotes, as this would add unnecessary emotional charge by injecting suspicion, which I can't find in any of our sources. Vt catamount (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You know what? Change of heart. After re-reading it, I tend to agree with DrChrissy's first summary opinion - unless news comes out that veterinarians were inspecting the organs for specific indicators of health, this does look to be a public dissection only. I'm definitely still against scare quotes, but if we thoroughly replace with "dissection" that's a non-issue. Cull is definitely more appropriate than kill. Onwards!Vt catamount (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2014

Geraldbonchek (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

         This Zoo murdered a 18 month old Giraffe named Marius.  Not only did they turn down several offers to spare
         the giraffe, they killed him by distracting him with his favorite food of rye bread. The shot him in front of
         children stating it was a chance for education. Do the people that run this zoo have a degree in child 
         psychology to be sure this would not traumatize them in the future

 Not done That's a PoV, not an edit request and is not a factual account. It does not conform to WP:NPOV. Scaredmo (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Culling of 4 lions

I've changed the title of the Marius Cull section to Euthanazia (spelling - UK or US English) Controversy. This follows the Zoo's decision to cull 4 lions, 2 adults and 2 10-month old cubs as they are introducing a male lion to the pride. Given the attention the Zoo has brought up on itself for their euthanasia policy, the section would IMHO be more appropriate if it covered the Zoo's policy as a whole and not focus on one particular incident that is now covered in it's own section. That being so, the article would need a little more added to it to cover the policy as a whole and also remove some of the Marius reference material that is duplicated elsewhere.Scaredmo (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I note that the title of the section has been reverted to Giraffe Controversy by user:DrChrissy. Whilst I appreciate the section in large deals with the Marius incident, given the latest incident with the cull of four lions the title no longer reflects the whole section. A seperate section shouldnt be created as this would not fit in with WP:NPOV and WP:CRIT. My suggestion would be to trim down the article given the existence of the Marius Wiki page duplicating information and then balance the Lion cull article with comment from the Zoo?Scaredmo (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The section at the moment contains only 3 (edited) sentences regarding the euthanasia of lions (or any species other than giraffe). One of these 3 (edited) sentences refers to the giraffe culling, making me think that the culling of lions is now notable only because of the culling of the giraffe. I think if we are to discuss euthansia/culling in general at this zoo, we need to add more detail before that becomes the heading for this section. If other cullings or euthanasia are not controversial (perhaps because there were no offers of placement at other zoos), then perhaps this section should stand on its own.__00:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor recently added "lion euthansias" to the heading - I don't remember there being a controversy about their being culled.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with DrChrissy, the lion cull doesn't seem nearly as controversial or noteworthy on its own; I think we should keep the last paragraph with references, but remove the mention of lions from the section title. IMO, the only reason the lion cull is newsworthy is that, despite the Marius drama, the zoo continues to cull healthy animals who are no longer contributing to spp genetics.Bienmanchot (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the outcomes of the Giraffe cull by Copenhagen Zoo was the change in policy by Jyllands Park Zoo who have removed the threat to cull one of their Giraffes to make way for another male. Whilst I agree that the Marius incident created a publicity storm against the actions/policies of the Zoo, it is the policy of the destruction of healthy animals bred in captivity that has caused the notoriety. With the latest incident, a petition set up following the Giraffe cull has now gained tens of thousands more signatures, that in itself would indicate to me that the cull policy has become the focus of attention and Copenhagen Zoo has gained notoriety for culling healthy animals. As such a change of title with more information on their policy I feel should be included to give readers a more informed article rather than just focus on the single incident that led to mass media coverage.Scaredmo (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you are forgetting the point that Marius was culled even when the zoo had received at least 2 offers to re-home him. I think this is an essential part of the controversy, although, the reasons for the controversy will depend on people's different points-of-view. I would be extremely surprised if there were similar offers to re-home the lions. This makes the Marius case unusual and therefore it should remain as a seperate section. If you feel that a more general coverage is needed, then this should include information from many (several) zoos, rather than singling out one particular zoo (unless of course it can be shown that only Copenhagen has done this.)__DrChrissy (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That reminds me, fyi Scaredmo, a more appropriate place for these types of events is currently being drafted. I saw this post on the Marius Talk page: "For related information that is separate from Marius, there is Draft:Zoo_incidents. - Sidelight" Bienmanchot (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Changing the heading is better. The word 'euthanasia' however is problematic, because no one will agree on it. Suggesting "Culling controversy", "Culling..." or "Controversy". Technically, the lion cull was controversial, even if it didn't get the attention as the giraffe. Using the heading "controversy" can be avoided or used, either may cause differences of opinion. I also believe, the giraffe and lion incidents should be under the same heading. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of the words "Euthanasia", "Killing" and "Culling" were discussed on Talk:Marius (giraffe) so we probably don't need to re-invent the wheel. The term "Culling" has a specific meaning and is the most appropriate.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with DrChrissy on the term 'Culling'. This has been discussed in length and 'Cull / Culling' were deemed most appropriate. @Bienmanchot Thank you for the update, Zoo's have differing policies to each other as does the EAZA when it comes to the cull of healthy animals. Whilst the smaller insects and mammals receive little to no attention, the larger animals tend to receive both the negative media coverage and the public outcry. I do believe that it is the individual Zoo's policy that has been highlighted and will continue to do so given the media and public interest, that leads me to believe that the Wiki entry for Copenhagen Zoo should cover their Policy in details with links to the individual incident pages Scaredmo (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Giraffe Controversy - Undue Weight Revisit

Now that this is not news, can we make this section more concise? Any objection? Bienmanchot (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Human Exhbitions

The article names one exhibition of humans in the zoo in 1901. This book provides a number of more cases: Andreassen, Rikke (2015). Human Exhibitions. Race, Gender and Sexuality in Ethnic Displays. Farnham: Ashgate. ISBN 9781472422453. (especially pp. 13–15) Therefore I propose changing the sentence or adding another sentence to make clear that the 1901 exhibition was not the only one of its kind. A link to Human zoo could be added at the same time. Juda loeb (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copenhagen Zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120125247/http://www.plantpress.com/wildlife/o105-slowworm.php to http://www.plantpress.com/wildlife/o105-slowworm.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Copenhagen Zoo. 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://www.webcitation.org/67AGsJQtS?url=http://www.visitdenmark.com/NR/rdonlyres/6B0978E0-6822-4A88-9973-B2573288B329/0/VisitDenmarkAttraktionsstatistik2007_Top50.pdf to http://www.visitdenmark.com/NR/rdonlyres/6B0978E0-6822-4A88-9973-B2573288B329/0/VisitDenmarkAttraktionsstatistik2007_Top50.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100122211056/http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news/2009/05/diseaseplagued-tasmanian-devils-now-endangered.html to http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news/2009/05/diseaseplagued-tasmanian-devils-now-endangered.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)