Talk:Zoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Animals (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Zoo is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Animal rights (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Zoo (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

Etymology[edit]

In the lead paragraph, this article suggests that the abbreviation 'zoo' was first used to refer to London Zoo (although the reference given for this sentence does not refer to this statement). However, in the etymology section, the article states that it was first used in print to refer to Clifton Zoo. Is this not a contradiction? --Yojjeth (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Having just read this article for the first time, I too was struck by this contradiction. Can someone not sort it out?__DrChrissy (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources and care of animals[edit]

My apologies for this comment being a bit on the long side...

I think this section needs a lot of tightening a cleaning. Many parts don't read as encyclopaedic and deal more with allegations and accusations against specific zoos rather than examples of common animal abuse at zoo facilities. Also, PETA is not the only organization that deals with abuse and quality of life issues for animals, but they seem to get a high degree of mention in this section. I think other sources should be used to compliment the PETA findings.

In addition, I think this Guardian article gets more weight than it deserves as a source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/28/wildlife.conservation

For a reputable paper like The Guardian, this is a poorly written piece and is not encyclopedic as it deals with accusations but few proven facts - If Ms Claudia Hämmerling's evidence proved true, where are the followup articles? I looked her up on the German language Wikipedia page and while it outlines her political activities, there is only one line about animal welfare. Surely if there was an serious investigation into her claims then there are more supporting periodicals and they should be included in this zoo article. The general writing of The Guardian article is also problematic, granted, papers do not have footnotes or citations, however, when a journalist writes:

'It is believed standard practice for zoos to kill "surplus" animals. Nuremberg zoo's deputy director, Helmut Mägdefrau, was reported as saying: "If we cannot find good homes for the animals, we kill them and use them as feed." Recently an antelope in Nuremberg was fed to caged lions in front of visitors, causing outrage.'

Then if "It is believed..." it is the journalist's responsibility to address: By whom it is believed. The "whom" is important as it leads to credibility. Is it Claudia Hämmerling who believes or another entity? As it is written we have no idea who the journalist is talking about. Further, if Mr Helmut Mägdefrau is "reported" as saying something (especially something controversial), then it is imperative that the journalist cites who reported Mägdefrau's quote. Right now it is an anonymous source which should be avoided by both newspapers and encyclopedias. This is simply proper journalisitc standards and practice. I am not saying what is here is incorrect, but I am saying it needs to be quoted from better material.

This Zoo article should be designed around informing the reader about the negative and positive aspects of zoos. As such, proper sourcing should be used properly and carefully because the ethical treatment of animals is an important, sensitive and an emotional issue. It is important that the information here is accurate and reliable or it should be removed. OK, time for your thoughts (I'd like to get a bit of feedback before I spend time working on this, only to get it reverted)? 76.65.28.115 (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied here. Sophus Bie (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Disappointing that an article about zoos that mentions the cruelty and poor state of many zoos, does not even mention the Singapore or San Diego zoo and their incredible breeding programs and humane conditions for their animals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.11 (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Pyranha Pygocentrus piraya group 1280.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Pyranha Pygocentrus piraya group 1280.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Slaughter of animals in the Roman zoo[edit]

Is it possible to get a more valid citation about zoo history here? 400 bears slaughtered in a day, sounds impressive, but it's from a history book from 1869. The whole article definitely needs some scholarly doing.

I imagine thats an exagerated account and should be taken with a grain of salt. ZooPro 11:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Zoos in fiction[edit]

I think this would be a valid category, user Ryulong is reverting all my additions. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#CensoredScribe's categories on discussion on how CensoredScribe is inappropriately making dozens of categories of questionable quality. CensoredScribe, this is not the page to make this sort of discussion, either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)