Talk:Big Cat Rescue

Find sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL I'm not a Wiki expert like my haters are, but would like to point out that we have consistently held Charity Navigator's highest four star rating. You can verify that at https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?keyword_list=Big+cat+rescue&bay=search.results which is current through 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.71.163.147 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

BCR's start, credible sources?

As an IP editor has correctly asserted, BCR started in less honorable conditions than now. It'd certainly be worth reflecting that, but we need good sources for it. tedder (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Here you go: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-04-12/travel/9804120254_1_wild-cat-easy-street-serval

There are more sources that show that the owner used to engage in pet trade herself. The snow leopards BCR used to keep were originally purchased as pets by the Lewis/Baskin family. I can provide proof if necessary. --Serval5412 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Provide more. Certainly the origins of BCR is clear, and adding that was good. tedder (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

Many of the edits of this page reverted in the past as "vandalism" contain very valid accusations supported by several sources. I think that a major reason for those edits being reverted were POV issues and the fact that they were not marked as "criticism" or "controversy". I would like to create a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section where these accusations are listed in a more neutral format, e. g. "BCR has been alleged of ..." instead of stated as a fact. If this is alright with the admins, I would like to request "confirmed" status for my account or the removal of semi-protection for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serval5412 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

POV's definitely the issue. It seems there are axes to be ground. In reality, the controversy section is simply the origin story with a few specific sources that point to a POV without balancing it. I've tried to add neutrality to that. As a new user, how do you know so much about POV and semi-protection and such? tedder (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You reverted and said it was "factually wrong", yet the changes I made are supported by the sources you gave. Please explain rather than pushing a POV. tedder (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

- The title "Controversy" suits the section well (although "Criticism" may also fit), as it contains allegiations of wrongdoing that occured AFTER BCR became a sanctuary. Please take a closer look at the News 10 video. The only thing that might have ceased by 2001 were the animal acquisitions. I already explained this to you on a post made on your talk page. If you have noticed anything in this video that indicates that all discovered questionable activities ceased by 2001, please explain rather than reverting my edits. For the same reason, removal of the accusations by the former volunteer is factually wrong because this former volunteer clearly was featured in the second part of the video. Thus, this line is backed up by the sources I provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serval5412 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have more sources to back up the allegations aside from the youtube clip? That clip isn't dated, which is one problem. The "disguising it as a rescue operation" part is only partly backed up by that source. One of the foundations of Wikipedia is verifiability. If BCR paints cats blue, there's probably more than a bootleg copy of a local news segment available that discusses it.

Second, the whole "controversy"/"criticism" thing. It's preferred to "inline" this type of content; it's part of the history of the operation, not a "he said/she said" section on its own. tedder (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Responding from the NPOVN post: I agree that the currently removed material should remain out. Titling a section as "Controversy" is to be avoided. Self-published, unreliable sources should not be used at all. Can we get full citation information for the YouTube clip please? It's sensational, aimed at attracting and retaining the attention of viewers that might otherwise stop watching. If there was never any follow-up reporting, we need to take care how much weight it is given. It may be helpful for editors to review WP:BATTLE and WP:COI if they are not already familiar. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Serval5412 (talk · contribs), you found a source for the local news site, linked to BCR for some goals, and added text that doesn't appear to come from any source. None of that resolves the comments above. tedder (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It does resolve all of these points. Firstly, the reference I added shows that the USDA violations and other dubious acctivity occured after 2001 (2010 and 2011 for USDA violations). So, my first edit is clearly warranted because now it is clear that the activities didn't cease in 2001. Secondly, I added another concern. BCR's own website certainly is a reliable reference for the organization's goals, and the page I linked to confirms that BCR indeed aims to end private ownership in general. The page specifically says that permit laws don't work in their opinion and a total ban is the only option. I left the second sentence without sources for now because I would have to use self-published and/or anti-BCR websites for this (obviously, this kind of criticism comes from there). Thridly, the changes I made make the title "Origins" unwarranted for the section. Concerns raised by 10 News originate from after 2001, and BCR's anti-ownership stance continues to this day. Naming this section "Origins" would be misleading.

By the way: Here you have another news report about BCR from 2007, one that features several volunteers calling BCR a "private collection disguised as a sanctuary": . This report confirms a sentence I added earlier, but which you removed. Unfortunately, while the report itself was aired by Bay 9, it is hosted under a rather radical and inappropriate name. If this is no problem, I will use it as a reference for further edits. --Serval5412 (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

References

I've cleaned up the article quite a bit. I will note for the record that the local news sources, though we at Wikipedia would consider them reliable, are tabloidish, especially the WTSP (News 10) story, which is terrible journalism. YMMV. And just a reminder--it's entirely possible there is something controversial going on at this facility, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not condemn or promote any particular organization. Valfontis (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

sanctuary vs FWC

I stripped the ref tags so this will appear inline, it's what Serval5412 (talk · contribs) added today:

a commercial exhibiting facility in Tampa, Florida that calls itself a sanctuary.

I removed this. The citation is to a screenshot from Weebly with no context. It's not exactly a reliable source. If it's taken on face value, it appears to be an email from BCR that says basically "FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) does not consider us a sanctuary". I'm having trouble finding information on how FWC classifies places. However, BCR is accredited by Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries source. I do note they aren't accredited by ASA nor by AZA but can't find a reason why. tedder (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

References

The reason for BCR not being accredited by ASA is their extensive, fee-based tour program. Sanctuaries in their usual form are open to the public on at most a very limited basis. And even when they do offer tours, they may ask for donations but do not charge entrance fees. What BCR does has commercial character and is closer to a regular exhibiting facility than to a sanctuary. FWC's classification is based on the same reasoning. BCR has been repeatedly denied AZA accreditation, SSP participation and ASA accreditation for various reasons. You can Google them easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serval5412 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Re: My reversion. For starters, we need the original news story instead of a Google Plus page that doesn't link to the story, and we need something other than an anti-BCR blog as a source for the inspection report. Also can we please work to keep the citation style consistent? Valfontis (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have corrected the reference to the news story. The wrong link somehow snuck its way into it. Regarding the second reference: While the report is hosted by an anti-BCR blog, it still is an original document. If necessary, it could be verified by contacting FWC directly. While this kind of sources will be hosted by opposing organizations 99% of the time, that doesn't make them invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serval5412 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serval5412: can you please sign your posts? Like this ~~~~. Valfontis (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand the limitations of finding a neutral online source for the inspection report, but linking to the anti-BCR site may introduce bias. Could you read up on WP:RS and WP:CITE? Valfontis (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In general, this might be true. However, I think that this particular source is appropriate because the link leads only to the document itself. I know several other articles at such anti-BCR sites that contain reliable scans as proof, but these are embedded in an article with further accusations against BCR which are not backed up by the scan. I refrain from using them as a reference (and consequently, from adding the material in question at all because no other verifiable source is available). As for reliability, this document is not more or less reliable than any document hosted online, except for documentation hosted by the agency in question. If anybody had the desire to falsify a report, he could also upload it somewhere else other than his own website. Thus, there is no difference between a document hosted at an anti-BCR site and the same document hosted, for example, at a one-click hoster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serval5412 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia's Five Pillars? When Valfontis uses terms like "reliable" and "verifiable", it's in relation to those terms. They are slightly different, or at least more specific, than the dictionary definitions of the terms. Using poor sources or sources with a clear bias fall afoul of several principles of Wikipedia- specifically, aiming for a neutral point of view and avoiding undue weight. Republishing a few small incidents that are only covered on "anti-BCR" sites is a good example of that- if the tiger cage was unsafe, there'd be more than a primary source mention (on the Fish & Wildlife site) and mentions on various small-time blogs/forums. Likewise, if a local news crew covers one ex-employee discussing concerns, "verifiable" means there should be other coverage to back it up. tedder (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a 14-page inspection report with more than 80 non-compliant items a "small incident". Apart from this, if the same types of incidents with the same type of sources are listed on pages from opponents of BCR or targets of their campaigns (e. g. Joe Exotics' page) it doesn't seem to be a problem (and neither is a dedicated "criticism/controversy" section). By the way, regarding the concerns raised by an ex-employee: I already provided another news video in a different section of the talk page from a different local agency that raised the same concerns from several ex-employees. I just didn't put it into the article because it's hosted on YouTube and accompanied by a radical and inappropriate title and description. However, if you wish to verify the claims from the other news agency, you can watch the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serval5412 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"Watch the video" doesn't address what verifiability means. It doesn't help the video is a copyright violation either. If the BCR bits are not a "small incident", why aren't they covered by reputable sources? Finally, when it comes to "other pages don't follow the guidelines", that's not a valid argument. tedder (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said, it is not my intention to use this video as a reference directly. However, such sources can be useful for determining the reliability of other, acceptable sources. The fact that it's not a viable source for direct referencing doesn't mean that it cannot be used as evidence in support of other references. Regarding the FWC report: Not everything note-worthy achieves a massive media presence. According to your logic, evidently false incidents reported on by several sources would be more reliable than evidently true incidents reported on only by opponents. As I said, original documents from enforcement authorities can definitely be considered reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serval5412 (talk • contribs) 20:19, October 21, 2015‎

Sanctuary status of BCR

I found a better reference for BCR's sanctuary status. It is a more complete version of the reference I attempted to use earlier. The version I found now contains information on how FWC classifies sanctuaries. You can view it here: http://www.rexano.org/BCR/FWC_Sanctuary_BCR.pdf

If it is alright, I will incorporate this information into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serval5412 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The accreditation is given in the article. A private email on a non-notable website doesn't mean much- I'd suggest expanding the FWC article to discuss how they generally categorize sanctuaries. There's no wide discussion in reliable sources indicating BCR's status with FWC is in any way interesting or newsworthy. tedder (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion in blogs not belonging to opponents of BCR

I recently made an edit to add a reference from a blog which is clearly not an anti-BCR site or even a resource belonging to an opponent of BCR in general (in fact, a Google search reveals that the same blog also had articles in favor of BCR). I did so in an attempt to prove that these issues are being discussed not only anti-BCR pages - a point that was raised by Tedder previously. Nevertheless, he deleted it. Here it is again:

http://throughgoldeneyes.blogspot.de/2014/10/big-cat-rescue-issued-warning-for.html

And here is another post on blog that does not belong to BCR's opponents and also discusses the same (and similar) issues:

http://causes.worldpeacemeet.com/stoplivefeeds/bcr-news-investigations/

So, first you raise concerns about incidents not being discussed on pages other than anti-BCR ones, and then you prevent me from proving that this is not the case by deleting such references as "irrelevant"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serval5412 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serval5412: Please learn to sign your posts with 4 tildes. Like this: ~~~~.

Per Tedder's edit summary (be sure you click through and read all the bluelinks provided here, on your talk page, and in the edit summaries), blogs are generally not considered reliable sources here at Wikipedia. I see the "goldeneyes" blog is actual a copy of a WFLA news story. A bit of research should turn up the original news story. Valfontis (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As I already said, I'm not trying to use blogs as a primary source, but only to back up the relevance of the content I am adding. My edits have been criticized for being based on information hardly discussed outside of anti-BCR websites. I am providing these blogs as proof that such coverage does take place. As for signing my comments: Wikipedia seems to have a very nice bot doing it automatically and even using smaller font for it, which I think looks better than the results of a manual signature. The only downside being that this bot has to rub everybody's nose into the fact that it is an automatic signature for an unsigned comment, instead of just quietly adding the missing signature... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serval5412 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Sigs. Well, that's an interesting attitude. The autosig via bot does clog up our watchlists needlessly and I think it looks kind of tacky. And although we are not supposed to bite the newbies, it does make you look like one, which may make it harder for some editors to take you seriously. You can custom design your signature more to your liking. Let me know if you need some help with that.

Re: Worldpeacemeet. I am absolutely not seeing how this is anything but an anti-BCR source. The links to the FWC forms are useful, however, though it would be good to also link to some sort of official page where they can be obtained.

A couple more reminders. Please check out WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Worldpeacemeet might host a lot of material against Big Cat Rescue, but it certainly isn't a dedicated single-purpose anti-BCR site like BCRWatch. It also cannot be considered a website owned by opponents of BCR, as there is no indication that its owner keeps exotic felines or otherwise is a target of BCR's campaigns in any way. From all the sources on such documents that are out there (besides the occasional document accessible directly from the agency's website), this source is the most reliable one. --Serval5412 (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

AZA Source

@Serval5412: [Putting aside for the fact that the organization failed to be certified almost 15 years ago, which may or may not be currently relevant, and/or may give undue weight to the allegedly negative aspects of this organization.] Do you have additional source information for the article you posted to the Internet Archive? Such as the name of the publication? Remember that sources need to be verifiable so we need as much source information as possible. Internet archive itself is not a source, just a repository. Is it from WOES'/BCR's own newsletter? WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Valfontis (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The article came from BCR's newsletter, according to this source: http://www.bigcatrescuewatch.com/american-zoological-association.html

I think that it is absolutely relevant, because it very well might have shaped the goals and course of the organization. I know that there is material somewhere that proves that after WOES renamed itself to BCR, the founder wanted to phase out not only private ownership of big cats, but also keeping and breeding at AZA zoos. I will insert it into the article as soon as I have a reliable source for this. — Preceding signed comment added by Serval5412 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Here you have a source for this. Please scroll down to the end of the page for the relevant paragraphs. http://web.archive.org/web/20051030003935/http://www.bigcatrescue.org/20yearplan.htm

— Preceding signed comment added by Serval5412 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"80 concerns and violations" link incorrect

The link for the "80 concerns and violations" sentence is incorrect. It links to a single violation report about a leopard being in their vacation area without the proper licensing. There's nothing in there about 80 violations. --172.72.47.40 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph given it has no independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

When was the park renamed?

When was the facility renamed from "Wildlife on Easy Street" to "Big Cat Rescue"? —BarrelProof (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

[1] tells the why. According to [2], six years after Don Lewis' death (1997) so in 2003.--Twilight Tinker (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Are there recent reliable sources available for expansion?

I just ran across https://www.outsideonline.com/2411410/tiger-king-takedown-big-cat-industry , and thought there might be other recently published sources available given the popularity of the Netflix series. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Controversy/criticism section removed

There was such a section previously but it has been removed. The entire article appears to be putting the subject in a positive light with only one exception, the warning of the insufficient enclosure for a bobcat. Aside from the current media attention from Netflix, there is valid criticism from reliable sources that should be included. Ifnord (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is this criticism? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, really? You know it's easy to find such info with View History. I just found a bunch in 2015 and forward, starting with the same day you started editing the Big Cat Rescue article. And various controversies continued to be added over time (with citations). You've already proven you know how to find such older edits. You proved that with this edit you made two days ago [3] where you point out this old 2018 edit [4] (since removed) from Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park that you wanted to be considered for re-inclusion. I'm beginning to wonder now about the recent comments and tags about "potential COI" and maybe I might start sniffing around this subject more. Someone has morphed this article into a advertisement for Big Cat Rescue, sourced by their own website. Maybe I should get more interested in this subject and clean it up. Perhaps I should start by just chopping out everything that is sourced by Big Cat Rescue's website (which is most of the article). Normal Op (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Normal Op, I agree the lead is getting buried here. I've been mildly monitoring this and other tiger king related pages mostly for vandalism concerns, but the overhaul on this is laughably egregious. The fact that mentions of the Tiger King docuseries has been reduced to one sentence completely ignore what people are coming here to read about.I fully support and add to consensus that criticism's of the rescue group should be added back as long as it is done dispassionately and with reliable sourcing. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Really, and please focus on content Where are the sources? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

They're coming. Challenge accepted. I did my first researched edit just now. Normal Op (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You are a brave person. I started looking for news articles, which do exist, which have criticized this organization. Then I noticed that at least one was previously in the article but scrubbed out. If there is a cadre of whitewashers who watch this page, it may be a fruitless effort to find a balanced tone in any criticism. Ifnord (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So your response is to still not offer any sources, but continued bad faith assumptions of others. Please watch your step, as this is not how to improve an article nor work collaboratively with others. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, no one "owes" you a direct answer. Few seem to be willing to do the work to research for RS citations to update WP articles. I put in around four hours of research last night just to make the few changes I did before knocking off for the night. So how about you take on some of the work instead of taking an adversarial role. I'm most interested in the problem of the self-published sources and that the article reads like an advertisement for BCR. Any editor is perfectly well within their rights to just remove all the material supported only by self-published sources. That's certainly the easiest route to take but it's not my preferred method. I would prefer to research for alternative sources, and update the article with them (if they even exist). My plan was to fix the self-published stuff first, and then I would have a good knowledge base for determining if or how a controversy section may fit, and what it might contain. And getting to that step could take quite a bit of time. So you're not going to get any quick answers from me. As Ifnord mentioned, he found previous controversy deleted and discovered some sources himself. Sulfurboy mentions the need for the controversies to be clarified. I easily found the deleted controversy bits in the View History by checking out the edits where chunks of text had been removed. But no one owes anyone an answer on a Talk page in advance of doing the work; especially when the answer is so easily found. Sulfurboy, I like your link to the page views of this article. Holy cow, 400,000 page views in the last month! Maybe I should speed up my work on the article. Normal Op (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Bottom line, if we don't have sources, we're wasting time at best. See WP:PROVEIT.

Per WP:CHOICE, Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox zoo or Infobox organization?

I think it would be a better fit to change the infobox from "zoo" to "organization". Please discuss. Normal Op (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Normal Op, It makes virtually no difference, if you want to change it I don't see a problem with it. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Same here. If the infobox gives undue emphasis to material unrelated to notability, then there may be a problem, but that applies to any infobox. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Incident

The December 2020 incident, widely reported in mainstream media, of a tiger biting the arm of a volunteer has been deleted from this article. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SONORAMA (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

2 May 2022 edit reversion

@SONORAMA:, I undid your recent revisions for the following reasons:

• Your statement that Carole Baskin lost a lawsuit over Tiger King 2 may be true, but per WP:PROVEIT and WP:CITE, you are expected to show citations to demonstrate this.
• IMDB fails to meet WP:RS due to poorly fact-checked user-generated content. For basic information about a film or TV series, it's usually fairly simple to find a reliable published source simply by checking major news organizations.
• Posting full links to The CONservation Game and Hidden Tiger in the article text is a clear example of linkspam.
• Statements such as "Both shows leave viewers questioning why Congress has not already passed the much needed Big Cat Public Safety Act already" are not written in a neutral tone and strongly suggest that you are using Wikipedia to promote a personal agenda.
• The statements "you can sign up for a free trial on the Discovery+" and "It is available now on YouTube" are blatantly promotional.

Opinions regarding organizations and public figures can be added to Wikipedia articles but they must be properly attributed to a published source. They cannot be your own views. Carguychris (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

All good reasons, but one big problem. None of those edits are mine. The edit that I made, and cited from well-respected sources, is, "On December 3, 2020, a 3-year old tiger at Big Cat Rescue attacked and nearly tore off the arm of a volunteer who was about to feed it. The volunteer survived the attack."

Perhaps you meant to edit out the other statements and removed my edit by mistake. I'll assume best intentions here, and restore my specific edit. Please check here before removing well sourced material. SONORAMA (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems you weren't paying attention to what you restored to the article. [5][6] Please be careful.

I believe the material is undue, misrepresents the references provided, and appears to fit WP:NOTNEWS if better references are not available. --Hipal (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hipal, by "undue," are you referring to the fie edits you falsely attributed to myself? To remind you, the only edit we are talking about here is: "On December 3, 2020, a 3-year old tiger at Big Cat Rescue attacked and nearly tore off the arm of a volunteer who was about to feed it. The volunteer survived the attack." That statement is attributed with two sources considered trustworthy by Wikipedia. Again, if you have a problem with this statement itself, you may state your reasons here. At this point, you have not done this, you are have only falsely linked my statement to other parts of the article you don't like and deleted all of them together. Looking at the previous comments on this talk page, it looks like you have done similar things in the past to delete information you feel is critical of Big Cat Rescue. Please be reminded that Wikipedia articles must maintain a neutral point of view. If you have a connection with Big Cat Rescue, you must disclose that or recuse yourself from further edits of this page. SONORAMA (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Please focus on content and policy. I provided diffs for the edits you made. I didn't accuse you of anything, but your accusations could distract from any policy-based concerns you may have.

The two references were written at the time of the incident. If nothing nearly as detailed was published after, then I think this is a clear WP:NOTNEWS situation. --Hipal (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@SONORAMA:, I apologize for conflating your sourced edit with the other poorly written and blatantly promotional content, although I suggest that you should have selectively reverted only the content you were concerned with. That said, I agree with @Hipal: this incident—however tragic it may have been—seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS due to an absence of Wikipedia:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Accidents happen. Zoos and animal sanctuaries are subject to state and federal oversight, and the seeming lack of a formal investigation by the authorities suggests that this was the simple result of careless or reckless actions by the (human) victim. In consideration, deleting the incident from this article should not be seen as an attempt to cover for BCR, because BCR was not directly indicted or criticized. (Contrast this with the GW Zoo being repeatedly investigated by the USDA and the local sheriff.) Carguychris (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)