Talk:Wojtek (bear)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article title

I understand that "Wojtek" is the more accurate transliteration of his Polish name ('vɔjtɛk), but if his English name was spelled "Voytek" in actual use, should not we use the latter for this article. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 12:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Wojtek was his name, as that is an actual polish name. Voytek was not his name, it just may have been written that way for non polish speakers to pronounce. I say we keep the article as is. Salted Dragon (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Biography

I want to edit this article and put it in the style of a biographical template and arrange the information accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearherd (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

picture

Can we get an actual picture of him, not just a bear of the same species? I have a couple of pictures of this bear with my grandad, how do I upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiluke (talk • contribs) 12:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Another picture

I too have a picture of the bear during his service with my grandfather. He was one of the few men strong enough to hold the bear on chain. Panjir (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Panjir. It would be interesting to see your picture. Please consider uploading it to Wikimedia Commons under a free license. See here for more information on how to upload the image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Name Meaning

I know almost nothing about Polish words or their general field, but the article clearly states that '"Wojtek" is a diminutive form of "Wojciech"' (Adalbert). So the meaning of "Wojtek" cannot be "he who enjoys war" or "smiling warrior"; But instead a diminutive version of this (either size wise, or just to a lesser degree). So something like "Little smiling warrior". Possibly "battle" could be considered a diminutive of "war"? Making "he who enjoys battle" (which would make more sense than "he who somewhat enjoys war"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.179 (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Im no expert in Polish words myself but I think what's going on here is similar to, in the English language, shortening the name, "Richard" to, "Richie", "Rick" or, "Dick" (diminutive forms of Richard). I presume, "Wojciech" can be shortened to the diminutive form "Wojtek" in Polish. The meaning of the name doesn't change just how it's spelt and said. 212.250.138.33 (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That does make a certain sense now that you point it out. But I really do not think that terminology should be used if that is the case. Diminutive, when referring to language, has a specific meaning, and it is not normally "shortform". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminutive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.204.116 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware diminutive is the correct terminology for shortening names to create nicknames. From the link you supplied, "Diminutives are often used for the purpose of expressing affection (see nickname and hypocoristic)." I suppose though, the proper technical term for what's going on here is, "Hypocorism" - "A hypocorism (from Greek ὑποκορίζεσθαι hypokorizesthai, "to use child-talk"[1]) is a shorter or diminutive form of a word or given name, for example, when used in more intimate situations as a nickname or term of endearment." From my understanding, diminutive is still correct and I doubt many people know what "Hypocorism" is, it might be better to just stick with "Diminutive" unless you want to use "Hypocorism" and link it to the page so people who don't know what it means can understand what you're talking about. Either way seems fine, agree? 212.250.138.33 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not seem like a big issue, it confused me completely but it does sound like it is technically correct if also unspecific to which meaning is applicable. If someone else wants to change it, that would be great, but as far as I know most Wikipedia articles uses diminutive for this type of thing. I will trust the original author's knowledge over my own. --Wisnoskij (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Age Inaccuracy

The table under the picture says he died at 20-21 (with understandable reason for not knowing what month and day he was born in) but the body of the article under post war says he died at 22. Well, which is it? 170.218.231.21 (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Being born around April 1942 (in the earliest photos I have seen of Woytek with Polish soldiers he is certainly only a few weeks old, and certainly younger than 3 months) and dying December 1963 (although some sources put this earlier at 15th November) it seems clear that Woytek was 21 years old when he died. I think 22 is just the result of bad arithmetic or other assumptions. I have edited. Tedmarynicz (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes

{{Infobox military person}} is specifically for persons (i.e., human beings) - bears are animals, and are by definition not persons. {{Infobox animal}} is eminently more appropriate, given that it includes fields like "Species" that the other template obviously will not. Also, fields like "allegiance" in the military person template are wholly inappropriate - animals are incapable of consent, let alone pledging allegiance to anything. Parsecboy (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read anthropocentrism. Wojtek self-identifies as a homo sapiens, despite being of ursidae birth. He was adopted into this species and grew up as a Polish national, and according to the sources he acted just like all other "real person" soldiers; he smoked, laughed, drank beer, and helped fight. He was determined to help Poland and understood Polish. He was officially registered in the Polish Army under a serial number. Why do you insist on using the classification he was assigned at birth? This is highly disrespectful towards the 22nd Battalion, who do not just see a "silly animal" on their emblem. They see a soldier. 188.207.91.211 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This has got to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. The vast majority of animals (including bears) are not sentient. They cannot self-identify. They cannot give consent. They do not have allegiances. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Many people DO believe this is possible (anthropomorphism) and there are cultures like otherkin where this is a normal feature. Alternatively, he (not it!) has species dysphoria. He self-identified as human by only living with humans (he did not get along with one bear he met). He also smoked (sometimes ate) cigarettes and liked to drink beer (read it). He was free to go at any moment but he stayed. He saluted to his superior officer and showed his allegiance. Why are the qualifications discriminatory? Remember that we are animals as well. Where is the line between them and us?

In any case, we shouldn't judge based on that. This article is about the soldier/Polish hero who served and fought for Poland in the 22nd Artillery Transport batallion, not the biological ursa he used to be. Wikipedia respects self-identity. In this case all the sources even agree. They say it's a bear, yes, but always first that it was a soldier. He's not a mascot or fake soldier; he was even called "one of the guys". 188.207.91.211 (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not at all what anthropomorphism means. You're telling me my pet dog identifies as human because she only lives with humans, tries to eat my food, and doesn't run away when I take her out without a leash? Obviously that is not the case. Do you want to know where the line is? Dictionary definitions. A person is a human being. By its very definition, the word "person" excludes all other animals. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about the anthropomorphism stuff. But the bear was officially enlisted and even given a rank. And then even promoted. It makes perfect sense to have the military person infobox here so that such info can be included.

And seriously Parsecboy, this is really petty, especially for an administrator. Not to mention that an administrator should know better than to start and continue an edit war. You've either actually broken 3RR ([1], [2], [3], [4]) or if one takes a generous view, tiptoed right to the edge of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you not see that most of the information was already present in the original infobox, along with additional fields like species, sex, height, and weight, which are now not present in the infobox? Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

See also

This article could really benefit from a "See also" section. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I added one. Ivanevian (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Abuse

I added the "Animal cruelty" category because they fed it cigarettes. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Um... Really? Really? Jersey John (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Some people have very special ideas of what constitutes cruelty. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It couldn't have been good for him, but I don't really know if that's enough to constitute animal abuse. I certainly don't think they were meaning to be cruel to the bear, the intent was presumably not much different than when people give beer to a horse.2600:1015:B12F:825:D63D:7EFF:FEE4:39A6 (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Animal soldiers

The soldier nature of animal soldiers has been explicitly recognized by the United Kingdom's Dickin Medal, instituted during World War II, in 1943.

Its recipients have included pigeons, dogs, horses, and a cat, of U.K., British Commonwealth, and U.S. military services.

Some of the recipients have been accorded full military honors at cemetery ceremonies.

Surely Poland's Wojtek deserves no lesser recognition as an Allied animal soldier.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

These animals were recognised for courage in assisting humans, not as being "soldiers". A soldier by definition can understand and carry out varying orders expressed verbally or in writing, be trained to operate weapons and electronic equipment (telephones, radios etc.), communicate verbally at a complex level with fellow soldiers, use his/her initiative in unanticipated circumstances, and understand the values he/she is fighting for. Wojtek carried ammunition and was brave in the face of fire but only a dreamer would claim he was a soldier. Mascot at most. Emotionally I can understand the idea that he "fought for Poland" but the reality is that a bear is totally unable to understand such a concept, he would just have been trying to assist his human friends as best a bear could. This is not to demean animals in human service, but we need to use words correctly. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Does every human soldier really understand what he is fighting for, use electronic equipment, or even fire weapons?

Nihil novi (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I feel enlisting bears as soldiers is more about public relationship. That said, it's actually not that unbearable... Ahyangyi (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I think one definition of a soldier is along the lines of ‘serving as a member of a military unit’. And the best judges of whether Wojtek did so were his fellow soldiers. And as those brave guys decided that Wojtek was a soldier, that should be good enough for us. You lot getting sniffy about public relations or dreamers leaves a sour taste.

Gravuritas (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links

In the external link section, the item "Article in Polish with lots of links about Wojtek" links to an error page. I couldn't find an earlier version of the page with a working link. Perhaps someone else can? Also, this seems a rather sloppy title for a link. Albanianabalone (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Misidentifying Wojtek as soldier in two captions

This article contains two photos of Wojtek, each showing him with a Polish soldier. Wikimedia Commons describes File:Wojtek the bear.jpg as "Wojtek sits in front of a soldier (1942)." Its source, an online collection of photographs titled THE POLISH ARMY IN THE MIDDLE EAST, 1942-1943, confirms "Wojtek (Voytek) the Polish 22nd Transport Artillery Support Company's (Army Service Corps, 2nd Polish Corps) pet bear. In the Middle East a soldier of the company feeds the young Wojtek."

Wikimedia Commons describes the other photo, File:Polish Soldier in Iran wojtek.jpeg, as "Polish Soldier in Iran with Wojtek bear (1941)." The date is at odds with the article's text, which states that Polish soldiers first encountered Wojtek in April 1942.

At various points in this article's history, captions for both photos have misidentified Wojtek as a Polish soldier. The text states that Wojtek was officially drafted into the Polish Army when the unit sailed with the rest of Polish II Corps from Egypt to fight in the Italian campaign. Wikipedia relates that II Corps (Poland) was transferred from Egypt to Italy in February 1944.

Obviously, then, Wojtek was not a Polish soldier at the time either of our photographs was taken. He was still a refugee, and ought not to be described as a soldier in our captions. KalHolmann (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Exchange about Anders' Army

Please unrevert my edit on this article that you reverted

I understand the Polish need to propagandize against USSR/Russia at every opportunity, but in an article on a famous animal? I quote,

"In the spring of 1942 the newly formed Anders' Army left the Soviet Union for Iran, accompanied by thousands of Polish civilians who had been deported to the Gulag camps following the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939"

This is provable baloney, as there were never any Soviet Gulag camps is Iran and neither there is a point for Polish civilians released from such to participate in invasion of Iran for some reason other than being an Anders' Army volunteer, i.e. no longer a civilian. The article on the more relevant to the topic (than the invasion of Poland) is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

Explains that the town of Hamadan where Wojtek was found, was taken over by Soviet "armored spearhead" advancing some 150 km in one day. This suggests that the only Poles who were there came in riding tanks.

Muchandr (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You have a complete muddle. Anders' Polish army was formed in the Soviet Union after Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, and was evacuated from the Soviet Union, via Iran to the Middle East, to reinforce British forces there. Evacuated together with Anders' army were thousands of Polish civilians who had been deported from Poland to the Soviet Union after the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland that began on 17 September 1939.

Anders' army did not "invade" Iran, much less together with Soviet forces. Please read up on the history.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

How did Wojtek manage to carry ammo?

I'm perplexed about this, and the article fails to address it.--Remurmur (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Bears can walk on their hind legs to some degree or another and can be trained to clasp things. I'm quite sure carrying artillery shells is an exaggeration, but it's entirely possible the bear could have carried SOMETHING. Jersey John (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Some kind of saddle-bag style arrangement is more likely - bears don't walk very well on two legs and especially not over rough terrain or for any great distance. Anyone got any information one way or the other? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Standing upright, he held out his front paws into which the men loaded the heavy boxes of shells" from Orr, p45.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Bears walking on two legs only isn't limited to fictional bears, there have been actual bipedal bears: there's Pedals the black bear of New Jersey, who was first sighted in 2014, having adopted his form of travel because his front-paws were crippled.184.186.4.209 (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Weight at death

At the end of the post war section it says gives his weight when he died in stones and doesn't cite any sources. Why is it measured in stones and do we really need that info if it's not cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.235.141.219 (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, not really needed, especially if not cited. Kenosha Forever (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC) blocked by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100