This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You may contact joe at [email protected] 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
Bob98133 ( talk) 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
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
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Given this blanking, I think past sources and content need to be reconsidered for inclusion. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 16:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
Can this be removed? The article seems fairly neutral to me. Carguychris ( talk) 13:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)