Talk:Harambe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Child banged his head on concrete

Zoo director Thane Maynard stated, "The child was being dragged around ... His head was banging on concrete.

I did not notice this happening in the video clips shown on CTV News. Do any of our sources include a clip showing this happened so we can witness the speed of impact? Ranze (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth: It's my understanding that the child was with the gorilla for a full ten minutes or so. The TV news stations usually show only a 1-minute clip or so (from that ten minutes). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

http://uproxx.com/news/video-child-falling-gorilla-cincinnati-zoo/ supposedly had a greater length of video than most but it seems to rely on linking to tweeted videos in three parts which were later taken down rather than hosting it independently. Ranze (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

POV Enclosure incident and death

• Section needs to present material on danger to the child.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Section needs to detail the events in the order in which they occurred. Presently the section ledes with the shooting of the gorilla. The order needs to be the order in which things happened: child falls in; gorilla takes possession of or acts protectively towards child; mother and bystanders phone 911 (unless phone call precedes gorilla's first approach to child); gorilla brutally drags child about; zookeepers arrive; gorilla is shot. Presenting events out of order is a kind of POV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• Section needs to devote space to both to primatologists and public figures who recognize the need to kill the gorilla to save the child. And to those who oppose the shooting and/or think that the gorilla was protecting the child.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

POV External links

• Footage of the child being roughly dragged about in the water were broadcast , one needs to be added to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw the drag footage and would not call it rough. Video is unusual for Wikipedia. There is the question of who holds the rights to it and whether it would be fair use. I would be more interested in seeing any headbashing since that is more potentially injurious. It takes minimal force to move someone across water. Ranze (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding a picture

I just consolidated a new category commons:Category:Gorilla_gorilla_in_Cincinnati_Zoo and was wondering if anyone is familiar enough with Harambe to know if he is in any of these or not. I'm not good with faces. Ranze (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Death of Harambe. Most !voters here seem to agree on moving the article to something referencing the gorilla's death, and "Death of Harambe" was the idea with the most consensus behind it. (closed by a page mover) Omni Flames (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Harambe → Harambe (gorilla) – location for disambiguation, name could also refer to Disney's Animal Kingdom#Africa or Harambee stuff or the 1988 song he was named after. Ranze (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

*Against. Moving a page during an AfD debate is confusing and provocative. Wait and see if the article survives. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If it doesn't then it would be mismanaged, consensus is clearly for keep and it is well sourced. We need the name to be a disambig eventually anyway and this discussion should not hamper that. Ranze (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the nominator's rationale for a move but I also agree to an extent with User:WWGB. Keep this discussion on ice and head over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harambe. One option proffered there is a move to Killing of Harambe the gorilla. After that process, plays itself out, then conduct a move discussion here. —  AjaxSmack  16:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Certainly move to Harambe (gorilla) or, to Harambe (Cincinnati Zoo gorilla) if the article is kept. Few people looking for the article will know the name of the gorilla, whereas many will recall and search for a gorilla incident in Cincinnati. Others will come only upon the link in a category or list, and keywords will let them know what the article is about. Descriptive titles are highly functional.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

seems like excessive name bloat. Cincinatti will be mentioned in the article and enhance searches without having to be in the title. That would only be needed if there is some other notable gorilla named Harambe.

come to think of it, gorilla could also be unnecessarily long. Something like Harambe (ape) would be briefer and plenty since the are no other notable apes with the name, gorilla or otherwise. Ranze (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support seems to be obvious, helps the project. Elisfkc (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no basis for the proposed move: the only other uses of Harambe are the song (a redirect) and an element of the Disney theme park, neither of which seem particuarly significant; various uses of Harambee are distinguished by spelling. But I think it's fair to say that the incident is more notable than the gorilla, and looking at the AfD discussion there was a lot of support for moving the article to Death of Harambe the gorilla or similar, and that's the discussion we should really be having here. PC78 (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Move to "Death of Harambe"- I support moving to Death of Harambe. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per PC78, the gorilla is the primary topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Move to Killing of/Death of Harambe the gorilla or something similar. —  AjaxSmack  04:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) But I would prefer the merge suggested below. —  AjaxSmack  04:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Move to "Death of Harambe" - The event itself is notable, though the gorilla is not. This is the comprehensive reason I was opposed to deleting this page. However, I don't endorse keeping the subject matter of this predominantly about the gorilla. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 08:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden#2016 gorilla shooting incident: there is no substantial coverage of anything other than the one event and reactions to it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden#2016 gorilla shooting incident - Article offers nothing that isn't already covered there.LM2000 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Poitntless? This section relates to a specified move from Harambe to Harambe (gorilla). All other suggested destinations are pointless here. It would have been more beneficial to discuss and agree on a new title, then address the page move issue. WWGB (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Move to "Death of Harambe" Mostly about the incident and the reactions from it. Elisfkc (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The incident or the gorilla?

I think the above renaming conversation is completely defunct, considering that it practically undermines the failed AfD that took place simultaneously. However, we should gather consensus for whether or not we want this article to be about the animal, or the incident that concerns the animal. I'd like to open that up for discussion now. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought the consensus in the AfD was pretty clear about making it about the incident. I had a feeling it would go like this, though. Same old biography, same infobox, same categories, same structure, new hat. If the article's called Death of Harambe, it should be about Harambe's death, not Harambe. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually if you read the text the article is almost entirely focused on his death and aftermath - lead section and 90% of the main text. And why wouldn't it, that's all the sources we have. Some low-WEIGHT biographical details sub-section and infobox about the animals is needed background context, other similar death incident articles have the same things. The picture shows the incident of his death. Categories, eh, whatever, it would be odd not to have the animal categorized. -- GreenC 03:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Right from the start, the gorilla's name is bold and followed by a birthdate. Deaths don't have birthdates. Or early lives. No breeds, no sexes, no weights. They certainly don't have deaths. If this was an article about an individual gorilla in the United States, yes, it would be weird to not categorize it like that. But no death in history has ever been an individual gorilla anywhere.

An event article should start "On May 28, 2016...". And use an "infobox event" instead of an "infobox animal". Things like that. Alternatively, give it an animal's title, like it had before we mostly agreed the animal wasn't notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem but honestly those are superficial edits that could be fixed in 5 minutes. As I said though, information about the animal is needed context with appropriate WEIGHT. An event article will have information about the animal's background and history. -- GreenC 13:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he should have a section. So should the kid, the shooter, the parents and the advocates. None of them should get personal infoboxes. If you can fix it in five minutes, probably best you do, because I'd take at least an hour. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I got a start on it. Don't be shy in improving. The shooter seems to be hidden well. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Name the child and parents?

The names are public knowledge in multiple reliable sources. Is there some reason we are not naming them? -- GreenC 14:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably because this is currently about Harambe. If it were about his death, they would certainly have pertinent roles. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The article title was decided by consensus with an RM. There's no debate about that. It might have to do with privacy concerns of children in BLP1E's? The only rationale I can think of for removing the victim's name. -- GreenC 03:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

That's probably it. Some rabbits say nothing makes the Boogeyman hungrier than a child using their real name online. I haven't heard anything about someone else disclosing it, but maybe shouldn't chance it. Anyway, the victim's name was Harambe. "Johnny" was just an imaginary victim from an alternate dystopian future. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

There's also the veiled death threats against the mother: "Some animal lovers even suggested she should have been shot and killed instead of the gorilla Harambe." I don't think Wikipedia wants to be held liable. — Wyliepedia 02:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be the source we cite that would be liable, not us. Pretty sure Brock Turner is getting death threats, yet we don't hide his name. Ranze (talk) 08:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPNAME, "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons."--Carwil (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 ^talk 16:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Death of Harambe → Killing of Harambe – more of our sources refer to the gorilla's killing than his death. If he had died of natural causes then this incident would not be notable. The response here is to the gorilla's killing not his death so this would be more accurate. Ranze (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support See also Killing of Cecil the Lion. The unexpected death by gunshot ie. killing is what made it controversial and thus notable. -- GreenC 12:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom and above comment. —  AjaxSmack  01:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support for consistency with other articles, and to differentiate from death by natural causes. WWGB (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2016

I feel that there needs to be at least a little bit of information about the Death of Harambe as an internet meme. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/harambe-the-gorilla-s-death

73.223.146.233 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Eh. Need reliable sourcing of course. Probably the most notable would be the Australian elections, where a campaign of voters added a third candidate to the ballot: the dead corpse of Harambe. -- GreenC 20:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources on this trend (example). A small note is entirely appropriate under the Reactions section. 109.79.100.198 (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The Sun is a reliable source? Really? WWGB (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

Does this Gorilla seriously need it's own wikipedia page? It will be forgotten in a few weeks like that Cecil thing. Online global lynch mob does not equate to note worthiness130.195.253.76 (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Go back and read your own post. It states: "It will be forgotten in a few weeks like that Cecil thing." You just said that the "Cecil thing" was forgotten. Yet, you yourself just remembered the "Cecil thing". So, your premise -- by your own admission -- is invalid. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Jambo sets a precedent. Harambe alone is notable for the public reaction and debate surrounding his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.22.147 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You can't "vote" here. If you want to vote, you have to go to this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harambe. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this will be forgotten, the Internet Is just over reacting again. Seriously, Gorillas are killed every day by illegal hunting, Yet we don't care out that, This is stupid and i don't care about it at all, You are all overreacting, Get it together — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C700:A540:5921:8C58:17F9:4BCF (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This information is incorrect.

• Jane Goodall is still alive and well
• The gorilla was not murdered in "cold blood"

This page is extremely biased and unprofessional. These facts are not cited, obviously, since the editor of this page has clearly not been educated in this incident. Kayjaylew (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's vandalism. Someone please revert it. Morganaticity (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone already did. Meters (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Morganaticity (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Rename

WE SHOULD CHANGE IT TO THE MURDER OF HARAMBE. end of discussion. #RipHarambe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harambe2016 (talk • contribs) 17:57, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

This is not a killing, it is an unjustified murder. I second the above comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:8980:12c:acae:3dd5:3ff5:523e (talk • contribs) 18:00, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, and it appears likely that both of the above posts were the same user. Note that both editors bolded their contributions, both failed to sign, and that an IP with no prior edit history appeared to support an editor just 3 minutes after the named editor's only edit. Meters (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's all dosh anyway since murder only applies to humans. WWGB (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

yup. Meters (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Addition of the popular 'Dicks out for Harambe' phrase to this page

I think that, given the significance of the meme and the relevance to the killing, 'Dicks out for Harambe' should be added to this page. It has a strong social media presence, and there are news articles from reputable websites documenting the movement.

I suggest the addition of the sentence: "The killing provoked discussion in internet communities, prompting the creation of a social movement 'Dicks out for Harambe' in memorial for the slain gorilla."

cited with this article: http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/dicks-out-for-harambe/

added after the sentence: "The incident was recorded... where the video went viral" in the 'Reactions' section. 72.208.63.239 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The Internet's general reaction to this seems notable to me, including #DicksOutForHarambe:

• http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/07/harambe-forever.html
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/07/27/the-internet-wont-let-harambe-rest-in-peace/
• This source shows international interest, but it looks tabloidish.

generic_hipster 23:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Washington post article is enough to include something about the memes (plural). The other sources can support it if needed. Daily Dot and The Sun are the lowest quality sources, NY Mag is OK, WaPo is excellent. -- GreenC 12:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that the WashPost source is enough to include.LM2000 (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A source that merely states "d....s out"? Good luck trying to get that into the article. WWGB (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

There are also a report for the "Dicks out for Harambe" meme on Vox.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/17/12457468/harambe-meme-social-commentary-explained

I have also added the meme on the List of Internet phenomena page.

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Concensus seems to be for including the phrase, and it is a great disservice to mention the internet reaction without mentioning the actual slogan most used, as evidenced by at least two reliable sources of acceptable quality, NY Mag and Vox. I urge WWGB, who sarcastically wished us good luck and then reverted the insertion of the phrase, to read the actual articles provided here. _dk (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@WWGB: "Pervasive" is the exact word that NYMag used. _dk (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

So you are admitting to a copyvio? WWGB (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

In case you're not baiting a response or speaking out of spite, one word does not constitute a copyvio, the most you can pin on me is that I didn't use quotation marks. _dk (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone tried to add it, is anyone opposing it? Also the WaPo for a third reliable sources. NYMag's assertion of notability ("Pervasive") could be the thing to say. -- GreenC 13:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Goodall

If you look at the original interview with Goodall, she does not say she "believed the killing was justified under the circumstances," nor does she conclude Harambe "needed to be killed". She says "life and death decisions sometimes have to be made". Yahoo changed the title of their article to Says Zoo Had No Choice, but she didn't even say that. She simply retracted the statement that the gorilla was trying to protect the child. Morganaticity (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The article does not quote her as saying "believed the killing was justified under the circumstances," she never said those words and the article does not quote her as saying those words, please don't misrepresent the text. Her exact quote was in response to the question "Did the zoo make the right decision?" to which she replied: "It was awful for the child, the parents, Harambe, the zoo, the keepers and the public. But when people come into contact with wild animals, life and death decisions sometimes have to be made." ie. the killing was justified under the circumstances. The wording in the article is a summary of her position, as supported by reliable secondary sources. -- GreenC 23:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Green Cardamom, Goodall and Downes avoided either justifying or opposing the actions taken by the zoo. They also avoided directly answering the question. Both were clearly intentional, since they took their time in posting these replies.

They acknowledged that it was an awful situation, possibly one in which the zookeepers had to make a life and death decision. It is fair to summarize that they did not blame the zoo for taking "the wrong decision". It might be fair to guess that they believe there are circumstances like this in which a zoo is justified in killing a gorilla. But it is not fair to summarize that they "believe the killing was justified" in this case. [They avoid stating definitively whether this situation was one in which life or death decisions had to be made; they could give such a politic answer even if they lack the information to judge whether it was justified or not.]

It is even more misleading to suggest Goodall and Downes feel that Harambe "needed to be killed". That is much stronger than saying the zoo took a [one of many possible] reasonable action.

In a case like this, it may be better to simply quote the original than to summarize. Morganaticity (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand your reading and concern how she might not want to take a definitive position, but every time I read the quote and context I can't escape that she is talking specifically about Harambe. "Life and death decisions sometimes have to be made" is a recognition the decision of death over life ("life and death decisions") had to be made in the case of Harambe ("sometimes"). Your reading of the "sometimes" it was not about Harambe specifically but all events in general to which Harambe falls into that category, and she was therefore dodging the question if the zoo made the right decision to kill Harambe specifically. That is harder to believe because she mentions Harambe in the previous sentence, the response was to a question about Harambe. Google searches on "jane goodall" harambe plus keywords like "right decision", "justified", "no choice", etc.. there are many secondary sources supporting it. Are there any secondary sources saying she took no position on the question of Harambe's death? In the end it's secondary sources that determine the interpretation. If the vast majority say the same thing we are fine to assert. If there is conflict between sources that is different. I think in this case it will be hard to quote due to the context of the question and the full response, it would require an indented pull-quote, though not impossible. There is still the issue that the media says she thought it was justified (or no choice etc however it's worded). -- GreenC 16:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi GreenC, thanks for the reply. I stand corrected, Goodall does in her interview agree with the statement "had no choice". But she doesn't say "needed to be killed" - that's a WP exclusive, and I believe incorrect. (In her first letter to the zoo head, she suggests Harambe did not need to be killed, and never retracts that statement. That first letter was much more widely reported on in secondary sources; it's also the only one of the two letters to be up on the Goodall Institute's site.) It is possible both a) for those on the scene to have no choice to act quickly, according to their emergency procedures at the time; and b) for those procedures to be less than ideal, where better procedures might have avoided the killing.

In this case, there are primary sources, so WP doesn't have to be as polarized as some of the popular secondary sources. The article should at least link to the primary statement, in addition to any summary. A longer pull-quote could work.

For comparison, here is Frans de Waal, being more explicit: "There was not the luxury of wait-and-see... the child's death was a probable outcome."[1] de Waal did not also publish a statement suggesting the gorilla's death could have been avoided. His statement is summarized by a more reliable source (a full article in NatGeo that directly reached out to him for a quote, not 3 inches in Time that is the author's interpretation of a public interview). If the article wants to make the point experts said the zoo was justified, and there was no other recourse, deWall/NatGeo may be a better source. Morganaticity (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make edits go ahead. You can do that without my permission of course :) I don't see the point to do it myself as those phrases all sound like the same thing to me. In general no reason to quote someone unless there is a reason to do so, just paraphrase in your own words or crib off key words. You don't want to soft-sell what she said, she was really quite clear about the need to kill Harambe under the circumstances. Those earlier statements were made before she had all the facts and just confuse the reader unnecessarily she changed her position once she had all the facts. -- GreenC 17:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to improve the three references to primatologists and added de Waal. Morganaticity (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Bokito the gorilla

Hi, I noticed the article is locked right now, presumably to prevent vandalism. I propose that a link to Bokito_(gorilla)'s page be added to the "See also" section; there was quite a stir in the Dutch media over him and although he was not killed, the incident surrounding Bokito seems similar, and sparked public debates similar to those surrounding Harambe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.37.104 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2016 | the 17-year

change "in which a worker shot and killed a 17-year-old Harambe" to "in which a worker shot and killed the 17-year-old Harambe" think the reason for that is pretty clear: it's THE harambe and not just A harambe 2003:D2:CBD1:2286:155E:D043:1F71:242B (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Topher385 (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Rewording of Australian Election section

Old: In Australia, people joked about supporting Harambe as a write-in candidate on the ballot for the election of Prime Minister.

Suggested replacement: In Australia, people joked about supporting Harambe as a write-in candidate on the ballot for the federal election.

Reason: In Australia, there is no election for the role of Prime Minister. You instead vote for a local representative who may or may not represent a party.

Just a small nitpick :)

Tf2manu994 (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Popularity

Thanks to those keeping this page sane. The traffic to this page it fairly high, it even made the WP:TOP25 this week (at #25) which is quite surprising for such a bizarre meme.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the memes are working around the planet, a universal appeal. Too bad Harambe could not be alive to see it. -- GreenC 22:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of racism

So I know Wikipedia is super progressive and sensitive about racism, but it's clear to me that this article lacks information about the enormous amount of racism allegations in the aftermath of the killing of Harambe, claiming it was a racist motivated killing. Just a few of the sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] including celeberties and Twitter users. Beatitudinem (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Those are good sources and could be added. To clarify it's not really about a "racist motivated killing" but something else. -- GreenC 21:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not really sure I understand all those angry tweets haha Beatitudinem (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A lot of those sources read like satire or people taking satire seriously. Perhaps some of this could be included somewhere in the memes section? ^Falling_Gravity 22:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think all these opinions are satire, some of them seem completely serious... Beatitudinem (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2016

the title should be

the assassination of harambe Godblessisrael420 (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done People are assassinated, not animals. Meters (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2016

The section about australians joking about writing in Harambe, should say TheIR Federal Election to make it more clear.

2601:405:4202:C7F0:2C93:774D:318E:7A82 (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

They want the word "the" changed to "their". But it seems obvious enough from the rest of the sentence that it's talking about the Australian federal election. --McGeddon (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Listed pronunciation of Harambe is wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KIMXGElC7Q 71.8.148.148 (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested help at Help_talk:Pronunciation_respelling_key#Help_for_Harambe -- GreenC 20:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I was bold and fixed the pronunciation. I've never heard the pronunciation that was given before. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated songs titled "Harambe"

There are two instances in the subsection Music of songs titled "Harambe" that do not mention the gorilla in the lyrics. The seem like nothing more than opportunism, trying to capitalise on the dead ape. I deleted them as having no relevance to Harambe, but another editor insists they are named Harambe and so should appear. I seek the thoughts of other editors on the relevance of this content. WWGB (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

How can a song that is supposedly capitalizing on Haramabe be unrelated to Harambe? Furthermore, what difference does it make if that were true? It's hard to imagine how the article would be complete without mention of popular songs named after him in the event of his death, even if all we said was something to the effect that the songs were capitalizing on his death - in itself noteworthy supported by reliable sources. -- GreenC 03:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As tired as I am of Harambe memes, I have to say that songs which can be shown to be titled for Harambe or mention the events are reasonable inclusions. Note that the statement that Young Thug cited Harambe as one of his idols when he released the song "Harambe" is not properly cited. The Pitchfork ref says that the songs are named for Young Thug's idols, but that may just be the opinion of the writers. Meters (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2016

I used this page as recording practice:

(blanket) (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: I suggest you announce your recording at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for more visibility. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not bad really you have a good voice. Some stumbles or pauses over words, a couple that need better pronunciation, but yeah, not bad at all. Good work hope you keep narrating. The article is still being worked on (I just redid the Internet meme section to be more coherent). Too bad we couldn't take the Incident section reading and use that in a box for that section. It has a dramatic narrative and short to listen. -- GreenC 04:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"Killing"

Is "killing" the appropriate term for the title here? I feel like "shooting" might be more appropriate, unless it fundamentally changes the title. Radioactivated (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A shooting does not necessarily cause death. Harambe was deliberately killed. WWGB (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that the gorilla was deliberately killed rather than just shot is a key part of the article. Meters (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be renamed "Execution of Harambe"184.91.99.69 (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

What happened to the kid?

The article is ambiguous about the status of the child. Is there a reason for this? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because the article focuses on Harambe (specifically, his death), but not necessarily the child. Radioactivated (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A brief mention of what happened to the kid would really close that loop. It's really hard for a reader to think about that. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Did something happen to the kid? -- GreenC 19:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No. The kid is fine, aside from a couple of scrapes. He was seen in public less than one week after the incident. Meters (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Filthy Frank

Hey, just a head's up - I removed the Filthy Frank mention for two reasons. The first is that Forbes article was one of their blog posts. These have no editorial oversight and are marked with the phrase "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.", which indicates that. Second, there has been a pretty concentrated attempt to add Filthy Frank to various Wikipedia articles in the last year or two. Chef (film) has been a popular target and it looks like this was also one that was tagged. Articles on this person have been repeatedly deleted, to the point where Filthy Frank and a few of the other names have been salted. Two of his links have been added to the blacklist because people kept readding them after repeatedly being told that they didn't belong. Apparently the fandom is getting obsessed with adding him to Wikipedia, if the AfD Reddit post is any indication. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Primatologist Views

The page should have an additional category about the primatologist view on harambe and whether he was actually trying to kill the toddler or not Erin Dunn (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article. Meters (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Concert by the Lavender HagSquad

On October 27,2016, a gay music group called the lavender hag squad did a tour to honour the life of the gorilla. because the child was pat haggs's son in law — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Leena (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump is not a president elect anymore

Change it to president. SplashyFlame (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump was only a candidate when he made the comment. That is what we publish. WWGB (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Article on USDA report regarding enclosure

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/11/17/report-cincy-zoos-gorilla-barrier-wasnt-compliance/94025422/ Not sure where to put this in the article, or whether to include it at all, since all the report concludes is that the enclosure was safe until it wasn't. Mapsax (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

High-res image of gorilla

https://www.flickr.com/photos/52934799@N03/7644076958/. MB298 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind – I realized the image was from 2011 while Harambe was transferred to the zoo in 2014. MB298 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016

Please change: A number of primatologists and conservationists wrote later that the zoo had no other choice under the circumstances, and that it highlighted the danger of zoo animals in close proximity to humans and the need for better standards of care.

To: A number of primatologists and conservationists wrote later that the zoo had no other choice under the circumstances, and that it highlighted the danger of zoo animals in proximity to humans and the need for better standards of care.

because using "close" before "proximity" is redundant. 24.237.27.120 (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done "Close proximity" is a relatively common usage, and was used by one of the references we cite. Meters (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's redundant to add "proximity" to close, but not redundant to add "close" to proximity :) There are degrees of proximity not all necessarily meaning "close" (very close, near, outer proximity). Since proximity deals only with distance (outer proximity is a more scientific terminology which might include solar systems), the word "close" creates a subjective human-scale sense of nearby, thus "close proximity to humans". -- GreenC 01:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. "Close" proximity conveys useful information, just as "far" distance does. Meters (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Initial Reaction to killing based on assumption boy was white.

My understanding that in the first few hours after the shooting, before the race of the boy was generally known, there were criticisms of the shooting of the gorilla based on the false assumption that the boy was white. http://fusionlacedillusions.com/index.php/2016/05/31/racism-afercan-americans-think-cincinnati-zoo-killed-17-year-old-male-gorilla/ Once corrected, that portion of the criticism quickly subsided, although there were continued objections in general. If reliable sources (Twitter, etc) could be found, I think it would be useful to reveal those initial objectors and objections: The ones who thought that the killing of Harambe was bad ONLY BECAUSE they thought the victim kid was white. 67.5.215.37 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding appears to be based on nothing but a few mistaken, anonymous tweets reposted by fusionlacedillusions.com Even if true, this does not seem worth including. If people had mistakenly thought that the animal was shot to protect a pet there would have been tweets decrying the shooting for that reason too, and those mistaken tweets wouldn't have worth including either. Meters (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I recall this matter within a day of when it occurred. I merely decided to include a sample reference to it; otherwise you know that somebody would accuse me of making this up. This article shows that the authors have already decided that the public's reaction to this incident is noteworthy. Others won't want this included because of embarrassment. 67.5.215.37 (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree without more substantial and reliable sourcing this minor episode of a few people on Twitter isn't noteworthy for the article per the policy WP:WEIGHT Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. --GreenC 16:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017

harambe was 420lbs actually 185.74.235.126 (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kosack (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Information being removed

Why do things on this page keep getting removed for being unimportant despite people being much more interested in them than whole articles on other parts of the wiki? For example, I added in a reference to a tribute song a YouTube channel made for Harambe which has 9 million views. But on the other hand, we have plenty of pages on this encyclopedia dedicated to planets and plants and bacteria that probably less than 1 million people are interested in. And that's a page, not just a quick reference! I think this wiki needs to start prioritising about what people are actually interested in. I'm sorry, but I think this hyperlink: Harambe Tribute Song will receive a lot more interest than this: Cryptobacterium. Consider reverting the latest edit. JohnSmith678 (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Harambe's grandmother euthanized

I'm not sure if this warrants inclusion, but Harambe's grandmother Josephine died on January 18, 2017. (Sources: PEOPLE.com, NY Daily News). Mostly it's getting local coverage, but if anything it's something to watch out for in case this becomes a thing like her grandson's death did. ^Falling_Gravity 05:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Link to Killing of Cecil the lion

That article has a link to this article, and the two stories are similar in that they are about well-known animals that got killed, and the respective public responses to them. It can be said that Harambe is the "emotional successor" of Cecil. Leo1pard (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It keeps getting added and removed but I agree there is a case for inclusion and anyone who wants to remove it should get consensus to avoid this back and forth. -- GreenC 16:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2017

Change (/həˈrɑːmbeɪ/ hə-RAHM-bay) to (/həˈrɑːmbeɪ/ hə-RAHM-bay, or /həˈræmbeɪ/ hə-RAM-bay in the UK) Haroldrobertdixon (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

Please add the following. By possibly adding more subsections to the Responses section.

Petition and Legal ActionFor example, a resident of Cincinnati, Ohio started a petition on change.org titled 'Justice for Harambe' which demanded that the child's parents be 'held accountable for the lack of supervision and negligence that caused Harambe to lose his life. The petition also demanded that there should be an investigation at the child's home to see if there is any evidence raising a cause for concern. [50] Social workers investigated the home and nothing was found to be out of the ordinary. After the incident[51] Although the petition has 500,000 signatures today, the Hamilton County Prosecutor's office decided to not press charges against the mother for Harambe's death, based on the notion that a '3 year old can easily scamper away quickly and unseen.' [51]

Candlelight VigilsSeveral vigils took place to honor Harambe's death. As much as 3,400 people had attended a candlelight vigil at Hyde Park in London, United Kingdom. [52] Anthony Seta, an activist who represents the Cincinnati Collective for Animal Rights and Education, organized a vigil at the Cincinnati Zoo to honor the loss of Harambe. In an interview by the press, he emphasized that animals feel and have emotions just like humans do. Anthony Seta succinctly stated "I'm not here to decide what was right and what was wrong, the fact is that a gorilla who just celebrated his birthday has been killed. I am out here to speak to remember him, because he can't do it" [53]

50) Hurt, Sheila. "Justice for Harambe" Change.org Retrieved on April 23, 2017 51) Swilley, Kristen. "Prosecutor: no charges against mother in Harambe's death" WCPO Retrieved on April 23, 2017 52) Jeffery, Yasmin. "Candles out for Harambe: 3,400 people to attend candelit vigil for Harambe the Gorilla in London" Retrieved on April 23, 2017 53) "Vigil called at Cincinnati Zoo in tribute to slain gorilla" Los Angeles Times Retrieved on April 23, 2017 Maci0192 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Vigils added. Secondary source needed for the petitions - the article linked does not mention it. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Fence

Have the zoo said why the fence around the gorilla enclosure was only 3 feet high? Has it been replaced with a higher fence? Jim Michael (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why would they? Of course no. Why? Because they don't care. - 94.50.8.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

One would think that looked into the fence, they've done a major expansion creating an indoor viewing area behind glass walls. -- GreenC 16:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Species versus subspecies

The Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) is the nominate subspecies of the Western gorilla (Gorilla gorilla). Leo1pard (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a technically correct understanding of the terms species and sub-species, but {{Infobox animal}} has no option for subspecies, so we use the term species in its intended non-technical general understanding - as a Western lowland gorilla. -- GreenC 15:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018

i want to help improve this page The first wikifixer (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please be more specific about what you want us to improve on this page. ^Falling_Gravity 21:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018

The Infobox on Harambe should be moved to his biography section and maybe aligned left. Also Bob Marley should be linked in Harambe section. 134.61.82.150 (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done wumbolo ^^^ 11:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

I would like to edit this because some information is inaccurate FloppyDog343 (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please be more clear what information is inaccurate. -- GreenC 20:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2018

Change "22 months ago, to 23 months ago." Then as of May 28th this year it will need to be 2 years ago." Mperry1993 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: That is part of a template and cannot be manually changed. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk Harambe Song

We need to put that in the Popular Culture section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.92.194 (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Rumahoy Song

The pirate metal band Rumahoy recorded the song, "Harambe the Pirate Gorilla", for their album, Time II: Party. RUMAHOY - Harambe The Pirate Gorilla (Official Lyric Video) | Napalm Records — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.141.173 (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Does anyone have evidence this happened in 2016? As far as i'm aware, I experienced this event some ~24 years ago (falling into the pen, nearly drowning, being dragged, crawling my way to safety). Perhaps it was a "Quantum Experience", I think it's more likely the years on Wikipedia are being fabricated. 24.138.157.225 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Ha. funny, but no: not a request; and completely incoherent with the sources reporting this... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: when exactly did the mother become aware that her son had climbed into the gorilla enclosure, and was the reason he was able to do this partly because she was distracted by her three other children? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

REACTION section This video names the woman that filmed the incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUxVNMuoGgA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.169.205 (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

BRD on "However"

This is a section for discussing the bold removal of "however", which has been restored until there is consensus for its removal. I look forward to working with you on your proposed removal which is controversial and does not currently have consensus. This wording has been in place for years and never been a problem with other editors. I believe Harambe's action of not following the females into the building is highly significant and the emphasis with the use of "however" is justified by subsequent course of events. -- GreenC 19:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2021

he now died 5 years ago since 2021-5 = 2016 2601:98B:C100:6430:7CBE:A60F:5E2F:5AD (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Since Harambe died on May 28, 2016, 5 years will have passed on May 28, 2021. In addition, that number should automatically be updated. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 16:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Euthanasia"

@GreenC: You are correct that "aggressive animal behavior" is a reason for animal euthanasia. Such cases might include a dog found unsuitable for adoption because it is easily provoked to bite humans. This case has more similarity to a police officer entering a house with a warrant and shooting the owner's aggressive dog. More relevant terminology might be defense of others.

Yes, the decision was briefly considered before it was executed, but that doesn't change the nature of these events. It was an emergent situation, and Harambe was a healthy adult gorilla, behaving as one might expect from a healthy adult gorilla. The term "euthanasia" is reserved for cases where the animal is in some way dysfunctional and unable to live a healthy life.

Please provide a reliable source that refers to this killing as "euthanasia." —Guanaco 03:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if defense of others ("Right of self-defense") would be it, being a legal concept, because Harambe is an animal; usually when authorities kill an animal it is euthanization, it's more precise anyway than "Gunshot" which doesn't convey much beyond a literal proximate cause. Some sources:

• [12]: "As a result her child fell into a gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo resulting in the innocent living creature being euthanized," one petitioner alleges.
• [13] "A few years ago, I wrote a column about Harambe, the gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo who was euthanized after a child fell into his enclosure."
• [14] "Since Harambe was euthanized by authorities at the Cincinnati Zoo back in May, much of the internet continues to mourn the loss of the fallen primate"
• [15] "The death comes after an international uproar over the gorilla Harambe was euthanized at the Cincinnati Zoo on May 28, after a young boy fell into its enclosure."
• [16] "A short time later, Harambe, the gorilla was euthanized."
• [17] "The promotion was based on the silver back gorilla of that name who was euthanized at the Cincinnati zoo earlier this year when a child fell into his enclosure."
• [18] "Harambe, the poor gorilla euthanized at the Cincinnatti Zoo earlier this year, lives on in the hearts and minds of the denizens of the internet, especially Pokemon fans."
• [19] "Nagle posits that the Obama presidency’s veneer of reasoned sincerity led to the disingenuous clicktivism of the KONY 2012 movement and the social media vilification of the Cincinnati Zoo in the wake of their euthanizing Harambe the gorilla."
• Ohio Libraries Quarterly Vol. 1 Issue 1 - State Library of Ohio pg. 17

-- GreenC 05:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Euthanasia is not anesthesia. -- GreenC 07:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

What do major news outlets say? None of the eight sources above seem to fit the categories of reliable sources listed at WP:SOURCES. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

GreenC, the two sources you listed below, [20] from ABC News and [21] from the BBC write of killing (both) and shooting (BBC only) – no euthanasia. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Source above include Associated Press and other reliable sources so I am unclear why you say the AP, NBC and others are unreliable. Did you actually look at the sources, or do you believe AP and NBC are unreliable? -- GreenC 19:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Al Arabiya English article is AP, yes, but as the quote you cited above indicates "euthanized" is a word a "petitioner" uses. NBC Boston, a local news source, is not the same as "NBC". This NBC article doesn't have "euthanasia".

I am unable to load the PDF document you added. But anyway, I think you're going about this the wrong way. You shouldn't start from the assumption that "euthanasia" is correct and then find sources that support that. Instead, you should review what reliable sources state and reflect that. ABC News and the BBC, go with a different wording, as does the New York Times ([22]), CNN ([23]), NBC ([24]) – this would suggest that "euthanasia" does not represent a mainstream view and using that wording would be WP:UNDUE. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Grabbed and Dragged

An editor has been removing the grabbed and dragged language from the lead section and replacing it with wording such as "cradled" ie. what mothers do with children. As the video shows, the child is dragged through the water at high speed. The wording grabbed and dragged is supported by the New York Times, and the overwhelming majority of sources portray the child as roughly handled. I'm concerned there is an attempt here to push a minority POV that Haramabe gently handled the child and by extension the shooting was not justifiable, or questionable. This POV is not well supported except in minority sources and should not be emphasized in the lead. -- GreenC 04:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

As for 'roughly', used by the NYT, according to this source the boy suffered "serious -- albeit non-life-threatening -- injuries". And this source says "a concussion and a few scrapes... no broken bones or internal injuries". We don't know if the concussion was from the fall or being knocked around the pool, as he visibly was, but the NYT reports the dragging as the rough part. That is either accurate reporting or not, but NYT is reliable enough we can assume they emphasized the dragging as rough for reason. -- GreenC 04:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I went through some of the sources and checked the relevant lines:

• New York Times: "At times, he stood over the boy in what appeared to be a protective posture. But then he darted across the water, dragging the child roughly behind him"
• ABC News: "the boy […] was picked up and carried around by the gorilla", "violently dragging and throwing the child"
•  BBC "the boy being dragged through shallow water by the animal"
• CNN "pulled the boy across a moat", "dragging him through the water"
• LA Times: "The gorilla […] stands over the tiny boy, then takes him at one point and gently props him up on his feet. Then suddenly, the gorilla grabs him by the ankle and sets off at a fast clip through the shallow moat, dragging the boy along.", "Whether the gorilla intended to hurt the boy was less an issue than the fact that he simply could do so by the brute force of swinging him around."

Based on this I'd definitely go with "dragged" instead of "cradled". I'm not sure about "roughly". Robby.is.on (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

Add "(200 kg)" after "440 pound" in Incident section for non-americans Alhrath (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Dicks out for Harambe

Regarding this deletion [25]. What it "looks like" to you, and what it actually is, are two different things. This was probably the most common meme of the Harambe membes. It was everywhere. The sources confirm it was "pervasive" and "popular" and that is what our article says. That you have a problem with the word "Dicks" is not Wikipedia's problem we do not WP:CENSOR. Simply saying it was a pervasive meme, explaining what it means, including two sources, is sufficient. It is unclear what high bar you require to get past your personal uncomfort with the word Dick - and no, this was not "a teenager" making things up to insert dirty words into the article. -- GreenC 14:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you didn't understand what I wrote in my edit summaries. I said that if this sentence were to be useful, some context was required. Without that, it just looks infantile and is useless to the reader. You say yourself that explaining what it means is necessary, even while apparently arguing that it requires no explanation. Either the context to make the sentence meaningful should be added, or the sentence should be taken out. Wtqf (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't what you are saying. This was one of the most popular memes. The sources say so, and so do we. What is the problem with reporting this information? And it actually does give context as its meaning, not that it is required. Are you after the origin of the meme ie. the first person to use it? Because that is not required for meme inclusion and often unknown. Are you looking for a literal meaning of the meme? Because meme's often do not have literal meanings, they can express a feeling or attitude or position. The sentence reads "the pervasive "Dicks out for Harambe" meme can be seen as a fake tribute to an incident that would normally engender sincere mourning." This is not useless or infantile, it is an analysis of how and why people used this pervasive meme. If all it said was "There was a meme 'Dicks of for Harambe'," I might see your point, but it gives two other pieces of information: the meme was pervasive, and it was a fake tribute (see the previous sentence for more info what this means). -- GreenC 16:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That is basically all it says. *What was the meme*? Wtqf (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That is the meme, the phrase. Whenever someone mentioned Harambe, you would reply "Dicks out for Harambe", for example. It is "a fake tribute to an incident that would normally engender sincere mourning". -- GreenC 21:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

What you have said makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't describe anything recognisable as a meme. I think we should be writing for adults, yes? Educated, intelligent people? It would need to be described in appropriate terms for that audience. Wtqf (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

If what I wrote "makes absolutely no sense", there is nothing more that can be said. Taking this to the wider community to decide. -- GreenC 15:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Dicks out for Harambe

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per discussion. GreenC 15:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the article include the "Dicks out for Harambe" meme? -- GreenC 15:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It has been in the article for years, without controversy, and was recently deleted by User:Wtqf in this edit and this edit and discussed in the section above without resolution. -- GreenC 15:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Poll

• Support inclusion. Multiple reliable sources call the phrase a meme saying it was "pervasive" and "popular". Wtqf has shown discomfort with this phrase, we should be writing for "Educated, intelligent people", and "we should be writing for adults", and "just looked like a teenager trying to get rude words into an article for a laugh". This meme was everywhere during the Harambe era, it can be sourced to multiple reliable sources that confirm it. We are saying things about the meme not merely repeating it: that it was popular, and how it fit into the larger meme landscape of meaning. -- GreenC 15:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. It's cited, it's been part of the page for quite a while already. If a user feels that it needs elaboration then they should add that elaboration, not just remove the reference altogether. Also, there seems to be some confusion over what a meme is. As the linked page states, it is an "idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture". It does not imply (in this context) use of an image macro or even that it is exclusive to internet culture. Quantum Burrito (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• The point has been entirely missed: I did not say it should not be mentioned. I have not shown any "discomfort" with the phrase and I don't appreciate you making such claims about me. What I have said is that we are adults, and we write for an educated, adult audience. Simply saying "The Dicks Out Meme" is meaningless. Adding the word "pervasive" adds no clarification of any kind. You apparently believe that literally everyone knows of this meme and therefore it doesn't even need to be stated what it is. I, until reading this article a few days ago, had never heard of it. If the thing can be described in a meaningful, informative, adult way, then by all means do that. If you don't want to write in an adult manner about it, then it should be taken out. The point is about writing in an encyclopaedic way. Wtqf (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, and "been in the article for years" means absolutely nothing. I can find you as many examples as you like of extremely substandard text that has been in place for years. Wtqf (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. I suggest the concerned editor take a stab at adding context or information if they feel it's needed, but no reason to remove the meme mention altogether, as it's clearly cemented in the collective memory surrounding the incident. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• If we tell people what it means, then possibly yes. If we leave it as it was up until August 11, then, no; it looks like vandalism. Even the two cited refs kind of dawdle around before explaining it (and don't make it particularly clear), so our article has some 'splainin' to do. I've never heard of this and it seems nonsensical now that I've read about it; our article should tell what it is, then talk about how widespread it was. But the whole Memes section needs work, I'd say. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't have a specific meaning, rather many people ascribe different meanings:

Carina Hsieh (December 5, 2016). ""Dicks Out for Harambe": How 2 Average Guys Started the Year's Most Controversial Meme". Cosmopolitan.

Basically what happened is one day in 2016, an anonymous chat-room dude happened to type the words “We coming into the Cincinnati Zoo with them dicks out for Harambe” (no explanation what they meant). Another dude saw it and thought it was funny and it stuck with him. A week later he bought a toy gun and made a photo Tweet holding the gun up like a mugger, and underneath a dicks out quote - it was mildly popular, getting a bunch of retweets. Then actor Danny Trejo saw someone else use the phrase, liked it, and made a Vine video which was popular and "It evolved into a college campus type thing, like a frat-bro thing where people were chanting “dicks out for Harambe.”" It went through the frat bro phase, then got picked up the racist alt-right including Milo Yiannopoulos where it was used for more nefarious purposes. At which point the two meme creators tried to kill it, but it was too late, "You can’t really kill a meme." What, exactly, the meme meant was dependent on who was using it, and when, during the cycle - and presumably many people who used it had no meaning in mind other than ludicrous literal image of whipping one's dick out for Harambe. All of this is characteristic of memes: convoluted and improbable origins, random events make it popular for reasons people have a hard time explaining, shifting usage over time, some people think everyone heard of it, other people never heard of it. Nevertheless, the meme was real and, at least in the United States, was pervasive. If someone wanted to distill this down to a sentence or two, good luck, but I personally think saying the meme existed, that it was pervasive, that it engendered insincere mourning and then linking to the sources to learn more, is good enough. Certainly though the meme should not be deleted from the article, that would be seriously POV. -- GreenC 02:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Just did some of that research myself and added the sentence back in with additional context and two citations. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That's excellent. I guess dicks = guns was the primary meaning by the original meme creator @SexualJumanji. Unclear how the alt-right used it, other than to make a it racist meme. The frat-boy usage was puerile college humor, no deep meaning required. So that is three perspectives. There is a possible fourth, which is the anonymous chat-room poster who first said "dicks out", but it was likely as @SexualJumanji saw it, street slang for guns as heard in rap songs. -- GreenC 03:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Writing in a meaningful, informative way was all that was required, and I'm just astonished that this was so aggressively resisted. Wtqf (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment

This poll has nothing to do with the reasons for the edits I made. The issue is not "should this thing be mentioned" but "should we write in an adult way for an educated audience? Wtqf (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are not concerned with whether or not it's included, then why did you remove it? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly: because it was not written in an adult way for an educated audience. If someone feels that it can be written in such a manner, they can do so. Like I said in my original edit summary: "the meme would need explaining for this sentence to be useful. As it was, just looked like a teenager trying to get rude words into an article for a laugh". Wtqf (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

You are the one that thinks it should be written differently, thus you should be the one to write it differently. Also, who says Wikipedia is intended for an adult, educated audience? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Pointing out problems does not oblige me to fix those problems. Having no idea about the meaning of this meme, I am hardly well placed to add an explanation of it, am I? As for the audience, isn't that a fundamental tenet of an encyclopaedia? Who do you think the intended audience is? Wtqf (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hello @JohnFromPinckney: new sources have been found, and further explanation added to the article. Also, Wtqf has been perma blocked as a long time disruptive sock. We could close the RfC and move on, the RfC doesn't make much sense anymore IMO. Since you are the sole oppose, the decision is yours. Would you be amiable to a close at this point? -- GreenC 14:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  I only opposed on the basis of a lack of explanation. I found Wtqf's points to be valid, sock or not, but with the current hints as to what the damned thing is, I have no problem with the inclusion (as I meant to indicate above). (Tiny nitpick: Wtqf is not "perma blocked" merely blocked indefinitely.) — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 15:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Great. Yeah I guess nothing on wiki is perma. -- GreenC 15:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Checking criteria for B class (October 2017)

1. Referencing & citations

• This source may be unreliable.
• Over the next 10 minutes, Harambe became increasingly "agitated and disoriented" by the screams of onlookers.
  The 10 minutes figure is not provided in given references.
• occasionally propping him up when he sat, or pushing him down when he stood.
  Not given in source.
• This source may be unreliable.
• In an interview by the press, he emphasized that animals feel and have emotions just like humans do.
  I couldn't verify this.
• All in all  well sourced and ✓ Pass.

2. Coverage & accuracy

• This source says Harambe's weight is 450 pounds, the article says it's 440 pounds.
• The Change.org petition is not mentioned.
• A Harambe cheetoo was sold for $99,999.
• Harambe's grandmother died.
• ✓ Pass

3. Structure

• On September 18, 2014, Harambe was transferred to the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden to learn adult gorilla behavior and join a new social group.
  Single sentence paragraph.
• On naming contests for newborn baby gorillas, a teenager made a petition to Dublin Zoo to name a newborn baby gorilla as "Harambe Jr." ("Harambetta" if female) after Dublin Zoo announced the newborn baby gorilla by tweet.
  Single sentence paragraph.
• On June 16, 2017, satire news site The Onion featured an article of professional wrestler The Big Show being killed by WWE after a seven-year-old boy wandered into a steel cage during a live event in Indianapolis.
  Single sentence paragraph.
• The Later developments section is short.

4. Grammar & style

• Change "Dicks out for Harambe" to "dicks out for Harambe".
• Unitalicize Vox.
• One meme is a play on conspiracy theories, such as "Bush did Harambe"
  Then it's more than one meme.
• The dead gorilla had 5% support in late July 2016 (ahead of Green Party nominee Jill Stein) and 2% in August 2016 (tied with Stein).
  I believe the years are redundant in this sentence.
• after being daily targeted by trolls
  Split infinitive.
• Harambe vs. Capcom
  One source says "vs.", one says "vs", one says "Vs".
• Unitalicize Otaku Gang.
• Link the first occurence of "Dublin Zoo", unlink the second.
• Consider adding more links. (Per WP:MOS-L)
• but she believed that zoos "with the highest standards of care" could play an important role.
  Change "but" to something else because this isn't contrasting the preceding text. Also, consider changing "could" to "can".
• noting that a tranquilizer dart might have taken five or ten minutes to take effect
  Change "five or ten" to "five to ten".
• Consider changing the zoo had resumed its account to the zoo resumed its account.
• A self-described underground culture collective known as Otaku Gang
  Self-described?
• Change entitled to titled.

5. Supporting materials

•  infoboxes
• Consider adding more images.
• Otherwise, ✓ Pass

6. Accessibility

• Consider changing "USDA" to "United States Department of Agriculture" or "United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)".
• The game itself is a fullgame of M.U.G.E.N, a customizable fighting game.
  What is a fullgame?
• not checked

This link is dead. Ꞷumbolo 09:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021

There are several punctuation errors in this article in which commas are outside of the quotation marks. I just wanted to fix them quickly. Commas and periods ALWAYS go inside quotation marks. EmilyWilson2 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Not true. See MOS:LQ and Wikipedia:Logical quotation on Wikipedia -- GreenC 01:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)