Talk:Black Jaguar-White Tiger Foundation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 16 March 2018 by reviewer DGG (talk · contribs).

Zoo

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.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles

Not accredited

MAngelina, BJWT is not accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries. Please stop replacing this (reliably) sourced information with a WP:SELFPUB source from the foundation's own website. Thanks. Sro23 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Jaguar-White Tiger Foundation is not registered as sanctuary

Sro23 There is no legal definition of a “sanctuary” in Mexico. Black Jaguar White Tiger is registered as a “Zoological Entertainment Facility.” (source) Therefore it is not correct to use the term Sanctuary in the article.Please stop revising the article to include that term. Avanoire (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

911animalabuse looks to be a blog, and therefore not a reliable source, however the daily beast is reliable so I've removed instances of the word "sanctuary" from the article. Sro23 (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sro23 Thank you & I understand that you are trying to keep the article relevant and factual. But the most interesting part in this story is the controversy surrounding the organization and the CEO and the role social media played in that story. I feel that the article needs to cover that. If not it’s just about a rich guy with some big cats and an Instagram account.

Unreliable source: self-published self serving information treated as facts

The wikipedia page relies heavily on the organizations and it's founders claims on their website. Those claims are obviously self-serving and promotional and they have been questioned and critized by other organizations, journalists and bloggers. But those critical perspectives are removed by user @Sro23 and the page is reverted back to being a summary of the organizations claims. Avanoire (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avanoire: Jacalynbeales.com, which no longer even exists, was just some random writer's personal blog, it is not a reliable source. Before you reinsert that source again, I would like you to read the two articles (which also no longer exist, but we have internetarchive to help) the author cites as sources for the origin of BJWT: https://web.archive.org/web/20170224205356/http://enchantingminds.net/eduardo-serio-the-real-lion-trophy-hunter/ and https://web.archive.org/web/20160604182903/http://postgradproblems.com/this-wild-man-rescues-lions-tigers-and-other-big-cats-has-an-awesome-instagram . The enchantingminds article (also not a reliable source) is a promotional puff piece for BJWT, and something tells me you would not be happy relying on promotional articles. The second website, also promotional and a non-reliable source, says nothing about a cousin or pet store. Nothing. If you can find a better source (please no blogs) than please do, but because none of these are reliable, they have to be removed. Vogue and the organization's website are reliable sources (see WP:SELFPUB) but since this is causing conflict, I think I'll just remove any details about the first rescue cub. Avanoire, your entire existence on Wikipedia seems to be removing or counteracting anything that could be remotely considered positive about BJWT, regardless if it's sourced or not. If you're up to it, there are so many more articles that could use improvement - better referencing, typo and grammar fixing, fact checking, etc. We are in desperate need of experts, so if you're an expert in any field, I say go for it. Editing can be a lot of fun. I know you're not the organization's biggest fan, and neither am I. I strongly, strongly detest animal exploitation, especially when it comes to exotic and endangered species. But I also deeply care about the venerability and neutral point of view policies on Wikipedia. I try to keep articles as balanced as I can, so that no bias or agenda is apparent, per WP:SOAPBOX. I recommend you give Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth a read. We have to stick to what the reliable sources say, whether it be positive, negative, or neutral, Wikipedia doesn't care, as long as it is verifiable. Even if you know something is true - Wikipedia only cares what the reliable sources say. Sro23 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]