Talk:San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Death of Amritpal “Paul” Dhaliwal[edit]

No mention that he appears to have died in 2012, aged 24? - https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/93852708/amritpal-dhaliwal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnycigarettes (talkcontribs) 20:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Diagram of cage[edit]

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)

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.

Ahh... a typo![edit]

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)

(red?) lights[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

indiadaily.com[edit]

Does this online resource diesn't appear to exist any longer. In any case, is it credible enough to be quoted in defence of the brothers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnycigarettes (talkcontribs) 20:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Transcript of Police call[edit]

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

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

slingshot claim[edit]

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

Destroy vs. Kill vs. Euthanize[edit]

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)

More recently it got changed to "euthanize" By the argument above that is less accurate. If there is a reason for that term, please discuss here.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I apologize, I changed back your reversion before I saw your explanation of why you prefer "kill" to "euthanize." If I understand you correctly, you feel "euthanize" is only appropriate when the implication is that death was induced to end the animal's suffering. In fact, it's the term used by, e.g., animal shelters, who put down animals not to end their suffering but to make room for more animals. I think "euthanize" is the right word here for what happened to Tatiana, and that "kill" may be too emotionally loaded for encyclopedic writing. What do you think, in light of the dog pound example? I agree 100% that "destroy," while it may be used by professional zookeepers, is much too loaded in common speech for use in an encyclopedia. Again, sorry to have reverted without knowing you were editing - when I saw "kill" again, I thought it was just something I'd forgotten to replace. —LisaSmall T/C 04:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for noting the animal shelter usage. Upon reading that I was unsure. I suspect that's more a euphemism than a accurate term. Contrary to the dictionaries I've seen, the Animal euthanasia article does include this usage, though there's a debate about it on the talk page there. Arguably the killing of homeless pets is more for humane purposes than killing this tiger would have been, because killing the tiger would have been specifically to protect people.
My thinking in word choices is usually that a simple, direct, factual word is best unless the fancy word being considered is clearly better for conveying the desired meaning. "Kill" seems to me to be a very simple direct and factual word. I agree that it's emotionally loaded, but I think that's the natural emotional load that goes with the concept and that words that attempt to avoid that content are less than fully honest.
I looked at a Thesaurus to see if there are other choices that might be good. Most are either serious (or should I say silly) euphemisms, or are specifically something inappropriate. An example of an interesting but clearly poor choice would be "murder". Unlike "kill", that conveys a specific interpretation that most would agree is not appropriate. I think that we we can't agree on an appropriate interpretation to convey we should use the bare-facts word: "kill".
So I've now convinced myself that it should in fact be "kill". I'm not attached to that if you aren't convinced by my arguments, and I'd be pleased if there were another word for which we had a solid argument that it was the right choice.Ccrrccrr (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm still torn between "euthanize" and "kill" because, after the zookeeper attack, Tatiana's death would have been accomplished by a medical method (rather than by pistol shot, for example). "Execute" would be even worse, "eliminate" sounds excretory, and "destroy" was nixed for good reasons above. Thanks for talking me through this. —LisaSmall T/C 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well maybe someone more decisive than us will come along and pick one. In the meantime I'm enjoying the discussion. Thanks for all the other good work you've been doing on this, editing and researching.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why no commentary from activists?[edit]

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. --CWSensationt 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)

Provocation of any large animal, especially a large predator, is extremely dangerous. Behind far flimsier enclosures than any zoo would ever have lurk some large predators which have obvious similarities of proportion, behavior, and abilities to those of tigers. They are dogs, and they have knocked down, burrowed under, vaulted, or scaled fences when provoked. Anyone who throws objects at a dog out of malice stands to be hurt. The tigress in question was only about twice as large as some of the larger dogs, but it was a tiger, and merited some wholesome respect as a very large and resourceful predator.

Zoo animals are not as patient with humans as are dogs, but they are not put in zoos to be humiliated or provoked by zoo patrons any more than a pet owner would keep a pet dog to be humiliated or provoked by passers-by.Pbrower2a (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

How big is the tiger?[edit]

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)
While researching this today, I saw 243, 253, and 250, all in mainstream sources. It seems likely to me that the last is a rounding-off, or a compromise by a reporter who, like us, doesn't know which of 243 or 253 is accurate. —LisaSmall T/C 02:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of drug use[edit]

The drug use of the victims is only very slightly related to the topic of this article. It invites readers to conclude that they were more likely to have "taunted" the tiger because they used drugs, but is this so? Are persons under the influence of marijuana more likely to taunt tigers than sober people? The sources sufficiently confirm that they did in fact use drugs, but that does not rehabilitate statements that are actually irrelevant. The primary purpose of these statements seems to be to collaterally attack the character of the victims, especially the finding of drugs in the car, since that doesn't even have the marginal benefit of showing they were intoxicated. To abuse legal jargon, I think these facts are more pejorative than probative and do not add substantially to an understanding of the factual background or circumstances of the attack. deranged bulbasaur 07:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also going to remove mention of unrelated convictions from the "legal consequences" for essentially the same reason, and also because they are not "consequences" since they are not actually related to the article subject. deranged bulbasaur 07:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. There is no need to exclude information that might be prejudicial, if it might be informative. I think it's useful for people to know that, in a well publicized incident of stupid behavior contributing to a tragic outcome, drugs and alcohol may have been involved. After you read enough stories like that, you might start to think twice about using drugs and alcohol in situations where you might get into trouble. There's no proof that intoxication contributed to the behavior or the outcome, but the fact that the data isn't conclusive isn't a reason to hide the data.
I've provided an argument for why there is practical value for having that information. But I don't think there's a WP guideline requiring that there be practical value for information to be in an article--it only has to be verifiable. And you agree that it's verifiable.
Am I missing a reason, based on WP policy, that the information should not be included?Ccrrccrr (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed.174.114.232.143 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh look, I invited a pithy "rebuttal" merely by using a piece of legal terminology. Ho hum. Oh, by the way, I have some verifiable information about 50000 Quaoar, should I add that to the article? It surely has "practical value", it would be "useful for people to know" and since "it only has to be verifiable" I can see no objection under your version of content criteria. You might think this example is bad faith, but I assure you, I've read your whole post, and I can't see anything in it that would prevent such an addition. It's inescapable that there must be some implicit relevance criterion at work, otherwise Wikipedia would perforce become an absurd laughingstock. You have not provided sufficient nexus between the drug use and the tiger attack. If there is "no proof" that it contributed to the "behavior or the outcome" then it doesn't rightly belong here because this article is about the behavior and the outcome, namely the behavior of the attack victims insofar as it is related to the ensuing tiger attack and the attack itself. No relation, no relevance; no relevance, no inclusion. In addition, it seems that you yourself admit that your underlying motivation is to turn this article into a morality play impeaching the "stupid" conduct of the victims. It will not do, Ccrrccrr, so I intend to revert you. deranged bulbasaur 19:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. This information has been discussed in multiple reliable sources that discuss this incident specifically. The difference between your straw man argument regrading 50000 Quaoar, is that it is not discussed in relation to this incident. Several reliable sources think that it is relevant to this topic so it should be included. --Leivick (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The Quaoar argument would be a strawman if I were analogizing it with the inclusion of the drug use info, but I made no such connection. In context, I was plainly using it simply to justify my subsequent claim that article contents must be relevant to the topic. So, actually, in taking one example in a chain of deduction out of context and using it attribute a claim to me that I never made, you have made a straw-man argument by accusing me of making one. I'll get to the rest when I have more time to argue. deranged bulbasaur 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Deranged Bulbo, I have no idea what you're talking about. This information was part of the investigation, and seems very relevant. Stop reverting until you achieve consensus. Seems like you don't have it, yet.99.245.37.46 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Your failure of comprehension is hardly my problem. You don't understand the arguments being presented, making your actions per se unreasonable, so I went ahead and reverted you anyway. Had you actually presented an argument, perhaps things would have been different between us. Sorry. deranged bulbasaur 22:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
All the sources that mention this information are news sources. News sources, while frequently reliable, have a very different mission from Wikipedia. News sources present characters and dress them out with detail to make the reader involved with the story. They create heroes and villains. We're not concerned with their dramatizing, only with their facts. Surely, it's acceptable to cite facts from a sufficiently reliable news source, but Wikipedia is not a news source, and as such, it's not as concerned with the readership implications of the remoteness of the people we talk about. A certain amount of characterization of the individual is necessary, and indeed relevant, to a biography. The same relevance does not attach to personal details of people in articles about events in which those people were participants. I'm indifferent to including this information in an article on, say, the Dhaliwal brothers, but such an article would need to stand independently on its own merits. The proclivities of news agencies must not be used as a back door to turn articles about events into articles about their participants.
Encyclopedias are topical, but news stories, in addition to creating dramatis personæ, try to maintain a thread of a plot. They are concerned with leading the reader through a procession of events, which may not actually share the same root cause, since that's not necessary for narrative. Wikipedia is concerned with those things that pertain to the particular subject at hand, which may only be an excisable portion of the "plot." The circumstances and particulars of individuals are clearly relevant to the topic of those people's lives, but they may not be relevant to the topic of some event in which they participated, no matter how crucial their participation. For the details to be germane, they must be causally connected in some way. An individual is characterized by his traits and actions which reveal character and motivation. An event is characterized by its causes and its effects. The traits of people who participate in an event are relevant only when they contribute to the cause or change as an effect of the event. deranged bulbasaur 23:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition, the content sourced to a blog is certainly NOT useable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's my reply to this statement:
If there is "no proof" that it contributed to the "behavior or the outcome" then it doesn't rightly belong here because this article is about the behavior and the outcome, namely the behavior of the attack victims insofar as it is related to the ensuing tiger attack and the attack itself.
I don't think that criterion can be taken seriously. There is lots of information with no proof that it contributed to the behavior or the outcome, and without even any plausibility argument that it might have. The first example I found in the article:
Tony's prior companion, Emily, had died of cancer of the spleen in late 2005.
Proof is a very high standard. We can put details in an article even if they don't prove anything.Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the example statement you gave is in fact relevant using the standard which I more fully elaborated in my comment of 23:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC), and a simple dialectic taking into account what the sentence is attempting to show in situ confirms: "Why was Tatiana brought to the zoo which was the site of the attack?" "To provide a companion for another tiger, Tony." "Why did Tony need a new companion?" "His previous companion had died in late 2005." This puts Tatiana at the scene of the subsequent events, making it relevant to the "cause" of those events, for she surely couldn't have attacked anybody if she hadn't been there; she surely wouldn't have been there if she hadn't been brought there; and she wouldn't have been brought there if the zoo didn't have a place to fill for a new tiger.
In fact, it's a strength of my criterion that it doesn't affect any of the statements that are presently in the article. I scanned it and quickly developed a simple rationale for each one. You say below that this debate is confusing, but here we are at the core issue: the necessity of an editorial relevance criterion, and the shape of this implicit construct. When I started this thread, I used the idea of relevance without defining what it meant for a statement in an article to be relevant. The first argument against me that came along essentially offered a "null hypothesis," that the only principle at work is verifiability. I countered this with a positive demonstration of its absurdity. Next, someone suggests that relevance is fulfilled whenever the statement in question appears together with the article topic in a story. I countered this by arguing that it conflates the editorial criteria of Wikipedia with the editorial criteria of the most sensational (but still reliable) news source to cover it. I showed that news sources and Wikipedia are different in respects that would preclude using their discretion to substitute for our own.
Having argued against these two versions of relevance that would undermine my position, I proposed my own version of relevance, which would apply differently to articles about entities and articles about events. Since we're trying to feel out the elephant blindfolded, we can hardly be expected to get all the contours of this principle right at first blush, but I think my effort has been the most successful so far. It is not explosive, allowing arbitrary information into the article, and it doesn't replace our editorial capacities with those of other writers with different motivations. Furthermore, it seems to be sufficiently narrow that it doesn't actually affect much. As I said before, none of the statements currently in the article are touched. Now, I don't pretend that my criterion is perfect, or even that the whole concept of relevance can be succinctly elucidated. It does, however, work from general principles to come to a reasonable result. Feel free to propose refinements.
As for the issue of "proof," you seem to have taken my argument for something that it's not. I never contradicted that "We can put details in an article even if they don't prove anything." My argument was not that the details must prove something about the event itself, simply that there must be some proof of relation to the topic (note the difference between the active sense that the details themselves must prove something, and the passive sense that there must be some proof about the details). There's a subtle but significant difference between what I actually said and your interpretation of it. There are many facts about an event that don't prove anything about that event itself, and in fact some events are so well documented, or their causes and effects so apparent, that proof doesn't constitute much of the article at all. If I actually argued that, I'd be arguing that many articles should be essentially empty. I never argued that a statement must contain proof about the event to be in the article, only that there must exist evidence that the facts in the statement contributed to the event. The relevant aspects of an event, as adduced above, are its causes and its effects. So, the statement must have contributed to a cause or an effect, and this must be evident by some proof, which is not necessarily contained in the statement itself, but merely exists. Proof is indeed a strong word, but the proof I'm talking about is proof that helps us make an editorial judgment about whether a statement belongs in an article, not proof of anything related to the event that must constitute part of the statement itself. Honestly, I wouldn't use the word proof myself, but something weaker. The only reason I used proof in the part you quote is that I was arguing from the basis of your own words, which you obviously didn't compose to suit my purposes. To give a short summary: we need evidence of some connection between a statement and the topic, we don't need, nor have I argued that we need, that statement itself to prove something about the topic. deranged bulbasaur 17:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!! That's a very clear presentation of and argument for your position. I'll need to consider it and re-read the article, to see what I think about your criterion and how it applies to the information in question.Ccrrccrr (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You are right about my first example--it wasn't well chosen. Here's another example: the ages of the victim and the brothers. I would argue that it's worthwhile to have that information in there, but I don't see why we'd distinguish between it and the drug/alcohol information. Would you argue we should remove the age information as well?
I appreciate the effort to articulate a fine line, and I agree that there isn't any simple rule about what goes in and what does not. The action of reverting edits against consensus would be better justified if there were a clear cut guideline that was unquestionably violated. But if we are feeling our way here, the sense of the majority of editors might be the best we can do.
But I do want to try to continue the good discussion you've started of the particular criteria. What I find a little fuzzy is the difference between the statements above, There must be some proof of relation to the topic and there must exist evidence that the facts in the statement contributed to the event. I agree with the first, though "proof" isn't the word I'd use, but I don't agree with the second. If there is an event that may have been caused, in part, by several different things, including all of them in the article is appropriate even if they are uncertain. They need only be plausible contributing factors, about which there is some verifiable information. If the information invites readers to conclude that they were more likely to have "taunted" the tiger because they used drugs, then that must be a real possibility, which is proof of relation to the topic.
Another, new argument for including the information: the suit filed claim defamation. The facts about what defamation happened, and what was factual or not, become relevant.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
" They need only be plausible contributing factors, " and " invites readers to conclude " would be complete violations of WP:OR. It would be appropriate to add information about the drugs if and only if we have a reliable source that actually makes a direct connection between the drugs and the attack ("A lead to B") instead of saying simply "A exists" and "B exists". I dont think you are going to find that. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I just re-read Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. What it actually says is that it's permissible to provide facts which a reader might synthesize; what's forbidden is doing the synthesis in the article. The section I link concludes with Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. That's exactly what the content in question did.Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the first sentance? Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. No source is stating explicitely that the drugs have anything to do with the tiger attack. Thus wikipedia placing this content in our article about the tiger attacks is implicitely indicating that it is somehow related. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I read it. I would emphasize the to reach a conclusion portion of the sentence. Nobody is proposing to, or has, put a conclusion about the effects of drug use in the article. I don't see a requirement in that guideline to withhold information because people might draw their own conclusions from it.Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Simply, you are wrong. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding this thread hard to read, with sarcastic comments and personal attacks. We might all do well to review WP:Civility. Without claiming to have interpreted all of it correctly given sarcasm, etc., I think we have one commenter strongly in favor of removing the content in question, four in favor of keeping it in, and one neutral on that issue but against a particular blog source. There are also two instances in the article history of attempts to put it back in that got reverted. I'm not sure where we go from here. Start a new section and try to lay out the arguments clearly without the "noise" in the discussion above and see where it gets us? Add a formal request for comments?Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that the date on this comment is earlier than the most recent discussion above.Ccrrccrr (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To "Deranged Bulbosaur": You sound like a great mouthpiece! Is youa mouthpiece? Cuz if you is, I got some aquaintances, aquaintences? Anyways friends who need someone of your skills. Please call Vinnie at 212-766-0598. An tell him Vito sent youz. Capice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Drug/alcohol: the content in question[edit]

Just so we know what we are debating, here's the content that was deleted by Deranged B:

(these references inserted for later reference...[1][2] [3][4])
The autopsy also revealed that Sousa's blood tested positive for alcohol and marijuana.[4][3]

and

Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, stated to police that the three had smoked marijuana and had drunk vodka on the day of the attack,[2] which toxicology tests confirmed.[1]
A partially-filled vodka bottle[2][5] and marijuana[1] were also found in the 2002 BMW car used by the Dhaliwal brothers on the day of the mauling.

and

By the end of the 2008, Kulbir, the elder brother, had been convicted of misdemeanor public drunkenness and resisting arrest. Amritpal was serving a state prison sentence for a parole violation triggered by reckless driving, and had been convicted of shoplifting as well.[6]

and then later:

According to police records, Sousa's blood alcohol level was 0.16, and all three involved had marijuana in their system. "Police found a small amount of marijuana in Kulbir Dhaliwal's 2002 BMW, which the victims rode to the zoo, as well as a partially filled bottle of vodka, according to court documents." Also, "police found a partial shoe print that matched Paul Dhaliwal's on top of the railing."[7]
  1. ^ a b c Associated Press (2008-01-17). "Police: Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting". CNN. Retrieved 2008-01-17. 
  2. ^ a b c Jaxon Van Derbeken (2008-01-17). "Mauling survivor said he yelled at tiger". San Francisco Chronicle. 
  3. ^ a b Case #2007-1397, Medical Examiner's Register, PDF file.
  4. ^ a b Read Tiger Attack Autopsy, June 2, 2008. KGO-TV San Francisco, ABC News.
  5. ^ Linda Goldston and Sandra Gonzales (2008-01-18). "Dead teen's father says victim told him tiger was taunted - Zoo officials point to blood-stained sign". San Jose Mercury News. 
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Woolfolk1223 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ http://slaminaevol.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html

More comments on this later.Ccrrccrr (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand why this should not be included. We have sources saying these people may have been drunk and high and taunting the tiger, why should this not be included in the article? It seems like it is original research to say "well we don't know if the drugs and alcohol contributed." when we have reliable sources making the connection for us. --Leivick (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The blog source is completely unusable. The "By the end of the 2008, ..." is completely and utterly irrel to the tiger attack and cannot be included. The CNN reference didnt work for me so I cannot verify any claims sourced to that. Anything you wish to include in the article would need to be adjusted to meet those criteria. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking similarly--I don't want all of this back in wholesale, but if we cut it down to the most relevant, well supported facts perhaps we can converge.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
These facts are well supported. See the included references, as well as http://cbs5.com/local/tiger.behavior.experts.2.633569.html, http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/01/18/tiger-attack.htm. Let's see, that's MSNBC, CBS, and CBC. Stop deleting. They are ENTIRELY relevant to this section, the LEGAL INVESTIGATION of the event. Your initial reason of the blog source being completely unusable has been shot down.99.245.37.46 (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless you can provide a better reason, I will revert again. Why the victim's behaviour and physical state, as reported by the police in their official report, should be "irrelevant" to the incident is totally beyond me. If that was the case, why did the police even test for it or note it? Why were blood tests permitted to be performed? Nonsense. It is totally unreasonable to remove ALL reference to these facts from the article, as they have been widely reported. 99.245.37.46 (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Just cause stuff is in the papers does NOT mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
An encyclopedia article about the incident talked about in "the papers"? With a section called "initial investigation"? Not appropriate to hold details about the investigation? ... Please. It's going back.99.245.37.46 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I put in a version that I think meets RPoD's criteria: non-blog source only, omits the discussion of other legal trouble not directly related to the event. If people have objections, please be specific, or edit to help make it what you'd like to see. This is not like the examples on WP:Coatrack--to get there we'd need to either have this consume an excessive portion of the page or wander into general discussion of drugs and/or alcohol. It does neither.Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Works for me - especially since this is precisely the version that I was putting in and having reverted by Red Pen. :)99.245.37.46 (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the only thing I changed is omitting the blog reference and providing complete info for the other reference.Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bio article?[edit]

Perhaps we need a bio page for the brothers; Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS would seem to me to indicate that this is appropriate. This would siphon off attempts to add reliable info about them that are not appropriate here. Not sure about whether it's appropriate to have one page for two brothers.Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Does not appear to meet WP:PEOPLE / WP:N/CA. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, when I read WP:PEOPLE, and I get to the section that seems most revelant, it refers me to [[Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS], which is what I referred to in the first place. [[WP:N/CA] would argue that if the brothers were only notable for their other criminal records, a bio article would not be appropriate. But they are also notable for their role in the San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks.
WP:PEOPLE gives examples of Howard Brennan where there's a separate article about a particular participant in an event, and Steve Bartman where there's only an article on the incident. One could argue for going either way, but if we followed the Bartman example, we'd include substantial background on the brothers in the main article. Since you are arguing against that, the alternative seems to be to follow the Howard Brennan example. -- Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is the taunting evidence being suppressed?[edit]

It's four years later and this case has grown notorious among the swelling number of animal rights activists as an example of what zoo animals are subjected to, and how they are destroyed if they respond. Why do you think a statue of the tiger has been erected? Why are the facts cited in the last section being policed out of the article? NPOV means that readers should have all the documented information, pro and con, and allowed to come to their own conclusions. They can't understand what the Tatiana incident has come to symbolize unless they know the full story. Profhum (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.examiner.com/a-1773446~SF_wants__75_000_back_from_tiger_attack_survivor.html
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist
  • http://www.examiner.com/a-1800129~SF_zookeeper_mauled_by_tiger_settles_lawsuit.html
    Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  •  Done Found new sources for blacklisted URLs (both were API), and removed blacklist hatnote. Don Lammers (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 05:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)