Talk:San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks

Template:SFBA Project Image:Tiger cage diagram.svg/Image:Tiger cage diagram.png might be useful. Bawolff (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

They would, actually. Just need to know whether the zoo will have its license suspended... —BoL 06:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahh... a typo!

Um, this article's title has a rather serious case of butchering up the city's name. It's San Francisco, not San Fancisco. Not that I'm from there (Kentucky for me)...

I'm pretty sure the move function, as far as renaming this article to correct name go, is only reserved for administrator and certain people with privileges. I might be wrong, though. Can't be bothered to try now because I'm just too dead tired (past midnight here already... bah humbug!) and is going to catch some giant blocks of Zzzzz's for the night. Now, where's the great Uncle Jimmy Wales when you need him? ;) --Legion (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to the correct spelling. Zagalejo^^^ 07:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The diagram on Tatiana's page is interesting, but doesn't look up to the professional standards of the page. Just a note. - RPrimeau

Agree - the diagram should be removed as it is entirely not to scale and gives the impression that the exhibit walls are much larger than they are. A link to: http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/12/28/mn_tiger-graphic.jpg would be better because it's more accurate.

(red?) lights

This is minor, but I deleted "red" from the description of the patrol car lights. At least one source said "red", but others haven't and have described shining the lights at the tiger, which might be white search lights, not colored rooftop lights. I suspect that the reported added "red" without knowing, but that's just my guess. The article should be neutral if it's uncertain, so I left it as generic "lights".Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Tom 14:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Trail of Blood

There was no trail of blood at the zoo. Tatiana is a tiger, she followed the boys to the cafe via her senses. Looking at the map will show you that she could have a visual of the boys fleeing for more than half the distance that they covered to get to the cafe, once at the end of her last confirmed visual, she could hear/smell the location at the cafe. Also the pathways at the zoo, create a natural direction towards the cafe, any other direction (being taken by people or tiger) would be somewhat unnatural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyB415 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Broodyraccoon at Australia This is Ronnie from australia and yes we also have tigers here at the gold coast in Queensland anyone with half a brain does not deliberately disturb tigers or other predators for that matter at the time of this printing it was not told of the teasing of tatiana about the slingshots or other excitement causesd by these houligans and dont get me started on what there families deserve from the zoo a big fat raspberry for the stupidity their boys were responsible for getting a gorgeous animal killed due to their own fault. be responsible and take it like a man dont sugarcoat that it was all tatianas fault she was a predator and one of the last surviving tigers available for breeding. Our tigers are trained to allow handlers to always respect their charges and to never underestimate them as they will never be tamed completely and anyone who thinks they will be is a fool. I personally have seen thoughtless ignorant behaviour at many zoos and wildlife parks and yes l have taken to task some of the people l have seen dangling babies over crocodile enclosures for example when they dont realise crocs jump for their food. so be self responsible and dont blame the animals for doing what comes naturally

It is a terrible shame. What a beautiful animal. Hopefully the publicity this will generate will teach people how stupid (and cruel) it is to tease or taunt any encaged animal, much less a predator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.218.4 (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Transcript of Police call

http://www.slate.com/id/2181194/entry/0/fr/rss/

pschemp | talk 22:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

slingshot claim

According to the new york post, the police denied finding a slingshot, and therefore i added these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentzi (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Destroy vs. Kill

There have been a series of edits in which people replace "destroy" (Tatiana) with "kill", and then it gets reverted on the basis that "destroy" is the term used in the zoo field. I'm not sure that's a solid argument. First, I'm not sure why we should stick to terminology used in the field, unless it is somehow more precise or accurate than the common language alternative. And when I looked up "destroy" in wiktionary, the relevant definition given is to euthanize. That means killing an animal out of a sense that it will suffer more living than dead, not killing an animal because it is deemed dangerous to people. So "destroy" might be less accurate than "kill". Am I missing something here?Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the source uses "destroy". Fireplace (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no commentary from activists?

Hi there - i added in a section about commentary from activists, which was quickly removed.

I'm curious why this isn't considered relevant?

--Dave Shishkoff (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopedia, with a strict neutral point of view policy. —BoL 03:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry BoL, but I don't see support for what you said in "neutral point of view". It explicitly allows describing points of view as being held, with preference for being explicit about who hold those points of view. This is discussed more extensively in "Describing points of view". I'm not sure about the relevance of the disputed content, or its notability, but I don't think "neutral point of view" supports deleting it.Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is not very neutral in point of view at all. It says the brothers were "hostile" (these quotation marks used in article) but doesn't attribute this "he said/she said" comment to a person calling them hostile. It says they "refused" to give interviews until "two days after the attack," but this also isn't sourced. Instead of leading with the slingshot being refuted by the police it publishes unknown sources saying they had one. In fact, the article is essentially San Francisco Zoo's smear campaign against the brothers, all of the Zoo's speculation. Anything negative about the Zoo, such as the height of the wall or the 911 calls of the brothers pleading for help is buried at the end or left out of the article, while every allegation the Zoo wants to be heard is in this article. I suspect this article is as far from neutrality as one can get. Is it written by and for the Zoo?

The whole thing astonishes me. But do see claims that this article is "neutral" because "we are an encyclopedia?" That's ridiculous. If it was neutral it would not use weighted words that paint the brothers in a dark light against all unsubstantiated allegations of the Zoo being given prominent play throughout the article. The article is not neutral. It's a smear campaign by the Zoo against the brothers who were attacked by the tiger. --Amaltheus (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree at all with this assessment. The article is heavily sourced, and while the story does paint the brothers in a bad light, it also brings attention to the mistakes of the zoo. All in all, I think it could maybe a tiny bit more NPOV, but it does a fairly good job describing a current event where the details are still forthcoming. --CWSensation^t 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's notable and relevant because advocacy positions are part of what will determine the short- and long-term results of this, both at the San Francisco Zoo and in the larger sphere of sites holding captive animals.

Response from the Activist Community

Lee Hall, legal director of Friends of Animals, had an article published[1] on Dissident Voice[2] discussing an animal rights perspective on animals in entertainment, including a significant section covering Tatiana’s situation.

--Dave Shishkoff (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How big is the tiger?

Intro to article says 243lbs, later on says 253lbs. Be consistent! 79.68.172.240 (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this too. Does anyone know which is correct? Kalga (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It was 243 lbs at the beginning, but that was before Carlos Sousa. -Clueless (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

-__- 4chan is that way. <-- Kalga (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)