Talk:Harambe

Article on USDA report regarding enclosure

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/11/17/report-cincy-zoos-gorilla-barrier-wasnt-compliance/94025422/ Not sure where to put this in the article, or whether to include it at all, since all the report concludes is that the enclosure was safe until it wasn't. Mapsax (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

High-res image of gorilla

https://www.flickr.com/photos/52934799@N03/7644076958/. MB298 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind – I realized the image was from 2011 while Harambe was transferred to the zoo in 2014. MB298 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016

Please change: A number of primatologists and conservationists wrote later that the zoo had no other choice under the circumstances, and that it highlighted the danger of zoo animals in close proximity to humans and the need for better standards of care.

To: A number of primatologists and conservationists wrote later that the zoo had no other choice under the circumstances, and that it highlighted the danger of zoo animals in proximity to humans and the need for better standards of care.

because using "close" before "proximity" is redundant. 24.237.27.120 (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done "Close proximity" is a relatively common usage, and was used by one of the references we cite. Meters (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's redundant to add "proximity" to close, but not redundant to add "close" to proximity :) There are degrees of proximity not all necessarily meaning "close" (very close, near, outer proximity). Since proximity deals only with distance (outer proximity is a more scientific terminology which might include solar systems), the word "close" creates a subjective human-scale sense of nearby, thus "close proximity to humans". -- GreenC 01:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. "Close" proximity conveys useful information, just as "far" distance does. Meters (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Initial Reaction to killing based on assumption boy was white.

My understanding that in the first few hours after the shooting, before the race of the boy was generally known, there were criticisms of the shooting of the gorilla based on the false assumption that the boy was white. http://fusionlacedillusions.com/index.php/2016/05/31/racism-afercan-americans-think-cincinnati-zoo-killed-17-year-old-male-gorilla/ Once corrected, that portion of the criticism quickly subsided, although there were continued objections in general. If reliable sources (Twitter, etc) could be found, I think it would be useful to reveal those initial objectors and objections: The ones who thought that the killing of Harambe was bad ONLY BECAUSE they thought the victim kid was white. 67.5.215.37 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Your understanding appears to be based on nothing but a few mistaken, anonymous tweets reposted by fusionlacedillusions.com Even if true, this does not seem worth including. If people had mistakenly thought that the animal was shot to protect a pet there would have been tweets decrying the shooting for that reason too, and those mistaken tweets wouldn't have worth including either. Meters (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I recall this matter within a day of when it occurred. I merely decided to include a sample reference to it; otherwise you know that somebody would accuse me of making this up. This article shows that the authors have already decided that the public's reaction to this incident is noteworthy. Others won't want this included because of embarrassment. 67.5.215.37 (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)