Talk:Bonsai Kitten

New site with bonzai kittens

• Hello guys. What about: http://zealcorp.com/bonsaikitten/bkintro.html ? Just a fake copy of the original site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.102.191.144 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are the pictures on the website edited pictures, or are they real photographs? Do this "art" really exist? Popular? Expensive? Did any animal welfares announce anything about it? jynx 18:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• seriously man... don't be a moron. It's completely fake. I broke up with a girlfriend when she kept trying to convince me to sign a petition to get it banned because it's real even after I told her it's not

• yeah...I found it out a long time, but I forgot to edit here, that's all... jynx 08:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

In case anyone's confused about the pictures, I checked out the website. They did put kittens in jars, at least briefly, and took pictures. These were presented at samples of 'works in progress' and demonstrations of the insertion techniques. They come out looking a bit squished, but the Snopes Urban Legend site says that the jars can comfortably accomodate the kittens, on account of cats being so elastic. There's no photos claiming to be of the finished product. So real kitten may or may not have been subjected to discomfort, but nothing nearly as damaging as the actual practice would (hypothetically, if it existed), be.

The pictures are real. While one may argue that the kittens are being somewhat exploited by being placed in a jar, one could say the same of CNN or any other news channel's coverage of other incidents.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

POV Content

The whole phrase about how if people had a little common sense they'd know it was false has a POV conotation to it. I'm requesting that that phrase be dropped from the article.

Agreed, this is completely POV: "Any person with an understanding of felines, or indeed even a little common sense" Lydia 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)solilique

Still alive?

I've tried to check the site for a couple days now and I can't seem to get to it. Is it not online anymore? Wirewad 03:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't get to it, either. Squeedlyspooch 21:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

After all the emails and petitions and stuff they closed down, I'm pretty sure thet shut down.

There is a host, ie [www.rotten.com.] there are some mirror sites. I think that the weight of people's stupidity has taken it's toll on the original site, but perhaps it just isn't worth fighting the FBI. So much for internet censorship if the FBI can't shut a site down!--Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughly edited this article

This article contained numerous weasel words and incredible amounts of POV judgements... I've removed them and rewritten the article to make it as neutral as possible, notably taking out the bit that called the practice "horrible" and advocating ignoring it entirely.

While I think we can all agree that anyone actually trying to grow a Bonsai Kitten is a horrible person in need of psychiatric help, this article should focus on the fact this is a hoax.

I might take a more thorough run at editing this article later, if I get the time. Lankybugger 15:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this: "Any person with an understanding of felines, or indeed even a little common sense" is completely POV.Lydia 06:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)solilique

Okay, I've completely overhauled this article. I finally wrote a more thorough description of what a Bonsai Kitten is (as opposed to just focusing on the now-defunct domain name), and seperated this description from the rest of the article. I also split up the proof of the hoax with the reaction by people, as they were almost long enough that they could use their own sections and I'm going to be expanding this article further very shortly.

I'm also going to see if I can dig up an example picture of a Bonsai Kitten... It'd be useful within the context of the article to demonstrate exactly what it is.

Well, thoughts? Lankybugger 19:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Like Johnathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, this website is a work of satire. However, the distinctly postmodern aspect of it is that instead of targeting kitten-abusers, its satirical barb is aimed at people who are gullible enough to actually believe the site is real and be outraged by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.158.14 (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Article should start with a description of the Hoax

The entire first section is written as if Bonsai Kittens actually exist, so factually, the first two paragraphs are incorrect. Psychonaut3000 01:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Further to the above point, I read the original site years ago and know that the first paragraphs misrepresent the methodology that was proposed. In particular: "allowing the kitten to grow to fill the vessel that contains it.. their purpose is supposedly as an elaborate ornament, instead of a pet". A bonsai-ed kitten was meant to be a pet, having been removed from the container once it had been 'formed' to the desired shape (based on pseudo-science of pliability of its bones and supposed subsequent development of the animal's skeleton).

This misrepresentation makes the intent of the site seem far more perverse by implying the animal would remain confined for its entire natural life, which was not part of the described method.

This should be an important distinction to make in relation to the emotional distress this topic obviously causes, regardless of the fact that the practice of Bonsai Kitten was a hoax. Oldstinkyjimsox (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mirror of original site.

Found a site which seems to mirror the original so added a link. New to this wikipediaing stuff but hope I helped out. I dont care...

Not a forum

Can I just remind people that the purpose of this page is to provide a place for people to discuss ways to improve the article. It is not a general discussion forum - this is clearly a topic which evokes strong feelings in some people, but this isn't the place for it. Dom Kaos (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this belong in an encyclopedia?

I enjoyed the hoax, too. But does wikipedia need to be a repository of every little popular snippet of the Internet? I mean we have the Internet for that. And then considering the thing is not even live any more?

Let's prune the crap. Amazes me that we have a shitty article on Masada and then have junk like this. I think there is actually some dynamic where the presence of crap reduces the time spent on worthwhile topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.23 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've started the AFD process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.23 (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Spam on this page

A number of the "complaints" on this page appear to be spam. An admin should run a bot program on this, such as Huggle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The article needed rewriting

I have added four newspaper notes on the topic of BonsaiKitten.com and a see also section, as well as having done some considerable wordsmithing. I have also began to expand the article focussing on the furor around Bonsai Kittens. --Zucchinidreams (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

alien skin

the original BK content was done with the alien skin plugin for photoshop.. if anyone cares (to incorporate it into the article) 77.177.149.106 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Site

Can now be found here: http://ding.net/bonsaikitten/index.html --Molokaicreeper (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Site

It looks pretty online to me. Why is it marked as offline? see http://bonsaikitten.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.61.242 (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The Internet and cats

Please swing by and help improve this new article! :D--Coin945 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bonsai Kitten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140317201158/http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/41733 to http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/41733
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chronicle.com/free/2001/02/2001022101t.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406052143/http://dir.yahoo.com:80/Society_and_Culture/Mythology_and_Folklore/Folklore/Urban_Legends/Bonsai_Kitten/ to http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Mythology_and_Folklore/Folklore/Urban_Legends/Bonsai_Kitten/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140317201158/http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/41733 to http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/41733

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Conflicting "Start of controversy" and Launch date

I noticed that the date listed as the "start of the controversy" is October 30, 2000, but the launch date for the site (in the infobox) is December 22, 2000. Is there a reason for this, or does it need to be corrected? Lune.Soleil (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Marcus Markup, this is not an explanation. Please see WP:REVEXP. Articles evolve naturally over time, and unless there's some specific point of contention that's discussed, there is no "consensus" version, just the current one. If you have any substantive objection to my edit, please make it. Otherwise, I will be restoring my edit. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not complicated. I like the infobox, obviously. You don't. Achieving consensus for your removal is now required. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That really stretches the limits of credulity. Before reverting me (again, without explanation), you've made no other edits to this article. Suddenly you care about its infobox? I don't really believe that. In any case, this particular infobox contains multiple unsourced statements not in the article, one of which directly contradicts information in the article. What's left can already be gathered within the first two sentences of the article. Now, how is this useful? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

you've made no other edits to this article. Suddenly you care about its infobox? I don't really believe that. I'm not sure what you are implying. What, exactly, don't you "believe"? Your edit came up as potentially problematic on the "Recent changes" feed which I was patrolling, and that's why I'm here... the box seemed useful to me. But thanks for finally giving a substantive reason for your removing the box. Marcus Markup (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)