Talk:Cocaine Bear (bear)

title

see discussion at talk:Cocaine Bear#parentheticals. Arlo James Barnes 07:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a bear ate 75 pounds (34 kg) of cocaine in 1985, and was nicknamed Pablo Escobear? Source: https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2019/10/02/pablo-escobear-absolutely-bizarre-story-kentuckys-cocaine-bear/
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my second DYK nomination, so I do not have to do QPQ.

Created by Di (they-them) (talk). Self-nominated at 08:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC).

• Article just long enough at 1695 characters. DYK is indeed not needed, hook verified and interesting. Article well-referenced with no major hits from Earwig - there's a sentence that hits, but that's half quote, half you can't exactly rephrase anyway. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• @Di (they-them) and Juxlos: Given the relatively obscure/low reputation of OutdoorHub, I'd wager that it's a typo or retcon from the overwhelming consensus in more reliable sources for "Pablo Eskobear". Can the hook be rectified? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • ScreenRant also uses Escobear, but well Eskobear will probably be easier to support. Juxlos (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
    • ScreenRant also probably doesn't beat the sources for Escobear, so, I'll put an ALT1 down... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
    • ALT1: ... that a bear ate 75 pounds (34 kg) of cocaine in 1985, and was nicknamed Pablo Eskobear?
    • @Di (they-them) and Juxlos? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Apologies, I didn't realize I had to respond. I see no issue with the alt. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: @Theleekycauldron and Di (they-them): I was going to promote this but I am confused about Escobear and Eskobear. If we are going to use the latter shouldn't it be in the article? Escobear is clearly in the article. Bruxton (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

In popular culture

I recall this story from a show or movie. Someone tells the story adding that for five minutes that bear was the greatest apex predator to ever walk the planet. I think it might have been Community but am not sure 2601:58A:8201:9B80:29B7:C57F:6F78:EF54 (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Sex

Does anyone know this bear's sex (gender)? The article only refers to the bear as "it". Glades12 (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources specify the sex of the bear. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Seriously WTF does anyone fact-check on this site?

When writing an article, does anyone check whether the author based it on a movie or on reality? The 1980s "real cocaine bear" died from eating 3 or 4 grams of cocaine, as confirmed in an autopsy of its rotting body that had been decomposing for several months. Then some supermarket buys a stuffed bear and calls it "Cocaine bear" as a publicity stunt -- and the world's WORST dictionary immediately either parrots the lie, or allows the supermarket to edit this page. WTF. https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2023/03/02/cocaine-bear-kentucky/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.7.84 (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The article you linked was written just a few days ago, and it's the only source that challenges the official story. All the other sources agree with the mall's story. I have added the sentence that the official story is alleged to be false, but to say that "nobody fact-checks" because you found a brand new article isn't really fair. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

certain claims don't seem to add up

We are supposed to believe this bear consumed 75 pounds of a (presumably) bitter powder substance? This seems even more impossible given the bear was supposedly 175 pounds. Could a 175 pound bear even consume 75 pounds of its favorite food? Could this be some made up story from the height of the drug war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothyself (talk • contribs) 03:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The Associated Press article says that 75 pounds was the approximate amount that had been in the packages "that had been ripped open and scattered over a hillside", but doesn't say the bear ate all of the contents. The Fox 5 source says the bear had died "after eating possibly pounds of cocaine" without providing an estimate of the number of pounds consumed (and "possibly pounds" implies a very small number of pounds). The Backpacker article said the "bags of cocaine were opened and empty" and had originally contained about 75 pounds, and quoted someone saying that the bear's stomach was allegedly "literally packed to the brim with cocaine", but it did not say the bear had consumed all 75 pounds but did not provide an estimate of the amount eaten. Backpacker also said "The hunter who found the movie's title character did not inform authorities of the discovery; in fact, three weeks passed before a game and fish agent learned of the bear and informed the GBI. When authorities finally discovered the bear’s body on Dec. 20, all 40 bags of cocaine were opened and empty," and "Some law enforcement officers questioned whether the bear [...] had really destroyed or consumed 75 pounds of cocaine, or if some enterprising local had taken it." The above-linked Outdoor Hub story also doesn't seem to estimate how much was eaten (Backpacker is published by Outdoor, so those sources aren't independent of each other). Outdoor Hub links to a WLEX-TV video. I watched the video and it didn't say anything about the quantity of cocaine consumed. That lack of initial reporting and three-week period between the death of the bear and any inspection by authorities points out a big gap in the story and not only questions whether the bear could have consumed that much cocaine but also whether the bear was really responsible for opening all the packages. The reports also seem to be telling the story from some historical distance and without much original source material to go from, which increases the likelihood of the reports having some distance from the hard facts. I haven't bothered trying to get through The New York Times's paywall, but I think it's pretty safe to say the bear did not eat the entire 75 pounds of cocaine (43% of its body weight). It seems a bit of a shame that this highly dubious claim made it through the DYK process without being challenged. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The lack of sources from the actual time period of the incident makes me highly dubious of said claims too. Just another piece of trivial information that quite frankly should be merged with the Cocaine Bear movie article. Gamowebbed (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Pageviews suggest, and the majority agrees, that the film is the primary topic, if one exists. While some posters suggest having a dab page at the base title, but that was expressly rejected as inconveniencing readers in the situation where only two, related, topics exist. Proposals to merge or rename the bear's article did not achieve consensus either, so the current situation is acceptable if not ideal. No such user (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Cocaine Bear (bear) → Cocaine Bear
• Cocaine Bear → Cocaine Bear (film)

– Why is a fictionalised comedy loosely based on a real creature the primary topic? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: articles with content, such as Cocaine Bear, are ineligible as new titles in move requests unless they, too, are dispositioned. Cocaine Bear → ? has been added to this request to satisfy that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Not always the "original" is the primary topic. There are many cases, for example, where a film based on a book is the primary topic, while the original novel has the (novel) disambiguator. —El Millo (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  This is usually because fiction does NOT hold the same importance as real life, regardless of how obscure the real topic be. That is why John Diggle is not John Diggle (Anglican bishop), even though the character is infinitely more well known. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Cocaine Bear should be renamed to "Cocaine Bear (film)" while Cocaine Bear (bear) should just stay the same, in my opinion. SusImposter49 (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per pageviews (monthly average is 30.347 for the bear versus 155.760 for the film, more than five times more) and given the article on the real bear was created because of the film, not the other way around. The existence of the film is what gave the story enough relevance to make an article. The article on the bear was created on December 3, 2022, with the info on the film adaptation already included, while the article on the film was created way back on March 9, 2021. —El Millo (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's like saying All the President's Men should have the (book) suffix because the film is much better known. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  While not the most common, that can and does happen if the adaptation is the actual primary topic. See Jurassic Park (novel) with Jurassic Park and Fight Club (novel) with Fight Club as examples. In this case, I think it's even more clear than in those two. Out of the (only) 12 references the Cocaine Bear (bear) article has, two are from 1985, the time when the incident took place, and there's one that's from 2016 that actually talks about the event before the film was announced, but it's Mirror.co.uk, which is unreliable so the ref is invalid. The rest of the references are all related to the film, most addressing the surprise that the film is based on a real event. So, out of 11 valid references, 9 are talking about the real story because of the film's existence, and they treat it as something the general public wouldn't know about. —El Millo (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Just in case anyone thinks the name "Cocaine Bear" originated because of the film, here is a 2016 article and TV news report confirming the bear was known as "Cocaine Bear" long before the film, even if no references in the article currently establish that 31.111.26.44 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Cocaine Bear (film) as suggested above by SusImposter49, per WP:NOPRIMARY. Οἶδα (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons already mentioned above. The film is the primary topic associated with this title and this is demonstrated across sources. james_mc (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support moving Cocaine Bear to Cocaine Bear (film), but Oppose moving this page. Perhaps we should make a disambiguation page. Either way, the bear is not the primary topic, as demonstrated by the sources. The bear only has notability in sources because of the film itself. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Probably only a famous incident because of the movie. I strongly oppose a disambiguation page as both topics are related, that would be a hindrance to users who likely all want the movie. --Quiz shows 13:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons mentioned above. Film is the reason it's relevant and the far more popular page UpwardBoss (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons mentioned above, most anyone in the future who searches “cocaine bear” will be seeking out the film; they can easily go to the incident’s article from here should they want it. TropicAces (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)tropicAces
• Oppose for the above reasons. The film is the primary subject of media attention. Cpotisch (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no indication that there is any confusion on the subject matter (a bunch of people trying to visit the article about the bear that are confused and livid they've headed to the movie page) that is often seen in such discussions on title changes. It's a solution looking for a problem.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Cocaine Bear (film). This is very typical on Wikipedia and I don't see any argument against it. --Jcbutler (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Move the bear article to Cocaine bear: This was just a bear, so it doesn't need a capital letter. The title of the film uses a capital letter, but ordinary bears should not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  @BarrelProof: would that be enough for disambiguation? —El Millo (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about that, but I think it might. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:DISAMBIG#Different spelling variants, a hatnote would suffice when two titles differ only in capitalization. So I would support that proposal. —El Millo (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  I was under the impression that "Cocaine Bear" (capitalized B) was a nickname/name of the bear, so as a proper noun, it would be capitalized. If it was just a descriptor it would be lowercase, but since it's a proper noun we should keep it capitalized. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's a proper noun as it is the (nick)name of a single, specific bear, the very definition of a proper noun. And it's used with a capital in almost all reliable sources. Decapitalization is completely and utterly incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, you are correct. See Grumpy Cat. Οἶδα (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  seconded. Gamowebbed (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The film (adapted from the original topic) should be disambiguated, while the original topic itself should be primary, which would also have the benefit of a less confusing title than "Cocaine Bear (bear)", with that repeated word at the end. —Lowellian (reply) 23:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  The film is probably more notable than the bear, and most people wouldn't be talking about the bear if no one had fictionalized the bear's tale in a film. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Cocaine Bear (bear) → Cocaine Bear. The film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not the bear. Would not oppose, however, the creation of a Cocaine Bear disambiguation page that would list Cocaine Bear (bear) as well as Cocaine Bear (film). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: film is primary topic. QuietHere (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions. Cocaine Bear (bear) is a ridiculous name for the article, either rename the article to Pablo Eskobear, merge the content into the movie article or delete it outright cause there doesn't seem to be any real independent notability to the bear itself.Spanneraol (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge per Spanneraol. In any case, dont' cap cocaine bear except when it's the movie title. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we capitalise "Cocaine Bear" when referring to the bear? It's being used as the name of the bear, which makes it a proper noun. Writing it as "cocaine bear" makes it sound like that's the common name of a type of bear. MClay1 (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a proper noun. Period. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The opening sentence starts with "The Cocaine Bear ... was a ... American black bear". That seems like a descriptive usage rather than a proper noun usage. If it's being used as a proper noun, I think it should say "Cocaine Bear was an American black bear", not "The Cocaine Bear was an American black bear", just like no one would say "The Jimmy Carter is a former president of the United States". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Proper nouns can have "the" in front of them. For example, Batman is commonly referred to as "The Batman"; in fact, that was his original name in the comics when he first appeared, and there was a recent film called "The Batman". That's just an example. There's also tons of other examples of proper nouns that use "the", such as "The New York City Police Department", "The Hague", "The Hagia Sophia", etc etc etc. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

For a singular proper name (e.g., contrasted with plural ones like The Rolling Stones, The Beatles or The Needles), isn't that just in cases where "The" is part of the proper name, such as The Nature Conservancy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Crown or The Citadel? Should we move the bear to "The Cocaine Bear"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think that "The" has to be part of the name to be included before a proper noun. The NYPD for example is just called "City of New York Police Department", but everyone puts "The" in front of it. There's also the "The Batman" example I mentioned before, where his official name is just Batman but "The" is often added. There's also Hagia Sophia and Southern Cross, both of which get "the" added to them. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

OK. Point taken. I think I could try to say "The Batman" could arguably include "The" as part of the name, and I still think "The Jimmy Carter" is pretty strange, but I feel pretty sunk by "City of New York Police Department" (or United States Department of Justice). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose move the bear is only notable because of the film. As Spanneraol suggested, this page should either be moved to Pablo Eskobear (the name most associated with the bear before the movie) or merged into the movie as notability is not really established. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merging. Half of the sources are from after the movie's announcement, but that doesn't change that they discuss the bear itself significantly. It's closely related, but independent of the film in terms of notability. It existed outside of the film and the sources discuss the real-world facts; half of them just happen to discuss them in relation to the film that the facts inspired. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Support moving film to (film). Not clear if there is a primary topic. [1] Schierbecker (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This bear was a notable topic years before Universal made a film based on it. Glades12 (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – Cocaine Bear is the title of the film. The real bear did not have an actual name and is now being referred to by the name of the movie. I don't know if the name was used before the movie, but it certainly wasn't well known. MClay1 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Merge – The Cocaine Bear (bear) article seems to have been created recently, perhaps as a form of promotion for the film? In any case, there is barely any notability of the subject, besides a film. A piece of useless trivia only famous due to a major theatrical production. Gamowebbed (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  I can guarantee that I did not make the page as promotion for the film. I do not have any conflict of interest. Di (they-them) (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  And yet this article was made literally 2 days after the first trailer released. Gamowebbed (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  If you're accusing Di of making the article in promotion of the film, you're accusing them of an undisclosed conflict of interest which is a rather serious accusation. It could have just been that learning about the film sparked their interest to create an article about the real event. —El Millo (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  There's nothing abnormal in creating an article about a film you noticed a brief while ago. There's no proof of promotional motivation like you suggest Gamowebbd. Any further baseless accusations will get you to ANI. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Alright calm down, nothing of the sort was insinuated here. Don't twist my words. Gamowebbed (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  You explicitly insinuated that. The Cocaine Bear (bear) article seems to have been created recently, perhaps as a form of promotion for the film? And when Di denied it, used the article being created 2 days later to back your insinuation. Please don't do this again. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Again, calm down. Gamowebbed (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support: The bear was notable before the film, hence why the film was made. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support: The fact that the page for the bear itself is less visited doesn't convince me. The bear existed first and without it there would't be a movie – that's why I think the movie depends on the bear and the bear's page should be the primary topic. Lindeby (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

But is the bear itself notable outside of the film? I don't think it is. Spanneraol (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It's just a piece of party trivia, barely notable. Gamowebbed (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Notability is determined by sources. The sources indicate that it's clearly more than just a piece of trivia. Even using just the sources that came before the film was announced, there would still be enough to have a short article. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

But do the sources indicate that? Prior to the movie coming out it was a piece of local trivia at best. Most of the articles linked here as a result of the movie. Spanneraol (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that most of the sources are as a result of the movie. Six out of twelve of them are unrelated to the movie. That's half of the sources being completely unrelated to the film. Six sources is definitely enough to determine notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose There is WP:NOPRIMARY here, while the movie is obviously not primary due to longterm significance, the bear's significance is also dubious. I suggest a disambiguation at the base title. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, Support 2nd, and create disambiguation page at basename. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2023 (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.

Load dumped because it was too heavy for the plane? Unlikely.

This detail seems to be bogus, a product of garbling by repeated edits and an unclear original source. A Cessna 404 can carry well over 3000 pounds; even with maximum fuel and two people, they should have had at least 1000 pounds of extra load available. Anyway, the abandoning of the plane seems to have little to do with the amount of its load, according to the following articles: 2023 Washington Post article (paywalled), 2021 Knoxville News Sentinel article (not paywalled). Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)