Talk:Zoo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Restructuring

I restructured the first part of the article because the old version was not well structured. I also checked the references and added some new and adjust information of zoos. I do not think that we should refer to the Encyclopaedia Britannica in that dimension (We cannot really prove its sources of information). I used different books of zoo experts to verify dates and facts. After all, I found a lot of mistakes and false dates!!!!! My work is still on progress. I’m just trying to check the references of the additional information. Furthermore, we should concentrate on zoos and not too much on secondary issues of the history of animal collections in former times. There are, for example, extra articles for Menagerie and Human zoos! So, please, try to supplement those articles if you know or read further information. Zoofan1975

Good job restructuring this, but there seems to be a lot of pro-zoo POV stuff. Why were the human exhibits removed? Just because there is a separate article about them, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be mentioned in this one - after all, the humans were exhibited with other animals, not alone. I'll have to look through your edits and sources, but the article needed some attention, so thanks for that. Bob98133 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the human exhibits completely! I just shortened this part, because these humans (by the way: people from scandinavia as well!) were even exhibited at fairs. I also attempted to write a neutral and balanced text by mentioning all arguments for and against zoos. If you look up in a dictionary you would always find an article that is by no means neutral cause it's written by zoo professionals (or they gave the information). Zoofan1975 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoofan1975 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of zoos

Am I the only one that thinks this is very POV as all but one edit on it reference the same source? It definitely needs updated or flagged. I appreciate what it is trying to say, but it needs more sources and should be worded NPOV.

Alexkraegen (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see someone reword it to a more NPOV. Yes, it all comes from one source, but that source cites a number of other critics and provides a number of important pieces of criticism. If I reviewed some of his sources it would look more diverse than it does at present, but it would read the same. Owen (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo of "a zoo"

I find it terribly amusing that the photo at the head of this article focuses on humans rather than animals or the zoo itself. --Feitclub 01:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) hello

• It is suprisingly difficult to take a picture of a 'zoo' in general and not have it be a picture of just animals, or people, or a cage. I chose this picture because it showed several features of a zoo, people (especially children), walkways, an animal enclosure, even an elephant. It did the best job of giving the overall 'feel' of the zoo. In the small version (on the zoo page) I agree, the people do stand out. Maybe someone else can add another picture that captures what a zoo is like. Lorax 02:48, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Controversies over Zoos

Can someone please merge this into the main article.

I removed the following chunk of text from the main zoo article because it was not formatted at all, and had repeated text, and the content overlapped stuff already in the article. It looks like someone did a cut and paste job. Some of this information should be merged into the main article, which is why I moved it to the talk page. Lorax 03:10, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Controversies over Zoos

A zoo is a park or an institution in which living animals are kept and usually exhibited to the public (dictionary.com). Zoos have existed back in to the beginning of civilization. The first zoo ever recorded was Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut whom established a zoo in Thebes around 1490 B.C.(Hatshepsut's zoo contained exotic animals collected from what is today Somalia, and it included leopards, monkeys and a giraffe. The ancient Assyrians, Chinese, Greeks and Mexicans also collected and displayed animals in their cities (Croke).

Zoos have traditionally been a symbol of man’s dominance over nature. In the 19th century this changed into nationalism when Queen Victoria founded the London Zoological Gardens in 1828. This zoo was meant to show the vastness of the British Empire through all of the different animals it collected in its colonies throughout the world. These Zoos were the private collection of powerful wealthy people. In 1846 the Royal family lost interest for their Zoo (Croke). Instead of selling the animals they decided to let the general public in for an admission fee so that the Zoo could support itself. It was here in 1846 where the modern zoo was created whose new purpose was to entertain and inform the public.

Should animals be held in Zoos? Do the pros of the animals needs being fulfilled, preserving endangered species, and improved habitats outweigh the cons that animals are abused in zoos, actually decrease the wild endangered population animals, and force animals to lead pointless lives?

Animals are very territorial which is the key to their mind since familiar territory will allow them to avoid enemies and obtain food and water ( Martel 17). Animals spray there territory with urine in order to mark it as there’s. Zoo critics say that this territory does not compare to those of the wild because it is not nearly as large. What these critics fail to see is what we have done for ourselves we are now doing for animals. In nature humans would have to walk a mile or so to get water from the river, a distance in another direction to get berries, and then hunt all day for prey where one day failure could cost you your life (Martel 17). In between gathering all these necessities one would need to constantly worry about lions, snakes, leeches, ants, and other disagreeable factors of life (Martel).

Humans have made houses where the water and food supply are constant and we are protected from the elements, parasites, and enemies. In our society we also have healthcare to make sure that everyone is enjoying life with a healthy body. This is all the same with an animal in a zoo. Their needs are meet through the zoo staff (Martel). It is more convenient for the animals to have the luxuries humans have in a smaller area. The animals in this sense are better taken care of in the zoo than in the wild. It is a known fact that many animals facing the option of escaping their enclosure often decide not to. In the Chicago zoo for example a Chimpanzee’s cage was left open (Martel 18). The chimp repeatedly slammed the door shut and screamed until a zoo keeper remedied the situation (Martel 18).

Zoos also help dwindling species keep from going extinct. Many zoos participate in breeding rare animals and some even reintroduce their animals into the wild (Kraemer). Human population keeps increasing 1,100% each year driving robbing animals of their habitats (Kraemer). Therefore it is a necessity that organizations such as zoos exist. An example of the huge success Zoos have had in the reintroduction of endangered species is the reintroduction of the American Bison by the Bronx Zoo. In the early 1900’s there was an estimated population of only 300 wild American Bison (Kramer). In 1907 the Bronx zoo placed 15 Bison which it had carefully bred in the Wichita Forest Reserve in Oklahoma. The herd survived and in 1998 there was an estimated 100,000 Bison living on American reserves largely thanks to the Bronx zoo (Kramer).

Zoos today that are accredited give animals better and more stable lives then they could live in the wild. Zoos in the United States can get accreditation through the American Zoo Association (AZA) (Drummond). Zoos that are accredited must abide by the Code of Professional Ethics “provides direction on ethical issues involving...animal health and welfare.”. These zoos place the comfort and safety of the animals before the entertainment value of the zoos. These zoos require that social animals such as monkeys be grouped together so that their social needs be fulfilled. These zoos also require full time veterinarians on the staff to ensure that animals live healthy lives (Drummond).

In 2000 the AZA had accredited 184 zoos through out America. Defendants of zoos feel that these zoos offer better living conditions than that of the wild where animals face a much greater risk of starving, becoming sick or being killed by hunters or predators than do zoo animals (Drummond).

Many critics of zoos feel that zoos are responsible for many “unnatural deaths”. A good example can be found in the Walt Disney Animal kingdom which is a 500 acre expanse of in Orlando, Florida (Sloan). When the zoo opened in 1998 several dozen protesters picketed the opening entrance “Disney should stick to Mickey Mouse.”, and “Life, liberty and justice for all beings”. The cause of the protests was the 31 animal fatalities within the zoo walls resulting from the preceding six months of animal stocking (Sloan). These deaths range from cranes being run over by trucks to otters eating poisonous berries(Sloan). Even large mammals died such as rhinoceros, cheetahs, and a hippopotamus (Sloan). This case was so controversial that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducted a three-day investigation of Animal Kingdom. The investigation decided that the deaths were accidental and said that Disney should not be held accountable for them. This report further incited protestors who faulted the government who they felt was shielding the large corporation at the cost of animal lives (Sloan).

Animal rights activist contend that zoos slaughter wild populations or rare animals rather than protect them. They point to brutal capturing methods in which live capture traps would be set but not checked for weeks (Croke). This became a major problem in the highlands of Africa when the highly sought after and endangered Silver-back Gorillas were starved to death in cages where the trappers had forgotten where they put them (Croke).

They also point to the fact that in the wild mothers are often aggressively protective and trappers for zoos would kill the mothers in order to collect the offspring which were of more value since they would live longer in the zoos. This technique was used to capture baby apes, lions, and rhinoceroses. Killing proven reproducing animals in a trade off where the offspring is taken out of the wild gene-pool whose offspring will not be returned to the wild is clearly destructive to wild populations of animals (Croke).

Zoos render animals lives pointless contends by imprisoning animals that other wise would be roaming free and by giving the animals food. For example the average caribou walks about 800 miles a year (Crawford). Caribous in zoos can’t come close in their smalls pens to walking 800 miles a year thus disrupting what their purpose in life is. An active advocate of this point of view is Virginia McKenna, co-author of Beyond the Bars. Mckenna calls for a total elimination of zoos because of the detrimental harm zoos cause to animals “For the four hours we spend in a zoo, the animals spend four years, or fourteen, perhaps even longer...day and night, summer and winter.” She points to the fact that animals in exhibit make the sacrifice of their lives in a small cage for the entertainment of people whom the majority only spend a few moments looking at.

Another purpose of an animal life is to search for food which is what many animals do all day. In zoos animals are given food routinely which Mckena says “animals are robbed of the sense of purpose that pursuing food would otherwise provide. That sense of purposelessness leads to boredom and stereotypy”.

Zoos date all the way back to the beginning of human civilization and have traditionally been a symbol of mans dominance over nature. Zoos were privately owned by powerful and wealthy individuals. In 1846 the royal family of London lost interest in their zoo and made it available to the public for an admission fee. Since the beginning of zoos circumstances have changed and new issues have arisen.

Should animals be held in Zoos? Do the pros of the animals needs being fulfilled, preserving endangered species, and improved habitats outweigh the cons that animals are abused in zoos, actually decrease the wild endangered population animals, and force animals to lead pointless lives? --152.163.100.68 01:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)John Ganz

Sorry, above is animal rights rubbish. For example, zoo directors conference over 20 years ago banned buying gorillas from commercial sources.

guest - Jurek

I agree, the criticisms above are probably invalid, but since someone has decided to completely remove the Controversies section rather than editing it, I would say this article deserves a POV tag. -- TheMightyQuill 13:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done, TH75. Thanks. -- TheMightyQuill 17:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

King Charles the first?

Assuming Charles I of England and his zoo is meant here, in which case it should be spell-corrected and wiki-linked to the right king (there are many Charles I's throughout history). As I can't find any reference verify this info about king Charles I and his zoo, left this untouched for time being.

Bronx Zoo largest?

The section mentioning the Bronx Zoo states that it is the largest by size, then goes on to say that the North Carolina Zoo is the biggest in the US. I will remove unless someone can clarify. Something about the biggest zoos in the world might also be good. Matt Deres 23:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Bronx Zoo is clearly not the largest - it might be the largest urban zoo, but animal parks are obviously larger. - Matthew238 04:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

yes but those are animal parks and not zoos there is a difrence

Employees

What are people who work at a zoo called - not Zoologists. How are zoos run and organized. - Matthew238 04:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Name is zookeeper. About running a zoo it is very long story, I suggest links to WAZA, EAZA and AAZA (World, European and American zoo federations).

cheers,

Achievments of zoos

Since there is a chapter about zoo controversy, I feel to POV there is a need of a chapter about achievements of zoos - all species saved, succesful campaigns, research done etc. Many (perhaps overwhelming majority) of zoologists and animal enthusiasts see zoos as positive things. Now it violates NPOV but in opposite way. Jurek

Please bare in mind that just because an article is unbalanced doesn't mean it is POV. If the information provided is sourced and factual it is not a POV. -Localzuk ^(talk) 10:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Here we meet again. One-sided information IS propaganda. If in doubt, see propaganda131.152.84.114

Referencing style

This article has a strange referencing style that should be changed to one of the standard ones. Please can this be done by people who know where the references refer to (inline referencing is needed). -Localzuk ^(talk) 10:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Previous reference style was changed to inline, uufortunately the references still point to the previous paragraph. We're half way there, perhaps the original editor can fix this. Postoak 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I repositioned the images so that the lead paragraph, contents and disambiguation statement are immediately visible when the article is displayed. Postoak 09:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Misleading sentence

I removed this:

Given proper care and housing, the health and nutrition of a zoo animal is far superior to that in the wild, and the lifespans of many species increase dramatically in captivity. [1] (Stephen St C. Bostock: Zoos and Animal Rights, London 1993. ISBN 0-415-05057-X)

because the first source doesn't say that the health of the animals is better, but that they live longer, which is not the same thing; nor does he say anything about "many species." We don't know what the second source says. The sentence is implying that animals are in some sense better off in zoos, and as this is an extraordinary claim, we should stick closely to what each of the sources actually says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

PETA

I think the PETA stuff in the criticism section is very biased. My understanding is that things here need to have references from real-world sources, and those statements are all referenced only to PETA's website. Isn't it enough to say that PETA opposes Zoos? They are an extremist organization, and a responsible encyclopedia would not repeat their self-published pronouncements. Famey415 21:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

uh... no. PETA is probably the biggest organization of its kind and represents a great many people's opinions on zoos. Yes, they are biased, but so are zoo websites. In what way are they not a real-world source? I'd be happier to keep all the PETA info under the criticisms section, but I'm sure a case could be made for having it elsewhere. - TheMightyQuill 02:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is certainly room for a difference of opinion, but my (admittedly inexperienced) reading of the sourcing requirements here finds this: Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. Even the user who keeps re-inserting the PETA references seems to say the same thing when it suits their ends: [2]. How is this inflammatory material that is not referenced in any mainstream media worth including? Famey415 21:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First, PETA is not widely acknowledged as extremist. It has around one million members, including known extremists such as Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson. Secondly, this is PETA's business; it's what it does, and so it would be odd if it were to be excluded as a source. Third, you can't possibly say that this kind of criticism of zoos is not found in mainstream media. Why do you think so many people have trouble visiting zoos, or is that another contradiction the article should simply gloss over, like the contradiction between zoos allegedly being major tourist attractions and most of them running at a loss? No, this kind of criticism is perfectly ordinary. Are you saying you believe zoos don't kill or sell animals they breed? Fourth, if you look at the notes, you'll see that PETA's sources are named, and they seem to be mainstream ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, please sign and date your posts by adding four tildes after them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is found in mainstream media then you won't mind making the references point there instead of PETA's website, right? Famey415 21:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and "PETA + extremist" gets 117,000 Google hits. Just because they have non-extremist members doesn't make them "mainstream". The Washington Post notes that PETA are being watched by the FBI as possible terrorists[3]. Famey415 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous google test. "grannies extremist" gets 53,700 google hits. The FBI also watched John Lennon. Is he an extremist? We're not talking about the Animal Liberation Front here. PETA has tax-exempt status in the united states. - TheMightyQuill 01:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In December 2005, the Washington Post reported that FBI counterterrorism investigators had been monitoring PETA for at least four years and had "opened a preliminary terrorism investigation" because of "suspicions that PETA funds, supports or otherwise acts as a front for "eco-terrorist" groups that use arson, bombs or vandalism."[4] Extremist enough? Famey415 01:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you asking? Is opening a preliminary investigation proof of extremism? No.

They are a registered not profit with tax-exempt status. They also have a large number of notable supporters.

The PETA article notes that The Observer noted what it calls a "network of relationships between seemly unconnected animal rights groups on both sides of the Atlantic," writing that, with assets of $6.5 million, and with the PETA Foundation holding further assets of $15 million, PETA funds individual activists and activist groups, some with "links to extremists." If the observer considered PETA extremist, why would it mention that they are holding assets for of activists groups, some of which have links to extremists?

I understand you are in extreme disagreement with PETA's views, but that doesn't make them an extremist group. You are POV pushing. - TheMightyQuill 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Famey, the article can't be without criticism. When I first saw it, it read like a tribute to zoos. PETA is a reliable source in the area of animal rights and animal protection, and is a primary source regarding its own undercover investigation. The image of the macaque enclosure that you removed is not from PETA and is needed as a counterbalance to the image on the other size. Bear in mind that some zoos in the world are dreadful places, while others are doubtless very caring toward the animals. Both sides must be covered here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not suggested removing all criticism, and in fact my changes preserve most of the "criticism" section, only removing an overlong diatribe straight from PETA's website. I am merely suggesting that you follow your own rules, and find statements in reliable mainstream sources that support the additional PETA commentary. There are many criticisms to be made of some zoos, and some are real hell-holes that should be exposed and shut down. This doesn't mean the standards for criticism should be lower. And I don't believe that providing a fair and scholarly article means that everything positive needs a negative "counterbalance", and it really doesn't mean that PETA is the right source for it, when there are many more credible, thoughful, and well-regarded critics of zoo practices worldwide. Famey415 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

P.s. I note that the article PETA has no "Criticism" section, and precisely one sentence on their links to terrorism. Is this your idea of "balance"? Famey415 02:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The criticism is woven throughout the entire article, and there's a lot of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the Peta article is NPOV is totally irrelevant to this discussion. I haven't even read that whole article, much less contributed to it. - TheMightyQuill 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For once we agree. The PETA article is immaterial. Are either of you going to address my central point, that PETA is not a credible source for accusations against zoos in general? SlimVirgin says there are mainstream media sources that say the same things: I respectfully suggest that one of you find them. Famey415 23:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How does one prove that a source is credible? I think we've both clearly addressed (and disproved) your accusations that PETA is extremist. Isn't the onus is on you to prove that it isn't credible? TheMightyQuill 01:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If the citations exist in mainstream sources, then provide them. Otherwise, they are the self-published rantings of an extremist, partisan political organization, one suspected of terrorism, and implicated in acts of violence. In any case, I don't think your opinion represents a "consensus", and why would I need a "consensus" to remove material inserted without a consensus only a few days ago? Famey415 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

PETA is not a self-published source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are partisan political organization, but it's a criticism, a political view. It's not like the statement is being pronounced as a universally accepted belief - the piece you keep removing mentions FIVE TIMES that the criticism is coming from PETA. Again, you have offered no evidence that PETA is extremist, or suspected of terrorism. -TheMightyQuill 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"PETA is not a self-published source." Please explain how the PETA website is not "self-published". Famey415 02:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"You have offered no evidence that PETA is extremist ..." -- The Washington Post,[5] cited above, reports that the FBI has those suspicions. Famey415 02:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

FBI having suspicions and opening a preliminary investigation is not evidence of extremism. No charges have been laid. Not even a serious investigation. Nor does that article even suggest that PETA is even suspected of terrorism. You may want it to say that, but it doesn't say that. - TheMightyQuill 09:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I must note that the United States government has supported Al Qaeda in the past (Cold War), the US is currently harboring a terrorist who tried to use an airplane to attack Cuba, and the New York Times has reported on tensions between Bush and the leadership of the Republican Party, the controlling party at the time of these investigations, over Bush's refusal to support terrorists opposing countries that oppose the US, yet Wikipedia still uses the US government as a source. (note: I don't have a wikipedia membership because my computer doesn't like signing into sites for some reason, and my ability to post anyway makes checking to see if I can get into the site not worth the effort) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 20:26, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

"Many animal rights activists disapprove of zoos because they interpret zoos as human domination over equal creatures and criticize their educational value as being superficial and useless." I find tihs statement objectionable on NPOV and factual grounds. Humans are the unequalled masters of Earth's fauna. PETA is an extreme liberal group opposed to the continued prosperity of the human race, and the enjoyment of the delicious KFC Snacker sandwich. "Gay Communist Witches" gets 720,000 hits on google. PETA are a bunch of tambourine-banging, no-shaving, no-bathing crybabies, and Wikipedia is not a forum for their tyrades. Sorry. I really flew off the handle there. I just get so sick of various "causes" trying to use wikipedia to promote their NON NEUTRAL point of view. This isn't a political thing. I would object just as strongly to someone citing The 700 Club as a source. Pygmypony 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PETA's information is only a valid source for information about PETA. If you would not accept a 700 club (also tax exempt) report on homosexuality as a valid source, then we should not accept PETA on zoos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.9.115 (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation request

Farney, could you say please what the sources say that supports this edit, with the page numbers?

"Most modern zoos in Europe and North America display wild animals primarily for the conservation of endangered species and for educational and research purposes, and secondarily for the entertainment of visitors."

Your sources are Colin Tudge 1991, no page number, and John Regan Associates at [6] (pdf), no page number. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to rise to the bait that I have to quote chapter and verse to justify things to you. But if you want an easily-accessible synopsis of Tudge, read here: [7]. Attacking existing citations is an incredibly intellectually dishonest way of defending your use of an extremist, partisan website as a citation. Famey415 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We need full citations so that readers and other editors can check the source material, and that should include page numbers for obvious reasons. As for the review of Tudge, it indicates that he argues zoos ought to concentrate on conservation, not that they currently do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I've removed this from the lead because of the lack of sources:

Most large cities in the world have zoos. Major zoos are major tourist attractions.[8][9][10] More than 135 million people visit zoos in the United States and Canada every year, but most zoos operate at a loss ; many non-profit zoos, particularly institutions operating in conservation biology, education, and biological research, depend on public funding.

The first point, that major zoos are major tourist attractions, has sources that discuss only three zoos describing themselves, two of them in Australia. We need a source that talks about major zoos in general. Although it's true that the very largest zoos might be regarded as "major tourist attractions," most are not, and it's not even clear that the largest zoos are, particularly as many of them say they are short of money. As for the rest, I can't find a source that says 135 million people visit zoos in the U.S. and Canada per year, or that most zoos operate at a loss, or that many non-profit zoos depend on public funding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This source discusses zoos as major tourist attractions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reseaunaut (talk • contribs) 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated criticism

I shortened criticism section to be more factual. Especially, much of the section was based on a single source, PETA. The criticism might well be justified but readers need more diverse sources than PETA. Also, previous version was a blatant ad of PETA on more popular, global subject (zoo) - PETA was quoted about a dozen times. If somebody has direct access to the research studies quoted, please quote them directly, instead of writing "Peta cites study...". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.206.143.103 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

A good addition might be a study mentioned in Animals in Translation which found that one could teach rats (I think) to pull a lever just by hooking up the lever to a window giving a view of the outdoors. This shows animal affinity for the open outdoors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.69.118.1 (talk) 20:30, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Or rat affinity for opening windows...:) 76.208.120.38 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Regulation of zoos in the United States

I'm curious about why the Regulation of zoos in US material by 88.153.44.5 was reverted. It seems like this stuff is relevent and it's documented and NPOV - for the most part. I don't want to revert back to it in case I'm missing something, but let me know.Bob98133 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Section that belongs in PETA page

I've moved this section here to discuss as it stuck out as "is this article about zoos or PETA's views on zoos". It doesn't really provide a smooth flow to be stuffing PETA references all over the page. There's mention of animal lib groups opposition to zoos.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) rejects the claim that the purpose of most zoos is to undertake research, to aid in conservation, or to educate. PETA alleges that most zoo research is in fact geared toward finding new ways to breed and keep animals in captivity, so that if zoos ceased to exist so would the need for most of their research. PETA writes that zoos usually favor exotic or popular animals over threatened or endangered local wildlife, in order to draw crowds.

PETA quotes a curator from the National Zoo in Washington D.C., who followed 700 visitors over the course of five summers and concluded that "it didn’t matter what was on display ... people [were] treating the exhibits like wallpaper ... officials should stop kidding themselves about the tremendous educational value of showing an animal behind a glass wall."

Or perhaps the relevant quotes could be added as references in the criticism section. NathanLee 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that PETA could be de-emphasized, but I think that this point of view is legitimate in the Criticisms section. Also the original sources should be cited not PETA's compilation of them.Bob98133 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's certainly noteworthy that animal liberation groups have objections to zoos (and that's there already), but that view is wider than PETAs. Pick any topic to do with animals and they'll object to it: It's a bit of a no brainer when you're talking about PETA, an organisation wholly to do with protesting against any use of animals. Giving that view air time multiple places throughout the article just smacks of promotion of the organisation known as PETA rather than an article on zoos. That whole "equal time to opposing sides" thing that happens with journalists who believe it balances out things to give equal time to a niche view. *shrug* So I think fair enough we have a criticism section, the bits I chopped out to put above here were superfluous criticisms repeated in other sections. NathanLee 01:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There was, some time ago, a user who felt animal-rights organizations were a minority fringe group whose voice did not deserve room on wikipedia. I think that's why PETA, because of it's size and notability, is featured so prominently. - TheMightyQuill 01:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Another section that belongs in the PETA page

Made this change: [11] to remove what was just PETA saying what the previous paragraph said. e.g.

• game farms
• circuses
• hunting

So no new information, PETA is admittedly anti-zoos and really shouldn't be used for a source, let alone given such article space on a generic topic like Zoos. NathanLee (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

PETA is a perfectly valid source for criticism, especially as they're citing other sources too. You are fanatically anti-PETA, and have been at this for around two years. Please give it a rest and do not remove them again. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not addressed anything I've pointed out above. Personal attacks and accusations from your personal opinion do not make my points above any less valid. Either come up with a reason that is something other than a childish request or stop trying to put in the duplicated information from an unreliable source. You can quite easily summarise the PETA paragraph as "So does PETA". It adds nothing except an extra paragraph. If people want PETAs view on everything they can look at the PETA article or the PETA site.NathanLee (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you to voluntarily revert to the version I had which removed this duplication. Edit comments like "don't start" have provided nothing to your above "reason" which is just personal opinion. NathanLee (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Much as this is ignored by SlimVirgin (revert button seems to get in the way of the talk page reply button): I've merged the information. Also the second monkey in a cage picture: any reason you added it back in when we've a sicker, more wretched looking one in that section? Not happy with just the one? Perhaps we need a monkey with electrodes in its head too? It clutters up the page and is (as with the text you keep adding back in): duplicate information. NathanLee (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"You are fanatically anti-PETA". SlimVirgin, you are clearly pretty strongly in support of PETA. The overwhelming majority of defenses of PETA as a source have come from you. PETA may have more than a million members, but the most other people consider them extremist, including many vegetarians that I know. Again, PETA is to zoos, meat, hunting and the like as the 700 Club is to homosexuality or Islam. Yes, their criticisms do belong in the criticism section, but it should not be stated as PETA objects to animal abuse at zoos, but that PETA objects to what it sees as animal abuse at zoos. Clearly SlimVirgin, you are an animal rights activist and you are also an administrator, but being an administrator does NOT give you the right to administer based on your opinions on a subject. Gtbob12 (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this discussion in response to something? I don't know anything about the 700 Club, but are you saying that they present documented, referenced information about homosexuality? When a zoo is cited by the USDA for violating the Animal Welfare Act it seems pretty clear that the source, a govt agency, is probably unbiased. Whether violating the animal welfare act by failing to provide adequate food, enclosures, enrichments, etc. may be illegal, it might not be abuse, so I agree that PETA should not be citing this as abuse, but using PETA as a reference for USDA actions, as long as they are referenced, seems reasonable to me. Most of the specific zoo and aquarium articles that I've seen on Wiki are like adverts for the places and there certainly are some problems, so there should be some balance.Bob98133 (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying that the 700 club is a good source on homosexuality. They, while maybe not a fringe group, are still pretty outside the mainstream and have an agenda, not just a bias, but an agenda around which all their information is based. They choose the information that supports their views and discards the rest. PETA is to zoos (or meat, or hunting/fishing) almost exactly as the 700 club is on homosexuality (or evolution, or abortion). Not quite a fringe group but certainly not a representation of mainstream views. I mean I have a bias, as do most scholars and experts, but I (like most of them) do not have an agenda. But anyways my main point was that we should not call something abuse because PETA says it is, but instead say that PETA sees it as abuse. Now it is my opinion that PETA does not know shit about what's good for animals, because they are too concerned with hurting their feelings and that gets in the way of preservation, but again, that's my opinion. But my other point is that I feel that SlimVirgin is attacking NathanLee for having an anti-PETA bias, when she is clearly an animal rights activist as well as an administrator, and she is administrating according to her own bias, which is NOT okay. GTBOB12

Since the 700 Club seems to be a bad analogy, why don't we drop it? I agree with you that we should not call something abuse because PETA says it is, but as I said above, if PETA or whoever presents copies of USDA inspection reports, videos or other documentation of abuse, I think it should be accepted. I think it's fine to say that PETA claims or alleges animal abuse, since they have a degree of expertise about exposing that sort of stuff. As you say, you don't think PETA knows shit about this or that, but as an acknowledged voice for animal rights, it is legitimate to present PETA's claims providing they are germane to the article. As for SlimVirgin's edits, I have never seen her make a remark as POV as "PETA does not know shit about what's good for animals." She seems to be a stickler for proper referencing and weight in articles, but I think characterizing her as biased does her an injustice and is not based in fact. I don't always agree with her edits, maybe because of my personal bias, but she always explains and gives rationale for the edits and I haven't found anything to argue with those. Bob98133 (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

needs improvement

The criticism section needs improvement. Problems:

1. Not NPOV; needs to be integrated into the rest of the article. As it stands now, we have a negative POV criticism section and the rest of the article is a positive POV account of zoos.
2. Weasel words galore.
3. The is no indication of validity, scope in time or type of zoo, or notablity of the criticism.
4. Self contradictory - e.g.- first the section condemns zoos for a high death rate causing the wilds to be depopulated; then it condemns zoos for selling/killing their vast populations of excess animals because the animals reproduce so successfully.
5. There is no structure; just a laundry list of things someone somewhere said bad about some types of zoos at some points in history. Each criticism should be in a section that discusses the time period and type of zoo and types of animals being addressed by that specific criticism; along with evidence that the criticism is note-worthy and what has or has not been done in response to that note-worthy criticism. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken on point four. Animals aren't put on surplus lists because they "reproduce so successfully", they're placed there as animals go "out of fashion", or are otherwise less popular as a result of advanced age or insanity. Owen (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this article has become complete rubbish since the last time I looked at it. POV is completely out of control. This is in desperate need of cleanup. CKeelty (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

question re. Rabb, 1992

The "evolution of the modern zoo concept according to George Rabb (1992)" table that you inserted appears to be original research. Is there not some way to reference this directly from the source instead of "according to"? If Rabb did this research but did not create this table, one wonders why?Bob98133 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you were right! So I replaced the figure by a completely self created one. Thanks for your advice. --Zoofan1975 (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Open range?

Hi, Zoofan - I see you pulled "open range" out of the subhead, but then discuss open range facilities in that section. Should probably be a different section or restore the old subhead. Also, I see a couple of POV things in your edits, which I'll go through when I have time. Nothing major though, and generally good edits - thanks Bob98133 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No Bronx Zoo pic

There are pics of all major zoos world wide but there's none for the Bronx Zoo, which is the largest metropolitan zoo in the US and perhaps dhe most famous in the world. It's a shame we couldn't put one into the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.81.156 (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Look carefully, there is a picture of a tiger from the Bronx Zoo.

POV edits, staff

I have changed a couple of Ramdrake's recent edits and added fact tags to some of the staff edits. Claiming that zoos played an "important" part in research and comparative anatomy is a POV statement. So did human dissection. How important the contribution may have been is subject to considering the value of the information gained. Comparitive anatomy was heavily studied during the Renaissance.

As for staff training and education - almost every time there is a media incident involving zoo animals, the "fault" lies with the zookeepers who forgot to lock the door, who allowed animals to eat trash and die, etc. Not very professional behavior. I also know that zoos pay comparitively little for animal caretakers and the quality of the work often reflects this. I could be wrong about this, so I've added fact tags.For example, the Knoxville Zoo only requires a high school diploma for elephant keeprs,[[12]]The Birmingham Childrens Zoo advertisement for a Zoo Keeper requires high school diploma, university degree prefered.[[13]] I think that claiming that zoos hire only college grads for animal care is POV since they might like it to be true, but it simply isn't. Bob98133 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

This articles contains a number of non-conforming citations to various PETA websites. The criticisms of Zoos certainly have a place here, but we have to find better references for most of them, or reword the sections. Right now much of the articles uses self-published PETA websites that themselves lack author credits or sources as though they were reliable sources. WP:SELFPUB says clearly:

“ Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

 1. the material used is relevant to their notability;
 2. it is not contentious;
 3. it is not unduly self-serving;
 4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
 5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
 7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

”

The citations here violate points 2, 4, and 6, at a minimum. Clearly, the criticism needs to stay, but needs to be sourced differently. -- Tom Ketchum 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Material published by PETA is not self-published within the meaning of our policies. They have 187 employees and 1.8 million members. "Self-published" refers to vanity publishing by one person, or by a very small, unprofessional group of people. If you're going to say PETA is self-published, then so is the New York Times. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I was being generous. If they are not "self-published" (that is to say, reliable on the subject of their own views", then they would seem to fall under the category of Extremist_and_fringe_sources as indicated by WP:RS. The articles used here, unlike the New York Times, do not list authors, do not cite sources, and cannot be considered to come from a reliable, mainstream news organization. PETA is unarguably an interest group, and its pronouncements on things cannot be considered reliable, except that they are PETA's positions. -- Tom Ketchum 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

They are not an extremist animal rights group by any reasonable standard. They have 1.8 million members, including such well-known "extremists" as Sir Paul McCartney and Pamela Anderson. They're actually not regarded as an animal rights group at all by large sections of the animal rights movement, because they are relatively conservative and willing to compromise. There is no reason not to regard them as an RS for the purposes of this article, and it's hardly as though they're saying anything controversial about zoos. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not calling them "extremist", I can't help the section heading above. But there is no doubt that they are an interest group, and not a reliable source for the purposes of this article. When the Israelis say something about the Palestinians (or vice versa), we note who said what about whom, because it is controversial and they do not pretend to be an unbiased source. The same should apply here. -- Tom Ketchum 19:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to in-text attribution for PETA, so long as we do it for everyone else. What I would object to is regarding zoos and their supporters as neutral, but the animal welfare or rights perspective as a POV. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming that we can agree to call major newspapers and juried/refereed scholarly journals "neutral", and then attribute what zoos and zoo administrators say about themselves, and likewise attribute to animal-rights interest groups their points of view. This fits with my notion of a reliable source. -- Tom Ketchum 17:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Ketchum (talk • contribs)

I don't think I'd assume that scholarly sources are neutral. If we were to cite a pro-AR scholarly source, you'd probably want in-text attribution, so there's no reason not to name an anti-AR source. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right, short of getting into the definition of "scholarly"! Ugh. In my ideal world a scholarly source is by definition unbiased, but I guess my world and the real world aren't that closely related :-) -- Tom Ketchum 17:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd normally want to agree with you about scholarly sources, but when it comes to animal rights/welfare, it's virtually impossible to find anyone who isn't clearly biased. We're all raised with certain assumptions about animals, which don't appear to us to be a POV, just commonsense. And so scholars, like anyone else, incorporate these ideas into their work, without realizing that they're actually expressing a strong POV that others have taken issue with. For that reason, when it comes to AR-related articles, I prefer to err on the side of in-text attribution for everyone. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Gallery section?

This article has so many pictures in it that the formatting is problematic. Is there any objection to moving some of them to a gallery section, as other articles seem to do? -- Tom Ketchum 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like to see articles nicely illustrated. Perhaps some could be moved, and some left in the article? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Certainly some/most of the photos need to be left in the article. I just think a third or so of them, especially those that duplicate points made by others, should be moved to improve the flow/readability. I don't feel strongly about this. Also, I don't know the right wiki-magic to make such a gallery, so unless someone clues me in on where to look, I probably won't be doing it. -- Tom Ketchum 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more text could be added, so that the images wouldn't look so crowded? For example, the "Safari parks" section has just two sentences, but it has an image, so the balance is wrong. Incidentally, the moving image of the elephant was in the article twice. See here on the right, and then scroll down a tiny bit and look at the left. Ashton1983 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dolsling.jpg

The image Image:Dolsling.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging with cleanup and POV-check

I came across this article seeking some background info on zoos. It reads like a battlefield after a pro-Zoo and anti-Zoo battle, with successive sentences that are clearly pro-Zoo POV and then anti-Zoo in the next. I have tagged it since it could clearly use some uninvolved and unbiased editor attention to clean up, make informative and NPOV. We do many more controversial articles well, but this one seems to be going a bit under the radar (no disrespect intended for those working hard on it). Martinp (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The section on animal acquisition is particularly bad, being a grab-bag of separate incidents obviously chosen to make zoos look bad. I've done a fair amount of trimming, and will look to add some information on the normal procedures, rather than the sensational accusations that make the media. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Trimming needed / POV-check

Many passages have no information, but are sort of philosophical musings or poorly made moralization about a concept of zoo. There are also many one-off examples. There are several 1000's of zoos worldwide, and throwing one or a few examples in not representative.

It needs longer work, preferably by a person not itching to turn it into hidden propaganda piece of animal rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.141.146 (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. We need more examples and better examples.Gottoupload (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is starting to go all over the place. The section on exhibits is ridiculous. How many exhibits have to be included? Why are these sections so long, giving area and details about all these exhibits. The examples don't help to explain the conepts, but merely provide opportunities for each to claim to be the first or largest. I say this stuff gets trimmed down to the historial first use of the technique, an explanation of the purpose and one or two examples. Any more than that is superfluous, or belongs in a separate article. Bob98133 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Brand me 'GUILTY' of enjoying zoos

One of the worst POV violations in this article are the unanswered claims that people enjoying seeing animals that they would never be able to see otherwise is somehow a reprehensible moral attrocity comparible to Holocaust denial. As a child (way before Discovery or Animal Planet were even dreamed about, in the time of 'Mutual Of Omaha's Wild Kingdon) I was priviledged to go to Philadelphia's zoo at least yearly. There I learned volumes from their helpful staff about a variety of animals. I have visited zoos,and open range exibitions in many citys throughout the US and have taken my children and will take my grandchildren.
Yes, I oppose the abuse of animals, but I do not think that exibiting healthy animals for the enjoyment of responsible patrons is a crime against humanity. PETA be dammed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.106.130 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Human zoos

I trimmed the paragraph of human beings in cages. Most of these displays in 19.-20. centuries ere not racist, but equivalent of modern folklore shows. Unless there is a sensible source stating otherwise, please don't revert them.

zoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.175.170 (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Long, possibly plagiarized sections

I can't tell who keeps restoring these, but they are very long, written oddly, and very likely copied from somewhere. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Alvesgaspar, please don't restore this. It's 174 kilobytes of what appears to be an extensive copyright violation. It's senseless to restore it then add a "clean-up" tag, when there's a perfectly good article that you reverted away from. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just adding here some of the diffs of the article being replaced by an anon's 174-kilobyte version, quite a bit of it irrelevant or not about zoos, often with misleading edit summaries, reverting against multiple editors. The IPs resolve to France.

• 18 Sep 2009 by Alvesgaspar (talk · contribs)
• 13 Sep 2009 by 86.220.241.35 (talk · contribs)
• 06 Sep 2009 by 86.214.13.223 (talk · contribs)
• 13 Aug 2009(2) by 86.214.159.24 (talk · contribs)
• 13 Aug 2009(1) by 86.214.159.24 (talk · contribs)
• 04 Aug 2009 by 86.214.159.24 (talk · contribs)
• 29 Nov 2008 in a series of edits by 92.103.142.226 (talk · contribs) and 91.151.121.138 (talk · contribs).

Will add more as I find them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I understand from the long and complex history of the article, this has been restored to some 2007 version or so. I'm a photographer, not a writer. That's why I reacted against replacing some good images (including a Featured Picture) with the original substandard pictures. But the same applies, I suppose, to all the improvements that have been made on the text in the last two years. Maybe it is time to be constructive and re-write the whole thing rather then just forcing the old version. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the old version. It's the version that's there when the anon from France isn't reverting to his mammoth version. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added some of the images, but the problem with some is that they were of animals, not zoos. But the ones that clearly show the zoo, I've added. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, should we show the cages only? I have removed some of these... Serioulsy, this article needs a little more than just keeping an old version. There are excellent pictures of animals (in zoos) around! Commons FP, Commons QI and Commons VI galleries are excellent places to visit. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)]] -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

By all means add some if you can find them, so long as they're images of zoos, because this article is about zoos. There's no point in using a picture of a tiger who could be anywhere. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sanctuaries

I'm not sure what to do with this, but it's not about zoos, so I'm moving it here for the time being.

Dada Panchal, of the Lok Biradari Prakalp nursing a monitor lizard at the Amte's Animal Arc

Animal welfare supporters have funded the construction and set-up of sanctuaries for wild animals. The animal welfare organization WSPA established several of these facilities for rescued bears worldwide. According to the organization those in Greece and Turkey have helped stamp out the tradition of forcing bears to perform tricks for public entertainment. Another type of sanctuary takes the form of a rehabilitation and release center. An example of this is the Idaho Black Bear Rehabilitation Center, where orphaned bear cubs are cared for and prepared for release back into the wild. Another sanctuary, especially for apes and primates, is 65 acres (0.26 km²) Monkey World near Pool, Dorset, England. Set up in 1987 it was originally intended to provide a home for abused chimpanzees used by Spanish beach photographers, but is now home to many different species of primates. In India, Amte's Animal Arc is an animal rescue run by the Lok Biradari Prakalp.

A number of sanctuaries have also been developed as conservation centers. Sir Colin McKenzie established Healesville Sanctuary near Melbourne, Australia as a research institute in 1921. The sanctuary for Australian native fauna was officially opened in 1934. Healesville Sanctuary was transferred to the control of the Zoological Parks and Gardens Board of Victoria in 1978. In Spain, a much more specialist centre, the Parque de Rescate de Fauna Sahariana (Rescue Park for Sahara Fauna), Almeria, was established by the CSIC in 1971 to preserve Saharan species on the verge of extinction.

WikiProject Zoo

Please consider helping to improve not only this article but all the articles under WikiProject Zoos WP:ZOO Scope. We are in desperate need of members. ZooPro 08:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)