Talk:Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights 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.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oklahoma High‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Fourth Set of Changes

Wish I had time to go thru this....again. But if you're going to insist on removing what appears to be sourced content that spells out a controversy about this GW Exotics, and then add a clearly biased commentary, that's a blatant violation of NPOV. (The HuffPo source you cited led to a blog that cited a USDA report that said PETA was classified a terrorist threat, but not "the largest domestic terrorist group"). Please, can't have it both ways. Again, please read the many links I suggested below. And please test your formatting out on WP:Sandbox. Bob98133 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Set of Major Changes

Please see everything I wrote under Second Set of Major Changes.

When a page is filled with "we" this and "we" that, it's clearly a person involved with the organization. Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advertising#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox before making more similar changes.

And please ask for help. There are so many people here (myself included) who would be happy to help you make this a good Wiki page.

Bob98133 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Set Of Major Changes

Edited portions of the content that appeared to be either personally directed attacks at an employee of the organization or that otherwise appeared to be a conflict of interest to the park, as per Wikipedia rules.

For the accreditations section, the original content was wiped out. The new content on the page is placing what is claimed by the park to be facts about their affiliations with other organizations. Likewise, a COI is possible due to the description of the park in a negative way. Actual accreditations should be verified by calling respective organizations.

Entire "Allegations of Animal Abuse" section has been done away with. This verifies the conflict of interest based on the the writing of whoever last edited the article.

The page has been edited to show just the basic information about the park, without promoting it or giving it unfair criticism, both of which are direct violation of Wikipedia's policies. --67.79.60.123 (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the rules that state that an organization is immune to referenced criticism. There is no need to call anyone to confirm accreditations - that would be Original Research. References indicated that GW is not a member of the groups, and indicated that the purpose of one of the groups appears to be contrary to orgs stated goals. It is not a conflict of interest to include referenced negative data about an organization, particularly when that info is confirmed by a reference to a USDA document. If an animal park has its license suspended, that is certainly worthy of inclusion on its Wiki page. Please see PETA page as an example of referenced negative info included in org article. Bob98133 (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I’ve done some major editing to this article. It was almost totally referenced by press releases or the org’s own website. There was a lot more info online, so I’ve added that.

Please discuss prior to a mass revert, since the new material is relevant and referenced. I’m sure more could be added or other changes made, but I’ve tried to get this close to what could be referenced. Some deletions, like the removal of the org’s name from subhead and proper capitalization should have been done anyhow, along with removing weasel words like “conveniently” located and the driving directions to get there., which weren't needed. Bob98133 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanking by IP editors

It appears as if one or two anonymous editors are repeatedly removing referenced content from this article without explanation. If this continues, perhaps an IP editing block should be set up. Bob98133 (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, There Is

According to Wikipedia's policy, care should be taken when repeating negative comments about a person because defamation is an issue regardless of whether or not the allegations are true. That being said, I do not understand your logic in blatantly attacking Joe by using this article as a personal attack against him. You gave PETA as an example of being fair when receiving a bad rap, but I do not see specific names of people with regards to either the major PETA scandals or the minor ones that do not appear on the article whatsoever. I have to wonder whether or not you are being a little biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.60.123 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking or replying to. I don't see any negative comments about Joe. There are referenced statements that he uses other stage names. Is that negative? I don't see that there are any allegations against Joe. Where are those? If you mean allegations against GW for animal cruelty, those are not allegations, they are referenced to a USDA document. There's nothing personal about the document, it's about GW Exotics. I'm not sure what you mean when you say I used PETA as an example. Did you mean as a reference? If you've looked at the PETA article, it is full of scandals and criticisms, some of which I've put there myself. Sorry if I'm not understanding what you're saying, so please explain. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your information is wrong

Who ever is doing your research on this park is wrong, first of all they are not accredited by the ZAA and they don't claim to be. Their website only states that they are members. I also don't understand why there are not links and statments saying from the press that the USDA cleared them of all peta alligations and no violations were filed. And the fact they have received ONLY perfect inspections since 2006. The last is I don't see why your hitting on Peta so much and dont publish the fact that peta kills more animals than this park even has. This is a poor thing to use Wikipedia for is a private attack on this park. No one is going to start beliving the good from looking at Wikipedia again. And the picture of their logo is being used without permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathrowe (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there referenced information that you think should be in this article. If so, discuss the relevant info and supply references. Bob98133 (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy you people are vandictive

It is hard to belive that PeTA or someone has the time to set and watch this site. What bone do you have to pick with ths park? Lets get real and know that there are hundreds of IP addresses and I can keep this up all day so put on the site that peta was wrong and the USDA cleared the park. All you have to do is yahoo search gw exotic and see the news reports that the USDA cleared this park of all alligations. Now also know you have mis-information on this site that is very untrue and are using copy right material. So Tommy and CinchBug if you work for PeTA you should be ashamed of yourself for killing so many animals. Lets edit PeTA's page and put the facts out there of just how many they kill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy2010sucks (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is against Wiki policy to use sockpuppets which you are admitting to doing. If you are able to find references to support what you are saying please add them as appropriate. Switching names and IP addresses to make unsupported POV changes to the article will result in the article being blocked. Either way. Suit yourself. Bob98133 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who think that such animals belong only in the wild. They just can't see the reality that humans breed and breed, simply not leaving enough space for animals. These wild animals are doomed to be extinct. The oceans are also rising, people will have to move inland and displace more animals. I rode an elephant in a zoo when I was a child and padded a lion cub. My 'relation' to these animals is probably stronger for it. In Siberia the tigers are hunted as soon as they are put back in the wild. Too many poor people without jobs. In 1945 the world had 2 billion people, now that is 7 = 7,000,000,000 people which cannot be without consequences. Parks are the only way for them to survive, unless you have plenty of taxpayer Dollars to buy land in their native regions and then protect them 24/7 from poachers. Just saw Louis Theroux's docu. 144.136.192.32 (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations Of Animal Abuse Edits

This WP page has been edited to show that the initial animal abuse allegations were brought up by PETA in 2004. The park complied with the USDA and had its license on temporary suspension for two weeks. Within those two weeks changes were made, the USDA dropped violation charges, and that was the end of the issue. I do not understand why PETA needs to be mentioned on the page, since it has no authority to regulate animal parks. In either case, I think it should be made more clear that the USDA is in charge and that the park cleaned up its act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.116.178.104 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your edits. You claim that PETA should not be mentioned, yet your edits makes their role more prominent. I agree that if there are references that the park "cleaned up its act" then those should be included. Do you have such refs? I have re-edited this to be more balanced, I hope.

I removed PETA from the text and replaced it with animal rights groups. Accusations of mistreatment by PETA are noteworthy when a USDA investigation reaches similar conclusions.

the ph about fundraising is not encyclopedic and is unsupported by the reference. I removed that.

I reverted your edit about Joe and the org being a non-profit. This is not mentioned in the cited source. It would need a reference indicating that any monies raised by Joe go to a non-profit. Maybe a 990 form or something like that. Is the park a non-profit or just where Joe's money goes from performances?

I removed that the USDA violations were dropped. The violations occurred and were documented, and are properly referenced. They were never "dropped". GW simply remedied items that were in violation of the AWA or in non-compliance. The USDA doc clearly states that GW's license was suspended. I noted that after complying with the law, USDA reinstated license. Bob98133 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing some of the issues up on the article. I am not claiming that PETA should not be mentioned, only that it has no jurisdiction over animal parks, sanctuaries, etc. All the power to PETA if it is supporting claims made by actual government agencies, such as the USDA. Based on the current discussion on this article, it is pretty safe to say that not many people are supportive of PETA being mentioned in articles of this type. In this case, changing out the text as you did might bring some peace to both sides, while still informing the general public about the USDA situation with the park. Likewise, the added text covering the reinstatement of the park's license should have been put in place a long time ago, it is after all within the same referenced body of research. In the meantime, I will work on getting some documented proof concerning Joe and the non-profit situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.103.78.34 (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

You may contact joe at joe_exotic@yahoo.com and he will be glad to provide you with anything you need to clear up any questions, you act like he is in hiding or something, well he is not, so contact him and get the stuff he can provide to you like inspection reports, non profit status, etc,up on this page

[above version [Talk:GW_Exotic_Animal_Foundation&oldid=364939809] posted by 00:13, 30 May 2010 66.82.9.60 (talk) (11,208 bytes) (undo)

Below moved from my personal talk page:

Bob in regards to the G.W. Exotic Animal park, if you emailed me directly I could provide you with all kinds of proof and references to ad to the site, like 23 perfect inspections since 2006, news articles where the peta alligations were false, and yes our non profit status, lets see you play both sides and put the good proof up as well as the bad joe_exotic@yahoo.com I also dont see where my stage names need to even be mentioned as they are a part of another whole company. Look at any WP page and see if they report the same thing as our page has turned into, no it is a place where people go to learn not read drama and crap. Or better yet lets see you put on PeTA's page where they kill 97% of all animals brought to them, Please attack both or do the right thing and contact me and let me get you some good facts to report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.60 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the talk section above, directly under the heading, to new Conflict of interest heading. This IP editor (66.82.9.60) provides the email address of a principal at GW Exotics, referring to him as Joe and in the third person as he. In the posting on my talk page, a user at the same IP address, says "if you emailed me directly" and supplies the same email address. This IP editor also refers to "my stage names" and "our non-profit status."

From the above, it appears clear that IP editor 66.82.9.60, who has identified him self as a principal of GW Exotics, is in violation of WP:COI

In response to Joe Exotic's talk. #1 You are in violation of WP:COI for trying to favorably influence an article about your own business. #2 Wiki does not rely on private emails for references. References must be WP:RS. #3 If you have stage names and their use is documented and referenced to be involved with GW Exotic Park, then you have no say about whether they belong in the article or not #4 mentioning the PETA page is irrelevant. Their animal euthansia stats are reported to the state of Virginia and are included in the PETA article. I put them there myself, but what does this have to do with anything?

Based on above charges of conflict of interest, I ask you to discontinue editing this article.

Bob98133 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To IP editor 69.19.14.24

Regarding the unsigned comment you left on my talk page: I didn't reply to your talk page, since it is a shared IP address with numerous wiki violations cited on it. Editing without edit summaries is poor form. If the edits are substantial, such as removing referenced material, they can be reverted, which is what I have done. You acknowledge in your message to me that you are related to the subject of this article, so your editing attempts are in conflict of interest. See WP:COI I don't care what papers you have. I am not interested in them. Wiki relies on reliable sources such as the USDA, see WP:RELIABLE. If you have reliable references to support content in this article that is not a conflict of interest, please add them. Please comment on this page and sign your posts by adding 4 ~ at the end. Can you explain what Peta has to do with any of this? From what I can tell, G.W. Exotics is a scummy little animal park that abuses animals run by someone with multiple aliases. Bob98133 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC) TO BOB98133[reply]

Where is the Good Press?

Why does Wiki only post negative stuff? This park was cleared of the allegations yet no mention of it. Wiki is just so wrong. In everything it does and allows.

Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.99.142 (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starting content discussion

I added a photo of a tiger, it was erased. I also added a section about the arrest and conviction of the owner, it was refactored. My opinions is the content of the article should contain these things, not all packed into the introduction. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also now a page Joseph Maldonado-Passage Lightburst (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a random photo of a tiger. It doesn't fit the 'logo' parameter. Also, the section as is is largely redundant. It just repeats what's in the lede, with the addition of a date and a mugshot. - Sumanuil (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right Sumanuil. I always think an article is better with a visual, so I am going to add the logo Lightburst (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the arrest section, My writing classes always taught me, you say what you are going to say, then say it, then conclude. So the intro really should not be loaded with everything- for readability it should only outline Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clean it up a bit. If you can get their logo, go ahead. - Sumanuil (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Also have a look at the article for the Owner. Not sure if it will last as some may say BLP1E. However I kind of think, he has more than one event. Let me know what you think Lightburst (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMPARTIAL

Seems like some sentences were written by Carole Baskin, because they're highly biased.

for example:

"Exotic would shoot donated horses then feed them to the tigers."

Repeating that claim just to manipulate the readers emotions.

and

"The shooting occurred while the zoo was open and in front of an employee."

How is this statement even relevent, unless the author is trying to use wikipedia to soapbox their own political opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4900:43f:5184:29d6:b9f0:f996 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've slightly refactored the above. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant or no, I don't see bias here. These things happened. And there's no need to swear. - Sumanuil (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking - likely COI

Given this blanking, I think past sources and content need to be reconsidered for inclusion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I bit. I took a chunk from 2018 and put it into the History section. Normal Op (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Park ownership

The assertion that Lowe purchased the park in 2016 contradicts the discussion of the 2020 court order transferring park ownership from Shirley Schreibvogel (Exotic's mother) to the Baskins. However, the citation regarding Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park LLC only demonstrates that an entity by that name exists in Oklahoma; the website doesn't detail that entity's business operations or what properties it has owned. The post-2016 narrative in the article suggests that Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park LLC operated the zoo and owned the animals while Schreibvogel owned the land and buildings, but this is not entirely clear. The relationship needs to be clarified in the article with appropriate citations; however, I have bigger fish to fry. Carguychris (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found better sources and fixed it. Carguychris (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest template

Can this be removed? The article seems fairly neutral to me. Carguychris (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]