Jump to content

Talk:Yogi Bear

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Costume Explanation

[edit]

I wish I had proof of this, but I thought Yogi said he wore the hat and tie because he wanted to be seen as human. It could just be my imagination, which really doesn't help. --Macrowiz 06:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi's "costume" also remains a mystery, as he appears to be wearing the skin of an identical bear over his (never seen) body.

Huh? I've always assumed we're seeing his own skin. Where's the support for this statement about the skin being part of his costume? 171.64.71.123 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

In the pic, which of the two is Yogi ? Jay 17:46, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ummm, both are Yogi.
In the realm of "completely unsubstantiated rumour", I was under the impression that Yogi Bear's name was related to John Logie Baird, the inventor of television. This was "uncommon knowledge" in the UK in the 1970s - where baseball was virtually unknown. DAVE: 5/4/2005
It's far more likely to be an American baseball player than a Scottish inventor, lets be honest.--Wangpangu (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basis of Yogi's Character

[edit]

I read somewhere that Yogi Bear was based on Phil Silvers' Seargeant Bilko though I've never quite worked out why.

No, that was Top Cat who was based on Bilko. Yogi was based on Art Carney. --FuriousFreddy 04:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger Smith

[edit]

What, no mention of Ranger Smith anywhere? He was the original uptight cartoon guy!

Other Unknown Bear

[edit]

Does anybody know the name of one of Yogi and Boo Boo's friends? He is a very small bear who wears a blue/teal bowtie. He is mostly sitting in the cartoons. I wish I could provide more details but I saw this episode at an IHOP one morning and couldn't hear the sound.

To be or not to be...

[edit]

"Yogi Bear is a fictional cartoon bear": No, he is a REAL cartoon bear, because the cartoon about him does exist! He is a FICTIONAL BEAR, but a REAL CARTOON BEAR!

Yog-S
  • Good point. But saying "cartoon fictional bear" doesn't sound quite right. Consider Smokey the Bear. He was a real bear who was rendered as a cartoon. I'm thinking "fictional, cartoon bear" works. Wahkeenah 09:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or better yet, borrowing from the text of Bugs Bunny: "Yogi Bear is a fictional anthropomorphic bear who appears in a series of animated

cartoons created by Hanna-Barbera Productions." Wahkeenah 09:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon network

[edit]

also used to run a music video called yogi bear. It has a song by a band called High school Jim. They still air it on Boomerang. But I haven't been able to find info on the band. So its tough getting verification.

Peer review

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Specifically, Image:Yogi-portrait.jpg and Image:yogilogo.jpg need(s) proper fair use rationales.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[1]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 11 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[2]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[3]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Squirepants101 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote

Song

[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that High School Jim made a tribute song to Yogi Bear? Kikiluvscheese 05:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Yogi-portrait.jpg

[edit]

Image:Yogi-portrait.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Yogi-Slumber Party Smarty.png

[edit]

Image:Yogi-Slumber Party Smarty.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Yogi-portrait.jpg

[edit]

Image:Yogi-portrait.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous

[edit]

Why is this not at Yogi Bear? The article is about the bear, and whereas there would be no bear without the show, and no show without the bear, Yogi Bear is a more likely search term.  pablohablo. 19:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. —harej (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Yogi Bear Show

[edit]

After the move, the infobox now needs to be split out into a separate article on The Yogi Bear Show, which also needs to be added to the dab page. Powers T 13:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We could start with the infobox and DVD section of this article, and a modified version of the lead section of List of The Yogi Bear Show episodes--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heavily modified--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The wikilinks restored today represent characteristics important to understanding this character. They are veriable by watching the cartoon alone or looking at its images or sound bites.--Morenooso (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling

[edit]

Quote: "In 1960, the pop group Ivy 3, recorded a song called "Yogi", a novelty song with the impersonation of Daws Butler. The song described Yogi as a "Yogi Man", and featured the catch phrases "Hey, Boo-Boo" and "Yogi Baby". The song went up to #8 on the Billboard charts"

The actual name of the pop group is "The Ivy Three". When in doubt, search for images of the albums of the band. The proper spelling is the one printed on the album.

The Movie

[edit]

The article states several times that Christine Taylor will play Cindy Bear in the Movie, yet neither the character or actor appear in the credits on the poster and Cindy does not appear in in any of the promotional material or in any of the three trailers released so far. Also, none of the sources sited for her character being in the movie actually mention her. Does anyone have any evidence at all that she will be in the movie? If not, then all references to Christine Taylor or Cindy bear should be removed from the movie section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.12.173 (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality

[edit]

I believe the issue of potential homosexuality should not be readded. It places undue weight on a topic that I believe is a non-issue for most people. Also, the paper the section references contains the opinion of only one man, who, as a gay man himself who writes almost exclusively about gay issues, cannot be objective. Judgeking (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above reply was cross-posted to many articles, without consideration to the article's contents and the particular proposed Dennis revisions. Considering the decision at the RS noticeboard here, a Wikipedian cannot make a blanket statements that a particular source is undue for all articles. It must be determined on an article by article basis. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reply is the same in each article, because the section was almost the same in each article. They all basically go "Dennis thinks this character may be gay. Martin Goodman of Animation World Magazine responded 'That's interesting'". Ridiculous we're even having this debate. (fyi, this current statement is also a blanket statement, as is yours above) Judgeking (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1."because the section was almost the same in each article" - That is not correct. And plus that response fails to consider that the articles themselves differ a lot. Undue weight is a consideration of the proposed revision and the existing article.
2."They all basically go "Dennis thinks this character may be gay." - The Scooby Doo and Daria stuff don't say that at all. And with other characters there are explanations and qualifications added. The lengths of the latter do differ, with the original Pinky and the Brain revision taking far more space than the Heffer revision, for instance. The amount of space devoted to a subject or an idea within an article is a consideration for whether something is of undue weight.
3."Martin Goodman of Animation World Magazine responded 'That's interesting'"" - To two (Spongebob and Pinky) - He challenged the analysis of some other characters. And even "that's interesting" adds weight to warranting inclusion of the Dennis stuff.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proponents of this kind of absurdity are looking for stuff that isn't there and are pushing the "everyone is secretly gay" wishful thinking. They're trying to read 21st century awareness into characters which obeyed the social norms of the times, i.e. that males and females did not "shack up": males rooming with males and females rooming with females was the norm. P.S. These are not sexual beings, they are cartoon characters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From another post from Baseball Bugs: "You're looking for stuff that isn't there. You're trying to read 21st century awareness into characters which obeyed the social norms of the times, i.e. that males and females did not "shack up": males rooming with males and females rooming with females was the norm."
I'm not the one making the analysis. Jeffrey P. Dennis is, the author of the article, is. I am discussing the opinions of an academic journal article discussed in an RS noticeboard thread (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Cartoon_Sexuality), which concluded that his source is RS. The same RS thread concluded that blanket statements of whether that source is undue for every article cannot me made.
And that could be a relevant critique of his material, but if nobody writes an RS responding to him saying that, the analysis above cannot be taken into consideration.
There has been a response from Martin Goodman of Animation World Network, which may be read here. Goodman challenges Dennis's overall thesis (which is not stated in the revisions to the individual character articles) and some of the particular points about specific characters (which is stated in some proposed Dennis revisions). In particular Goodman praises the Dennis content on Pinky and the Brain and Spongebob, both of which were made in the 1990s. For this article Goodman opposes Dennis's interpretation of Yogi Bear, believing it to be erroneous. This is how you address journal articles with certain opinions. You mention what other people (other RSes) say about the journal article's points, thesis, and/or conclusion.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"That's interesting" can have any number of meanings. It could be a very polite way of saying, "You're a looney bird." In any case, the guy making the arguments about the cartoon characters is making it based on nothing but wishful thinking, so he can't be considered a reliable source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The RS noticeboard checked the document and found it was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. You may personally look at it and think "It's bunk" but that doesn't determine whether it's an RS or not. You look at who published it and how other people responded to it. And people properly attribute opinions so it is clear that it is the man's opinion and not the unvarnished truth. If you want to challenge what the RS noticeboard said, please start another thread on it, address the RS noticeboard post, and respond to it. Otherwise it will be permanently thought of as an RS, and the debate will solely focus upon Undue weight.
Based upon the rest of the Goodman document (again, it's a critique of the Dennis paper) - "That's interesting" is meant in a positive way. The full quote from Page 4 is:
"There may be validity in the idea that we tend to organize a series of codes or subtexts when the original text is nonspecific; humans, by nature, do not like ambiguity and will attempt to impose meanings on unclear texts and events. To be fair, Dennis has some interesting comments about same-sex coding in Steven Spielberg Presents Pinky and the Brain and SpongeBob SquarePants (another cartoon that has drawn the attention of the gay community), and his writing is far more digestible than typical postmodern fare. As I have stated, the problem is not with postmodern criticism or theory. The problem occurs when critics imbue theory with subjective ideology and insist it is truth. Dennis is working on a book about the production of heteronormativity in children’s literature, and I certainly wish him well in that endeavor."
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fringe viewpoint and doesn't belong in cartoon articles as it gives undue weight to some guy's hypothesis that has about the same level of credibility as the Flat Earth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With flat earth there are a mountain of sources saying "the earth is round" overwhelmingly against flat earth, and a mountain of sources describing other aspects of earth. That's why flat earth is excluded. Relative to "earth," "flat earth" is unimportant.
In the case of Yogi Bear, there is one journal article (Dennis) and one response article (Goodman) - Looking at content and the other sources, I see no other secondary analysis of the character (As in no "reception" section). To make the case "this is as relevant to Yogi as flat earth is to earth" you need to amass enough sources to get the article to a Homer Simpson-like level where material will have to be excluded as it's too much detail. In the case of Earth, flat earth theory gets its own article to deal with that.
And while you could say "well, there isn't enough analysis, so including Dennis would be making a "reception" section inherently unduly weighted as his is the only analysis there is," the way to solve it is to do research and add more material so as many viewpoints and aspects of the character are covered as possible. Then we can make a good case of whether something is undue or not.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe theories don't belong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the general lack of scholarship in this article, I conclude that it is not possible to have a "fringe theory" for any aspect of Yogi Bear, and any reliably published academic opinion will get in. Deciding whether something is a "fringe theory" means consulting the body of existing research. Flat earth is "fringe theory" because an overwhelming amount of research says the earth is round and directly opposes flat earth. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Cartoon_Sexuality WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger Jones

[edit]

Was Ranger Jones on The Yogi Bear Show or is he just in the film? --Hoppybunny (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find the information somewhere else, you might try asking here. Rivertorch (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found out Ranger Jones was on The Yogi Bear Show. --Hoppybunny (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. If you think it's relevant and your source meets reliability guidelines, you may wish to add the information to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yogi Bear. 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:

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) 18:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Bear page content.

[edit]

I'm sorry I posted revisions 3 times against policy. Initially I thought I was doing something wrong and that's why it kept reverting t it's previous incarnation. After getting messages from what I presume are moderators, it became obvious that my revisions were being removed on purpose, rather than an error on my part in the editing process.


My issue is with some of the content displayed as part of the Yogi Bear page. Racial inequities and transgression of the past and present are serious matters, and they need to be discussed openly and honestly.

However, to the best of my knowledge, there NEVER was any portrayal of racial stereotypes or prejudices, or any other unacceptable racial references in the Yogi Bear cartoons themselves. And therefore I believe it is inappropriate to imply a racial synopsis of the cartoon, as the content published by Mr. Lehman did. While there CERTAINLY have been inappropriate references of various kinds portrayed in some cartoons of the past, they were not present in ALL cartoons. Where they were, I feel it is perfectly legitimate to mention so in an article(s) or page about such cartoons.

Racial inequality is a SERIOUS subject, and should be taken as such. But I also believe that the discussion is cheapened when applied erroneously or inaccurately. I believe the reference to racial inequities of the past as described on the Yogi Bear page is factually in error. If we're going to talk accurately about "Yogi Bear" as a cartoon, we should talk factually about the cartoon. References to cultural or systemic inequities of the time period should not be included in the discussion or information of the cartoon itself, unless of course it referenced those issues in its content.


Thank you for your time.


Tom24.151.145.218 (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not work the way you seem to think it does. We do not analyze and evaluate topics. (If we did, we'd be forever mired in trying to figure out politics, religions, diets, etc.) Instead, Wikipedia is intended to summarize what reliable sources have to say about a subject. So, for example, we do not decide whether we believe the Earth is spherical and several billion years old or flat and 10,000 years old. Reliable sources say it is the former so Wikipedia reports the same.
Obviously, this question is quite different, but the underlying questions are quite similar:
1) Is the material relevant to the subject? I think it pretty clearly is and we can move on.
2) Is the source cited reliable for the material provided? I haven't really looked closely at this, but it's not an obvious yes.
3) Is the WP:WEIGHT of the coverage appropriate? IMO, depending on who the author cited is, the depth of discussion of the topic here is probably too much.
4) Does our coverage accurately reflect what the source says? I haven't looked at all.
If the answer to all of those questions is "yes", whether or not you agree with the source is irrelevant. If the consensus of reliable sources was that the Moon is made of Swiss cheese, Wikipedia would report that. Debating whether or not the source is "right" is off topic here. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I happened upon the Yogi Bear page through a link which was posted in jest with regard to Yogi's habit of considering himself to be better than other bears. I wish I could say I was surprised by finding an 'Analysis' section in the article in which the cartoon was held under the lens of Critical theory and as such ascribed all sort of racial and cultural characteristics which the original authors never thought about when they made the cartoons, including references to the park ranger's 'whiteness'. To put it bluntly I'll just state that 'Tom' has it right here and 'SummerPhDv2.0' either did not look closely at what is actually written here or is in support of the application of 'critical theory' - and thus supports violating the original NPOV policy which Wikipedia once had - to encyclopedia entries. Assuming the former to be the case it should be clear that this 'Analysis' section has no place in this article and should be removed like 'Tom' did several times. If the latter is true there is a lot of explanation due on why Wikipedia allows this type of deviation from the (current weakened version of the) NPOV policy. The mere fact that there is an article which ascribes these attributes to Yogi Bear and other cartoons does not suffice since the article itself clearly comes from a controversial and non-neutral source - yes, 'critical theory' is controversial and not main stream except for in some sections of the humanities. This refutes what 'SummerPhDv2.0' states in reference to the supposed debate on whether the source is "right" or not, otherwise it would be just as uncontroversial to include references to the Protocols of Zion or the Anarchist Cookbook as sources for such sections. Clearly this is not the case so there is a filtering criterion on which sources to include and which not to include. Political activism - which is what 'critical theory' is - does not make a reliable source if the NPOV is to be kept. Therefore I will remove the 'Analysis' section with the stated justification. If another editor wants to revert this removal he or she should justify this in some way by explaining why an expression of political activism has a place in a Wikipedia entry on a cartoon bear.

Yetanwiki (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Christopher P. Lehman has written extensively on animation history, and he is not a fringe author. Comparing his works to the Protocols of Zion without reason suggests more about you than his writings. Dimadick (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What it says about me is that I recognise extremes which do not have a place in an encyclopedia unless it happens to be in an article on those specific subjects. Yetanwiki (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The section supplies no information about Yogi Bear. It supplies information on purely impressionistic observations by a historian, Lehman, comparing Yogi Bear to institutionalized racism, with no documentation to support the existence of an actual connection between them, to suggest that it's more than an indulgence in speculation. It's also a single person's commentary. Wikipedia articles don't choose a single person to serve as "the analyst" for their topic, reporting extensively what they have to say—unless the analysis has received coverage in its own right, but then it would have to be clear that Wikipedia is reporting the analysis as a subject, not as Wikipedia's own analysis, which is what the simple heading "Analysis" implies. As I said in my edit summary, see WP:UNDUE. Largoplazo (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yogi_Bear&oldid=1211023156"