Jump to content

Talk:Tiger King/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment on page

The page leaves some pretty important details out. The show is all about scandalous and felonious behavior. 108.26.141.155 (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose any changes you wish to make as long as you have the proper sources to back up any claims. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Source up for grabs

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/03/tiger-king-presents-trans-man-butch-lesbian-entire-show/ Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This could be used under a 'criticism' subheading if we decide to add one? Selroh18 (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Used,
Resolved
, Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

I have removed a line in the Ratings section suggesting that the show's popularity may have been directly tied to COVID-19. Sources have been provided demonstrating that viewership is up as people stay at home, but no sources say anything about this show. It's a logical conclusion, but it's also textbook synthesis. In order to make such a claim in Wikipedia's voice, RS need to state that the ratings success of Tiger King has some connection to people staying at home. Grandpallama (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That’s a reason to fix the statement not remove it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Gleeanon409, huh? If you want to fix it to accurately reflect the sources, then do so. As you are the editor who first put it in, that onus is on you, not other editors. Adding unsourced material is disruptive and will get you blocked, and edit warring so that you can keep material you know is unsourced in the article is even worse. This was brought to your attention when you reverted a user who removed it a few days ago, but you reinserted the text, unaltered. I'm removing it again; don't re-add it without fixing it so that it adheres to policy. Grandpallama (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for finding an appropriate source before putting it back in. Grandpallama (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
This seems
Resolved
. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Impact on public attitudes to celebrities/sportspeople with exotic pets

Shaquille O'Neal (NBA legend) features in the show in some archive footage and then says how he purchased two tigers from Joe Exotic. After the show came out O'Neal then said in his podcast 'Never had any business dealings with [Joe Exotic]'.[1] [2] Mike Tyson (former world heavyweight champion) was also asked by Fat Joe on Instagram Live about his previous ownership of two tigers in the 1990s, as a result of Fat Joe watching the show. Tyson then went on to say that he was 'foolish' to own the animals. [3] [4] [5]

Would this be worthy of inclusion in the article? Selroh18 (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Use only the best sources, and write neutrally, and keep it about this show. Other articles might be better for other information. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Would the Telegraph and BBC articles be acceptable sources, if it is focused entirely on the fact that the show led to this backlash/defensiveness? Selroh18 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, those are great sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Is the new section OK? Selroh18 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Excellent! Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Resolved

, Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Not only is it a good idea to address the impact this had on other with exotic pets, but the impact the docuseries had on the nation as a whole. Especially referencing the climate the series had its greatest success in.

References

  1. ^ https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/shaquille-oneal-tiger-king_n_5e826749c5b6d38d98a3467e
  2. ^ https://www.podcastone.com/episode/Shaq-and-Mark-Cuban-speculate-about-the-return-of-the-NBA-plus-Shaq-explains-his-relationship-with-the-Tiger-King-and-more-on-The-Big-Podcast-with-Shaq
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pINZruq-I48
  4. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/boxing/mike-tyson-tiger-king-netflix-why-regrets-past-a9440071.html
  5. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/52125462

Criticism of the show

Carole Baskin has written a lengthy post on her website about her unhappiness with her portrayal in the show, especially around the 'segment devoted to suggesting, with lies and innuendos from people who are not credible, that I had a role in the disappearance of my husband Don in 1997'. [1] [2]. Given the claim itself is referenced her, to maintain a balance shouldn't a mention of Baskin's comments also be included? Selroh18 (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If you rely on the BBC source, yes, something neutral would be appropriate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Is it sufficiently neutral to say "Baskin has criticised her portrayal in the show..." with a reference to the BBC article? And is it better to reference the post on the Big Cat Rescue website or not - I know it's a primary source but it doesn't seem to me to be 'original research' to say that the post is very critical of the show. Selroh18 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I would only use the BBC and their quote from her, "a segment devoted to suggesting, with lies and innuendos from people who are not credible, that I had a role in the disappearance of my husband", and maybe that she’s never been charged and denies the allegations. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Content added,
Resolved
, Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://bigcatrescue.org/refuting-netflix-tiger-king/
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-52063653

User:Serval5412

Has anyone looked into the contributions history of User:Serval5412? Lots of critical edits at Big Cat Rescue, beginning in 2015. Then, in November 2017, a final edit -- to List of serial killers by country: "Please do not add to this list by murdering people." (!) Zagalejo^^^ 03:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what that has to do with this article? Their last edit was in 2017, right? Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Just an odd piece of Wiki history, especially in the context of this show. Zagalejo^^^ 01:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed part of what was written about a one-off FOX special - the line talked about "exclusive interviews and never-before-seen footage", pretty clearly an advertisement and a violation of Wikipedia policy. 124.171.200.162 (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Correction: I have submitted the above edit. I guess it is pending. 124.171.200.162 (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Crap article

As someone who has not watched the series, the article is clearly written for people that have watched the shows. There is no explanation as to when it was made, how it was made, and what the content or purpose of the show is all about. Seeing that he was convicted in 2019, and this was broadcast in 2020, I am assuming the episodes used pre-recorded material. What I don't understand is how the intention of what the story is trying to be told? Did Netflix approach Joe Exotic about a series and his zoo or is this a series of interviews and home recording made after he was convicted of trying to kill the wildlife woman? I suppose it would be interesting if a Netflix documentary team were working on a show about him but got wrapped up in his criminal activities. However, none of this is actually explained in the so I have no idea. 81.141.32.176 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

having recently watched it, they did indeed just get "wrapped up" in it all. i don't think it was netflix per se (prolly SOLD to them post-conviction), but the two documentary team(s) -- there's a team within a team there -- indeed seem to have started it long before his arrest. there are only a few quick scenes from afterwards (him in jail) -- framing rest of it as one big flashback -- but there's no sense that all the prior footage has been recreated. and with him in jail and the property dismantled that hardly seems possible anyways.
i do believe they were tagging along with him for a year or two BEFORE the catshit hit the fan. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

police chief?!

joe's wiki mentions he is an ex-cop, and CHIEF, even, of a small TX town. was this mentioned at any point in the series?! i don't recall it.

they were so amused by calling him a "mullet-sporting gun-slinging drug-addled polygamist gay cowboy singing zookeeper" etc etc; surely they would have added "ex-cop" in there if they could have!

is there some backstory? like...dept issuing injunction against him mentioning them after a bad termination or something? wiki does reveal that he may have had a suicide attempt in a dept vehicle. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

POV template re Saffery and the LGBTQ content

(tl;dr version: The heavy LGBTQ slant in this article is ADVOCACY and UNDUE. Also BLP is being ignored. Needs fixing.)

I am placing a POV template on the section. I am also changing the name to Kelci Saffery wherever it appears in the article, and will be making several other corrections. Below describes my reasons, analysis and references. (Update: I did make some changes. This [1] is the version I was referring to when I wrote the below analysis. Normal Op (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC))

The person's name is Kelci Saffery, often annotated as Kelci "Saff" Saffery in the ordinary manner that indicates the name in the middle in the quotation marks is a nickname. Since most of the news articles (except the LGBTQ-promotional ones) refer to him as Kelci "Saff" Saffery, and Saffery does not appear to "correct" the interviewers, and Saffery's own Twitter account goes by the name "Kelci Saffery", we can infer that his legal name is still Kelci Saffery — unless and until we find some definitive source that says otherwise. I see that the LGBTQ community has co-opted this article's section for POV-pushing for their advocacy and viewpoints. I've read all of the articles cited for this section (and a few others, too) and the viewpoint being presented here in the Tiger King article is NOT the viewpoint expressed by Saffery in any of his interviews. Saffery has, however, expressed a preference for pronoun "he", but doesn't seem to care what else you call him.

Sources that use both names "Kelci" and "Saffery":

The only person who insisted that Saffery preferred "Saff" over "Kelci" was Robert Moor in a Tweet, as published in the Esquire (magazine) interview where Saffery clarified Moor's comment: he put Moor's comment in context but did not seem to assert the same, nor even similar, preferences to the interviewer.

“I don’t care if they’re calling me she; I don’t care if they’re calling me he. On a daily basis, I am called 17 different things. I never really took it to heart. I love being able to speak on this,” Saffery says. “Obviously it’s not something that I’ve even actively participated in ever, so, for context, my conversation with Rob was that he asked me, ‘What do you prefer? Saff or Kelci?’ And of course I said Saff because that’s what I’ve been called for the past 20 years. I was in the Army prior to the park and they always use last names. So, Saff was my preferred name. And I’ve always gone by him since I could say that out loud. My family was always very supportive—it was never an issue." Source: Saff Saffery Discusses His Life After Tiger King and Why He Left the Zoo Business Behind

Sources that only mention "Kelci" to promote the "don't use it" viewpoint:

Sources that mention neither "Kelci" nor "Saffery":

In the interview with Out magazine, Saffery addresses the pronoun/gender issue but does NOT address the name issue.

Interviewer: So there's a lot of reports right now saying that you were misgendered throughout the series and I wanted to see if you wanted to address all of that.
Saff: I think the reason that I stay pretty neutral on it all is I've never been one to tell people what to be or what to say or how to handle anything. It's a big community out there so I don't want to pick a side either way. If people are asking me what I prefer, it's very obvious what I prefer, and that's he. But I'm not going to tell anyone what they need to or should call me. I think that everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and I'm obviously as easygoing in that department as I can get. I don't think that I personally get offended I think others do. I think everyone should stand up for what they believe in. I just — it's literally one of the last things that I really considered worrying about.

There is no indication anywhere that Kelci is no longer his legal name. The name "Kelci" is not gender-specific, either, and calling Kelci "Kelci" is NOT misgendering Saffery. If the ordinary news can cover the topic of Netflix's Tiger King and cover the parties involved, including Kelci Saffery without bringing in the gender issue, and if the only sources highlighting the gender issue are LGBTQ magazines, and it's their own take on a single Tweet, then I say it's WP:UNDUE to weight this section as an LGBTQ issue — unless, of course, you want to LABEL the section with a heading that clearly shows that is the intention, and don't try to hide it under a section named solely with the name of one character who doesn't seem to care about the LGBTQ issue at all. (See also WP:ADVOCACY.)

And finally, the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is being ignored in this article. Kelci Saffery is still alive and all this content about Saffery falls under the WP:BLP rules.

I will be trimming this section accordingly.

(On a tiny sidenote, one editor requested a source for the August 1, 1986 date of birth. There is one on famousbirthdays(dot)com, which is blacklisted on Wikipedia. https://www.famousbirthdays(dot)com/people/kelci-saffery.html I do not vouch for the reliability of the information.)

— Normal Op (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Normal Op, This is great analysis and I agree with your conclusions. You are right that the source of famousbirthdays is wholly unreliable and should not be used. I will point out though, that in articles we call someone by their WP:COMMONNAME not neccesarily their legal name. E.g., Joe Exotic is not called Joseph Allen Maldonado-Passage. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Sulfurboy. Yes, Joe is an unusual case because he changed his name multiple times, too. And he billed himself as "Joe Exotic", repeatedly and over an extended period. On the other hand, we ordinarily call someone in articles by their last name (to shorten things), rather than using their first name or nickname. (That method is also used by most of the articles cited.) That said, I am less concerned with the use of the name "Saff" than I am at the advocacy behind the recent edit where someone removed "Kelci" and referred in the edit summary as it having been "misgendering". Normal Op (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Your assessment is interesting but I feel your conclusions are a bit off. LGBTQ media were sensitive to these issues, which is unsurprising, and rightly reported on them.
Saff is considered an expert on himself, he prefers his nickname Saff rather than his birth name, and is just relaxed about it all. From his own statements about being a trans man he alluded that he doesn’t embrace that identity because he hasn’t had any of the actual surgeries although he’s embraced the lifestyle.
In your zeal to claim POV issues you may have to accept that what we have is accurate. Unless, of course, you have reliable sourcing that refutes what we have. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Gleeanon409, accuracy is not the entirety of the issue, here. Perspective and presentation is. I respectfully suggest a fresh reading of WP:UNDUE and WP:ADVOCACY. Normal Op (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
On a BLP accuracy is paramount. As more is published maybe your POV will be covered. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

i'm late to the discussion, but IMHO, the "misgendering" in question is a few casual references to him using "she", and NOT anything to do with which NAME is used! a lot of ppl default to their last names, or nicknames thereof, especially after stints in the military. it does not mean they are "rejecting" their first name.

his preference for he over she, however mild, is still a preference of sorts. his preference for saff over kelci, otoh, seems a big nothing. a lot of williams go by "bill", some go by "will", some "billy", some "willy" - so what? 66.30.47.138 (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

i went back and skimmed a few episodes. right after the accident, joe calls him "she", rick calls him "she", and at least one news report calls him "she".
the "misgendering" is clearly this. not which name is prefered. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism from animal welfare and conservation groups

I have added a section on the criticism the series and filmmakers received from wildlife conservation organizations. This was much needed as it sparked considerable criticism from these groups, and had several inaccuracies about wildlife issues in the series. I can't work out how to structure it so feel free to help. I'm also going to add this to WP Zoo in case they want to help. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Cage size ethical? Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries

The article states "The series and director have suggested Big Cat Rescue's enclosures are small or do not meet ethical standards,[28] but their facilities meet humane standards set out by Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries." This doesn't follow logically. The standards of GFAS could still be considered unethical by some. This section needs some explanation of why this standard is ethical. Trimton (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiger_King/Archive_1&oldid=1057540004"