Talk:Noah's Ark Zoo Farm/Archive 2

Information on animals

Hi,

I am a regular visitor to Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, and I do not feel this Wiki page provides much detail of NAZF compared to other zoos Wiki pages, such as Bristol Zoo. If no one minds, I would like to add a bit more information on the animals at NAZF. I am happy to leave everything that is already there, just add a section on the animals as I believe this is important information about the zoo that people would want to find if they search for Noah's Ark on Wikipedia.

Many Thanks.HelloBristol99 (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome and add away. That's what Wikipedia's about. Other folks can weigh in on the importance of those additions to the article.--John Foxe (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I see HelloBristol99 has also added some statements to the Introduction in support of the educational value the zoo claims, and a reference to an award whose status is not clear. The educational claims for the zoo have been subject to considerable debate on this page, and adding this sort of potentially contentious content merits further discussion. It would be good to get the views of other editors on this before any reinstatement of this content. Thanks, Peteinterpol (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits, they added promotional content sourced to the farm's own website. Theroadislong (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In defence of the content added by myself- everything stated was fact and backed up with references. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopaedia created to provide people with information- I don't see how the things I added conflict with that. Please take a look at the Wikipedia pages of other zoos for examples. With regards to the LOtC award- I also don't understand how the status is unclear? They have received that award- I referenced it. HelloBristol99 (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Further to my point earlier- I'd like to mention that using content from Noah's Ark website does not mean that it is promotional- the information I provided was solely factual, as backed up with references. As another editor, GDallimore mentioned in the talk about 'Primary Sources', I can say "Noah's Ark Zoo Farm has two tigers.", but not "Noah's Ark Zoo Farm is the best zoo in the country with tigers that are more impressive than any in the world." One is fact, one is promotion. The same goes for the educational statements- http://lotcqualitybadge.org.uk/search This link takes you to the Learning Outside the Classroom Quality Badge website, where you can search for sites that have this award- Noah's Ark is on there. This is a link to the page on primary sources- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources#You_are_allowed_to_use_primary_sources..._carefully HelloBristol99 (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I have again removed content that you have copied and pasted from their website. Wikipedia is not interested in what the farm has to say about itself, only what reliable third party sources say about the farm. Theroadislong (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

None of the content was copied and pasted. It's all factual. I don't see how this is any different to Bristol Zoo's page or Marwell Zoo's page or any other zoos to be honest. Also, the education award is a third party source. Why has that been removed then? And how is a blog (which is just someone's opinion) regarded as a reliable third party source, but not what I have written, or the zoo's website? HelloBristol99 (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Much of the content WAS copied and pasted from their website, what you have added back is not encyclopedic in tone and seems promotional. Do you work for the zoo by any chance? Wikipedia requires content from reliable third party sources NOT the zoos website. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

NONE of the content was copied, only referenced. Feel free to give me examples. As I stated previously, I am a regular visitor to Noah's Ark. I am a supporter of their work and I wanted to create a balanced and informative Wikipedia page. It's not promotional to state what animals they have there- that's just fact, and many people will come to this page to find this information. The website is a reliable source, and is not being used in any promotional context, compliant with Wikipedia rules. It seems that anything that is added to this page that is not controversial is removed by previous editors. HelloBristol99 (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The zoo's website is CLEARLY not a reliable source as it promotes creationism! Theroadislong (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Without information to the contrary, the zoo's website is a reliable source for a description of its own animals. For Wikipedia purposes, it's only suspect when it discusses who made them.--John Foxe (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to an award the Notability of which is not proven. I see 690 of these awards have been awarded to various institutions, most of which are not recorded in their Wikipedia articles. If we really are going to be consistent with the format of other zoo pages (in terms of listing animals etc), then we should note that other zoos on Wikipedia do not list this award. I would question the motive in being so selective about being like other zoo articles; is listing this award an attempt at promotion of the zoo rather than a desire to be encyclopedic? Peteinterpol (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I felt it was relevant to place this award here as there is a sentence that criticises the educational standards of the zoo. So to offer an unbiased representation, I feel it is necessary. The format of this article does not have to follow the exact format of the wikipedia pages of other zoos- I feel that people would like to know about the actions the zoo has taken environmentally and educationally, just as much as the other information. I am not trying to promote the zoo, I'm trying to offer a balanced article. Also, I am going to remove the image of an old display, as it is no longer on display at Noah's Ark. HelloBristol99 (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible edit warring by HelloBristol99

My perception is that recent changes by HelloBristol99 run the risk of slipping into edit warring, with longstanding content being changed without full debate on this page. What began as a request to add superficially non-contentious information on animals has now become removal of a longstanding photograph without explanation and additional of material on awards of questionable notability without seeking wider consensus. I think it would be helpful for regular editors of this page to discuss these changes before they are made again, to see if such consensus can be reached, and follow correct Wikipedia procedures if that is not possible. This has been a very contentious page over the years and it can't be right for one editor to unilaterally determine significant changes in content. Peteinterpol (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've not changed any of the original content- only added extra. Also, that image is no longer on display in the zoo- therefore it should not be on this page as 'a poster at Noah's Ark'. It's not there- it's misleading. I'm not interested in warring- as I've said, I only want to offer more information that provides a more balance and realistic information about the zoo. Why is the notability of the awards any less than anything else on this page? Really feel that the editors of this page have personal vendettas against Noah's Ark and are therefore preventing anyone else from adding content that shows the zoo as anything other than negative. HelloBristol99 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you get a photo of a current creationist poster or label to replace the unaesthetic photo of the previous one?--John Foxe (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no poster of the same content that replaced the one on this page. Much of the content on here is very outdated (mostly from 2009), and the zoo itself has made a lot of changes. As I've had no other responses to my comments, I've changed the content back to include the awards which are official and include references. HelloBristol99 (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It isn't reasonable to assume silence is assent, particularly when two regular contributors to this page have stated they do not accept the notability of this content. As previously said, constantly restoring content relating to the awards when there is no clear consensus amongst the editors on this page is edit warring. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you then reply to my question over why you believe the notability is questionable? I don't understand why two contributors can dictate what content stays and goes on this page. I personally think the notability of the zoo being criticised for undermining education is questionable- especially when the zoo has been awarded for it's education. This is why I ADDED the awards (without changing old content)- I left the things that I didn't agree with as not to upset previous contributors. HelloBristol99 (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. A nationally recognized opponent of pseudoscience, Ben Goldacre says the attraction has "the distinction of being the only pseudoscience zoo in the UK". The eminent professor Alice Roberts accuses the zoo of obscuring scientific facts and teaching a way of thinking that is incredibly rigid. It is hard to see how those aren't notable and nationally reported criticisms of the zoo's educational stance. And as for the award, it has no Wikipedia article so it is almost impossible for editors to assess its notability. Till that changes, the safest assumption is that it lacks notability. It is not for any two contributors, or a single contributor such as HelloBristol99, to dictate content of this page. There are clear Wikipedia rules that all must follow. Peteinterpol (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to remove content- I accept that the zoo has a controversial past and am not disputing the presence of this content on this page. I don't however see how an award lacks notability if it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Surely the reference to the website is enough and more credible than a Wikipedia page? According to Wikipedia guidelines, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" and "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute". This page does not have the "impartial tone" that Wikipedia suggests it should. Wikipedia guidelines also ask that "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources". It does not state that these sources have to be from Wikipedia articles. HelloBristol99 (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"..the zoo has a controversial past". Yes, and it remains controversial and will do for as long as it promotes creationism. I am not aware that that has changed. And it is not sufficient to refer to an award and link to its website. That in itself provides no test of Notability. The presence of a Wikipedia page about an award makes it very much easier for an editor to check if it is notable. There is no Wikipedia page for this particular award, and a search for it across all of Wikipedia indicates very few notable organisations' pages reference it (and only one other zoo does so). This is an indication at least that it may be a trivial, temporary, non-notable award. And your comments that this page does not have an "impartial tone" are a subjective judgment. The page has reached its current content through a long period of editing and debate which will continue under Wikipedia rules. If you wish to make changes to this it may be helpful, given the lively argument this page has generated over the years, to seek to do so by discussion and attempting to achieve consensus rather than unilateral changes. Peteinterpol (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This still has not answered my question as to why it is not notable. In order to provide an "impartial tone" that Wikipedia requests, these nationally recognised awards (LOtC is a government initiative, registered charity, and Green Tourism is the largest sustainable certification available- also used on other Wikipedia pages for tourist attractions, including @Bristol ) are necessary to add to this page. The contributions that Peterinterpol has removed have all been contributions that are openly positive (non-promotional, factual and referenced), notable achievements of the zoo. This suggests that this editor has an agenda to promote Noah's Ark very negatively. I would like to invite other editors to express their opinion on this matter. HelloBristol99 (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It is most unfair to suggest any agenda on my part, and I would remind HelloBristol99 that a key foundation of Wikipedia is to assume good faith on the part of other editors, as per WP:FAITH. I have stated why I believe these awards are of unproven Notability in Wikipedia terms (e.g. trivial, temporary, unproven notability of awarding organisation) and very much welcome the suggestion that other editors express their opinion on this matter. Peteinterpol (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The LOtC Quality Badge requires users to self-evaluate and pay a registration fee of £125, [1] it has no discernible merit or notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If you had read the application process properly, you would have seen that the self-evaluation is just part of the application- the Council of LOtC then send out assessors to check that the organisation meets the quality indicators. http://lotcqualitybadge.org.uk/frequently-asked-questions#C5 The application fee is to cover the cost of the assessment. The badge has to be renewed every 2 years, so is not temporary. It offers a balanced view of the education at the zoo, so it IS notable. Saying that it's trivial is just your opinion. The award is official and used by many tourist attractions and other zoos- it's a factual piece of information that is relevant to this page when referring to education- that cannot possibly be argued. HelloBristol99 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

None of which makes the award notable, how many other Wikipedia articles mention it? Can you find any third party sources for the award? What is your connection with the zoo, as your only edits are to this article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's notable because it offers an impartial view to a very biased page! And it's in a section about education. As I've said twice already, I am a frequent visitor to Noah's Ark, I came across this page and felt it needed to portray the zoo more accurately- so I created an account. Is this an issue? Here's another source http://www.northsomersettimes.co.uk/news/business/zoo_s_education_award_1_3280680 HelloBristol99 (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just taken a look at the Learning Outside the Classroom website. The Badge that the zoo has been awarded seems more like an accreditation than an award. And it appears that the Badge is awarded to several hundred organisations, all of whom have to apply for it. That implies a lack of Notability. However, LOTC does also give out separate and more genuine-sounding "awards" to a much, much smaller number of organisations that it feels have made a special contribution to learning outside the classroom: http://www.lotc.org.uk/news-and-events/awards-for-outstanding-contribution-to-lotc/ Has the zoo ever won this? Subject to demonstrating the Notability of the LOTC organisation, that might be an easier case to prove than the much more common Badge. Peteinterpol (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I've recently joined Wikipedia as I'm interested in Bristol tourist attractions and have visited Noah's Ark. I've read with interest the main content and dialogues above. It seems clear there are a number of both positive and negative interests represented here about Noah's Ark Zoo Farm. I'd like to contribute to a fairer balance of this page, to reflect what Noah's Ark is - an animal park and popular visitor attraction. Knowing the history of the place and reading up online it's fair to say the creation/evolution issue and the circus-link news are not the only notable points about the park now, nor is it the small attraction it was when the Wiki article was first created. If you search on Google under their brand name today the links to these articles now fall to page 2 results, with page 1 showing the growth of the park in terms of reach and popularity. I say this to put some context in for editors like myself (and reading comments above, probably HelloBristol99) wanting to create a more balanced page which explains to readers what Noah's Ark is, what it has, animals, operations etc. I hope this makes sense and is received as well-meaning. thanks BristolJK21 (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

All content added needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources independent of the zoo. Theroadislong (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There may be reason to believe there are grounds for suspicions of sockpuppetry in recent edits on this Talk page (i.e. one user, with or without an associate, using more than one Wikipedia profile to masquerade as separate users, perhaps to tip the balance in an edit war). For more information, please see WP:SOCK. There are methods of investigating such suspicions. One must always assume good faith, but editors should remember that such practices are regarded as a serious breach of community trust within Wikipedia. Peteinterpol (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Theroadislong, i'll make sure any edits I do are explained here on Talk and sourced as you say. I'd like to say clearly that I'm not the same user as HelloBristol99, if that is what you're insinuating Peteinterpol. Must admit I think that's an unfortunate 'welcome' to the page and unusual as reading the above you often quote the 'good faith' policy, whilst people have themselves (fairly) questioned a possible negative agenda of your own against Noah's Ark, after looking at your contributions to the page. I don't want to be involved in an edit war. I would like to work together to improve this page to balance it. I appreciate you've all done work to bring the page to where it is now. Thanks BristolJK21 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A couple of good photos would be a plus.--John Foxe (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Help please

I have been trying to get input on zoo pages having a transport links section in their articles. Two examples are: Edinburgh Zoo and London Zoo. I don't believe that transport links are encyclopedic content. What do you think? I appreciate that this page isn't either of those zoos but it is relevant and feel free to respond on either of these talk pages if you would rather: Edinburgh Zoo talk page | Talk:London_Zoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloucestershiredad (talk • contribs) 19:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Referring the zoo's own website

Theroadislong You are mistaken about WP guidelines on using the zoo's own website as a source. You should read the guidelines here: WP:selfsource I've copied the key part below for ease:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: • The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. • It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). • It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. • There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. • The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

[[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong] Please revisit previous discussions, edits and reverts in light of this as you have been mistaken about this and yet used it as a centrally reason for changes previously. Thanks. 46.208.125.12 (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Book reference

Theroadislong - I have put the basic information about a book written on the subject of the article back in as the content is not promotional as claimed but is simply factual. It was referenced to a reliable source that is entirely independent of the zoo's own website and as stated in a previous discussion, this would have not been a reason for removal anyway. My edit does not state that the book is a 'good read', 'worth buying' etc which would be promotional content. It simply states a fact that a book has been written on the subject of the article by the owner. It is in line with other zoo sites, it is of potential interest to the reader and it is notable as not all zoo's have literature available about their development. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC) If you can find a reliable secondary source that has reviewed it rather than a commercial link to purchase it, there might be a case for adding it back. Amazon cannot be used as a reference. Theroadislong (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong - Added a reference with review as requested and therefore added the edit back in. This wasn't hard to find, why did you not just add it rather than delete the relevant content? Aren't we all working together to improve the article in line with WP's ethos? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Good Read is NOT a reliable source I meant a review in a newspaper or magazine not a user generated source! Theroadislong (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Also what would you think to including this link to the Amazon reviews as well? From Cows to Tigers.... I am a bit dubious as they don't seem particularly neutral. What do you think?Gloucestershiredad (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong Both 'good read' and 'amazon' are reliable sources to demonstrate that it is a factually correct statement that a book has been written about the zoo by the owner. There is no requirement by WP for a newspaper or magazine source to make this simple factual statement. If I was saying it was a 'good' book then yes I would need a reliable source stating this, but I'm not saying that. Although according to the WP guidelines I could use the amazon or good read reviews to do this anyway. As such, I suggest that the content stands as it is referenced from a reliable source given the limited information stated in the article. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Altering the first sentence of the article

Hi everyone,

By way of quick introduction, I am looking to help develop this article as I have an interest in contributing to wikipedia's page on zoos. I've put a fair few hours into other zoo pages and came across this one having visited the zoo a few months ago.

I find the first sentence of the article to be slightly odd as it describes the zoo as 'creationist'. I am not sure that this is accurate use of English as a zoo is incapable of holding views on creation. The phrase 'entertainment centre' I also find an odd use of English and not an accurate description of the zoo. Finally, I find the Noah's ark theme to be notable as well as the creationist element and therefore feel that it should be included. Therefore I am suggesting an alternative first sentence as follows:

"Noah's Ark Zoo Farm is a 100-acre (40 ha) zoo developed on a working farm in Wraxall, North Somerset, about 6 miles (9.7 km) west of Bristol, England. Notably the zoo is themed around Noah’s ark and includes an exhibition advocating a particular version of creationism. Noah's Ark is home to the 'Big Zoo Animals'.[2]"

Looking forward to some discussion around a page for a change. It looks like this article has more active users than I am used to having on the pages I contribute to!

Gloucestershiredad (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Gloucestershiredad. You may not be surprised to learn that there has been considerable debate on this page about the first sentence of this article. You may wish therefore to refer to this page's Archive to see where that debate got to last time. Personally I would be against removing the word 'creationist' from the sentence in the way you suggest; as noted by previous editors, the creationist viewpoint actively promoted by the zoo is what makes it most Notable in Wikipedia terms. To leave this out would therefore be very strange. In terms of your suggestion that zoos are incapable of holding views on creation; well, the zoo and its proprietors certainly vigorously promote their unusual views on this and I think that needs to be reflected in the opening sentence. Having visited the zoo, I can say that your revised form of wording is inaccurate: the advocacy of a particular view of creationism is not confined to one exhibition, it is included on many signs and displays throughout the zoo, both indoors and outdoors. I would therefore be against changing the opening sentence to the wording you suggest. But I would welcome the views of other editors on this. Peteinterpol (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gloucestershiredad / Peteinterpol. I agree the Creationist mention is relevant to the notability of Noah's Ark as Peteinterpol raises, but I do think the new wording you are suggesting Gloucestershiredad is clearer and a fairer representation of how the zoo is described in an opening paragraph. I would argue that there are other more note-worthy elements of the park, for example having the largest elephant habitat in northern Europe, holding iconic zoo species etc. The Christian message of the zoo is not to be ignored, but perhaps we can have useful dialogue here to better present the elements of the zoo for readers?BristolJK21 (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be wrong to downplay the Notability of the zoo's Creationist stance. That stance is unique amongst zoos in this country. A nationally recognised opponent of pseudoscience, Ben Goldacre says the attraction has "the distinction of being the only pseudoscience zoo in the UK". The eminent professor Alice Roberts accuses the zoo of obscuring scientific facts and teaching a way of thinking that is incredibly rigid. These two, amongst other critics, are nationally-known figures. This Creationist element, not the elephant habitat or rare species, is the main source of this zoo's Notability and therefore deserve the current prominence. Peteinterpol (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol - Thank you for engaging in discussing this. It makes a nice change to actually get a quick response to something posted on a talk page about a zoo article. It would be great to get your opinion on some other points on other zoo pages that I am editing at some point but for now I will stick to the point! For clarity I do not want to downplay the creationist element at all. It doesn't sound like BristolJK21 does either by the sound of his response. I think it would be fair to say that there are various noteworthy elements about the zoo. Many zoos have stopped exhibiting elephants due to the space required and so a zoo that does exhibit them is noteworthy particular if in the largest enclosure in Europe. It may also be the only zoo in the UK with a creationist theme but I also think it is the only zoo in the UK with a Noah's ark theme as well!

How long ago did you visit? I didn't notice anything other than that one exhibit. Maybe this has changed recently? Anyway rather than discuss that, let's try and get consensus that we are all happy with. How about the following:

"Noah's Ark Zoo Farm is a 100-acre (40 ha) zoo developed on a working farm in Wraxall, North Somerset, about 6 miles (9.7 km) west of Bristol, England. Notably, the zoo advocates a particular version of creationism, is themed around Noah’s ark and has the largest elephant enclosure in Europe. Noah's Ark is home to the 'Big Zoo Animals'.[2]"

Gloucestershiredad (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this change is necessary. The existing form of words has stood for some time and was arrived at after considerable debate on this page. I don't think the Noah's Ark theme or elephant enclosure size are particularly notable compared with the Creationist stance which is what truly sets it apart from other zoos and has given it prominence from well-known national figures and Notable publications. I would suggest keeping the wording as it is. Peteinterpol (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEAD provides the necessary advice: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The Noah's Ark theme and the elephant enclosure may not meet the Notability requirements of this. The independent, non-trivial, published sources for the Creationist material far outweigh anything else. Peteinterpol (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the change suggested by Gloucestershiredad makes sense and would be worthwhile - it provides a compromise that balances the various noteworthy elements of the zoo, rather than focusing purely on the Creationist aspects. In the Alice Roberts Guardian article referenced on this page, while she is critical of the zoo's Creationist stance she notes that it is confined to one section of the zoo rather than being something that is evident in the attraction as a whole - "I walked in with some trepidation, expecting to be inundated immediately with religious propaganda. But there's little evidence of the creationist theme until you enter the large barn in the middle of the complex, which houses an auditorium and an impressive indoor children's play area." Bristol somerset (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel the wording can be changed to the suggested sentence of Gloucestershiredad, without losing the notability of the creationist issue - the opening line still notes 'creationism' as the first point, then introduces the other relevant ones. Looking back historically on this issue on this Talk page and Article edit history, I would argue the opening paragraph hasn't been arrived at by mutual agreement after debate; more a couple of strongly minded editors here have worked to keep it the same. I have also seen the zoo recently and there has been a change in how the creation/Christian message is presented around the park - displays are now limited to the indoor Ark Arena and Ark Exhibition, and a single sign on the Maze outside in main zoo. A significant number of the news articles in relation to 'controversy' are dated some time ago now and may not fully reflect how the zoo operates currently. It'd be great to have mutual agreement on the opening statement, appreciating the long-standing contributions from authors like Peteinterpol and the hard work they have put in to establish the page. BristolJK21 (talk) 10:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick note to add that I've reverted the recent edit by Theroadislong which added 'Young Earth Creationism' as the BSCE article is mistaken in its claim the Noah's Ark adheres to the theory - according to the zoos own website they do not. http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/pages/about-us/earth-history/earth-history/ (the original edit wasn't mentioned on the Talk page either). Trust this is agreeable. BristolJK21 (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports on what the reliable sources say about a subject NOT what the subject says about itself! Theroadislong (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

But a business website, which contains information pertinent to an article about said business surely has some relevance, hence why there are other links from this article to the zoo website? Have a look at other zoo pages on Wikipedia, Bristol Zoo is a good example. Also, the BSCE is (according to its own website) an 'anti-creationism' group lobbying and so they have a clear agenda to discredit Noah's Ark. The article is very emotively written for a science piece. I can't see any evidence in their article to prove Noah's Ark is 'Young Earth'. Also, it states that Noah's Ark follows Recolonisation Theory (earthhistory.org.uk), which is contradictory as Recolonisation theory is not Young Earth... I hope you can see the point, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just accurate! BristolJK21 (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added another reliable secondary source. Theroadislong (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong and BristolJK21 - maybe this could be a different topic just for clarity?

Peteinterpol Thanks again for the engagement on this subject. I don't think the fact that it has stood for sometime is an argument that is in line with Wikipedia's whole ethos of allowing everyone to edit the content to build a more accurate picture over time. The previous debate also didn't include the point regarding the improper use of English that starting this conversation. I believe that this still stands and therefore some form of change is necessary. Also the zoo has changed with the elephant enclosure being built and so it ought to be freshly considered in light of that. Using your point, lots of prominent sources reference the elephant enclosure, including world-renowned elephant management consultant Alan Roocroft: I think that this is a notable, reliable, neutral and non trivial source and so that should cover off your concerns?

In line with the guidelines from WP that you quote, this paragraph should be a 'concise overview'. Leaving out other notable elements, albeit less notable (potentially), would not provide an overview. It also states: "summarize the most important points" - plural and obvious 'notable' is subjective. Therefore we would have to include other people's opinion as to what was notable. I can't see why you would want to leave out elements that it seems various people want to include, particularly when I've deliberately left the creationism element in as the first thing in line of your comments?

I welcome further feedback but to me it would seem that this edit ought to go ahead, albeit in the later modified form, given my points above. Feel free to correct me though! Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have now made the edit as we seem to have come to a point of reasonable consensus. Big thanks to Peteinterpol, BristolJK21 and Bristol somerset for helping to ensure that this paragraph could be effectively re-worded. Collaboration is a great thing! Peteinterpol - I hope that you don't mind too much. The creationist part is top of the list of notable elements as a concession to your feedback. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is dishonest to state there is consensus on this page for the change you have made. I stated quite clearly that I opposed it. For similar reasons the edit summary stating "First paragraph edit as agreed on the talk page" is inaccurate. In future please do not invoke consensus in support of your changes when it is not there. Peteinterpol (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there has been no consensus reached for this change? Theroadislong (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Peteinterpol Noted and in future I will choose my phrasing more carefully as the last thing I want to do is to appear dishonest or to upset anyone. I am enjoying having some collaboration and feedback for a change and don't want to lose that! For the record, I wasn't deliberately being dishonest. The definition of consensus according to WP is loose so I guess we are interpreting it differently. As said, I will choose my language more carefully in future. Thanks again. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

and perhaps revert your edit? Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking back at the discussion on this thread, only 1 editor has disagreed with the changes and entered discussion with reasoning, while 3 others have supported them as relevant edits and explained their views. Can we not democratically agree this is a relevant edit and simply rewords the opening sentence more logically, whilst also fairly outlining other key aspects of Noah's Ark? I feel the change should stay. BristolJK21 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Democratically agree", i.e. going for a majority, is not the same as "consensus" which is what was claimed. I'm not sure I accept the numbers of "votes" quoted above; it seems to me a debate was proceeding with a number of views about various aspects being expressed. No "vote" was formally called; perhaps if editors had known their expression of views was going to be interpreted as a vote one way or the other, they might have been inclined to express such a vote more clearly. I think the edit should be reverted. Peteinterpol (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong I don't believe that an alleged misuse of a term on a talk page or edit summary is a reason to revert the edit. Peteinterpol I didn't argue the democratic point as it is not in line with WPs description of 'consensus'. However I feel the edit is in line with 'consensus' from WPs description and no-one continued the discussion for nearly 3 days and so I made the edit. Rightly in my opinion and in the opinion of 2 other contributors. All I am trying to do is create a better page about a zoo. I don't get why there is any argument around it at all really as I have added more recent information to the last time it was editted. However I took the point made and suggested an alternative edit. I explained my edits and I felt, clarified my position in light of the arguments made. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't responded to any talks on this page for some time, as I feel everything I suggested was shot down by two other contributors, as can be seen in previous talks. I would like to express my agreement with Gloucestershiredad's ideas on changes to the opening paragraph of the page. I would like to add that Peteinterpol's comment "I don't think the Noah's Ark theme or elephant enclosure size are particularly notable compared with the Creationist stance" is a completely subjective comment, and purely this contributor's own opinion. This opinion is clearly not the general consensus of the rest of the contributors. Why is Peteinterpol's opinion on what is 'notable' or not taking authority over the opinions of four other contributors opinions on what is notable? HelloBristol99 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think HelloBristol99 is being unfair. I quoted verbatim the Wikipedia guidance I was relying on for my comment. It is up to other editors whether they agree with the way I have interpreted it. I never "shoot down" other contributors, I try to follow Wikipedia guidance. And I am again disappointed to see the word "consensus" used incorrectly. Peteinterpol (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that Gloucestershiredad's edit should stay in place. It was a significant modification of his initial suggestion that began this discussion, so I think represents a real effort at a compromise considering the views of all parties. Bristol somerset (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Images in this article

Hi all, I am really disappointed that my hard work improving this page for all has been rudely undone without discussion on the talk page. This way of behaving is not is line with WP's ethos or guidelines.

Anyway that aside, I do not believe that the images should have been deleted for the following reasons:

1. This is a zoo page and I included images of the notable zoo animals. (A lot of zoo's don't have elephants in particular and these are particularly notable.)
2. The animals pictured are mentioned in the article - the elephants fairly substantially.
3. As mentioned in my previous comment, referencing to the zoo's own website is allowed.
4. WP values common sense and it is common sense that a page about a zoo has pictures of zoo animals on it.
5. The images comply with the WP rules on including images on pages. (I extensively checked this before uploading them.)
6. Other zoo pages feature pictures of animals and so should this one therefore.
7. The images were deleted without discussion on the talk page which should have occurred in line with WP guidelines. (I didn't feel the need to discuss adding them as I couldn't see any reason why they shouldn't be added. I still don't.)
8. The images are not promotional as claimed. They do not show countless happy children loving a day out at the zoo, but simply show photos of the animals exhibited. They are factual not promotional.

Looking forward to engaged on this issue and a good discussion on it.Gloucestershiredad (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the images previously added are not promotional and that they are purely images of animals that reside in the zoo (factual, not promotional); similarly to the text in the "Animal Exhibits" sections, and similarly to WP pages for other zoos. I can't see that this is a problem. HelloBristol99 (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point, the images themselves were deleted because they violated the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. Theroadislong (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, well if the issue is copyrighted images/non-free then that is easy to remedy. Let's get some decent, authorised images that support the article, including the animal and exhibits section. There is a very clear precedent on the other zoo WP articles for relevant, quality images which show animals and exhibits specific to the institution in question. BristolJK21 (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That's great. Theroadislong (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Theroadislong I'll sort this then with other images. I don't understand why you didn't state this was the actual reason in the edit summary originally. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

because it wasn't me that removed them? Theroadislong (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong My apologies. I thought through reading the edit history that it was. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted the images and a bot removed the code from the article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Bush

Dear all,

Something that has sat uncomfortably with me is the quote about Anthony Bush being 'delusional'. I feel that this is non-encyclopaedic, is not relevant as the article is about the zoo and not the owner, is not neutral (see point above) and actually is poorly referenced as one of the references doesn't even exist any more. It is also not factual or true. Anthony Bush is not confined to a mental institute as 'delusional.'

Looking into this further, WP policy is clear. It states that all contentious material about a living person should be removed immediately without discussion. I would normally discuss changes first but WP is clear on the requirement for contributors to remove without any delay. As such, I have removed the quote about the zoo's owner. WP:BLPREMOVE

Please note that referencing a quote is not enough to make the content viable for inclusion in the page. It has to be a reliable source and the current source does not adhere to the definition of reliable. It is a questionable source and therefore unreliable: WP:QS I think also that two sources are required for information on living people and this isn't provided currently.

46.208.125.12 (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Normally the "delusional" comment would pass muster here because it's the view of a named psychology prof (whom I've now linked), not the article itself, but I agree that the source is questionable.--John Foxe (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

John Foxe Nice to virtual meet you John and thanks for engaging in developing the content of the page. However I am confused. If you agree that the source is questionable then this content shouldn't be included, surely?

Also it doesn't present a NPOV. None of other arguments made above have been addressed so far by you adding a questionable source back in.

As it is also against WP policy on BLP: WP:BLP any contributor has the obligation to remove such material immediately without discussion. Therefore I have removed it. I also feel obliged to point out that you can't say what should 'past muster here'. That is decided by consensus and discussion on this talk page isn't it? WP is also clear that the rules for BLP content inclusion are not subject to the normal system of consensus. If they are dubious, they should be removed straight away. For clarity, just because the person is a professor and named does not make that content eligible for inclusion on the page. I look forward to engaging further on this if you wish, but content about a living person should be vary carefully handled and I suggest any further suggestion to include any information on the zoo owner be extensively discussed here first including putting that quote back in - Theroadislong Gloucestershiredad (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with your edit, and it seems the other editors active here don't either. (Although I've never been to the zoo, I made some edits to the article back in 2009.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Links to the Great British Circus

I would like to suggest making a small change to the second paragraph of the article regarding the links to the Great British Circus.

I think the impression given by the sentence is that the links between the Great British Circus and Noah's Ark are current and ongoing. The circus ceased operating in 2013 , so I think a change in wording is needed to reflect this. I suggest the following:

"In December 2009 it was expelled from British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the main industry regulatory body, for bringing the association into disrepute following a BBC investigation into its former links with the now defunct Great British Circus.[9]"

Would any editors like to object to this update? Bristol somerset (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Bristol somerset - I am concerned about this paragraph. WP has 3 core content policies one of which is neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Point of view This states that it must be written without bias. See below:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Now only one source in this paragraph could be viewed as unbiased - the BBC and sometimes even that is questionable. The other two sources are highly bias in their view of religion and actively campaign against religious references in public life. As such these sources are highly bias, but they can still be used but only if the particular guidelines according to WP are adhered to fully. This is currently not the case. Alice Roberts, for example, provides editorial content and this content has particular guidelines from WP that can be read here: WP:NEWSORG This paragraph currently breaches these guidelines.

Unless this paragraph can be re-written to abide by WP's core content policy of NPOV (neutral point of view) then WP is very clear and non-negotiable - it should be removed entirely as it is unsuitable content. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - this section is poorly sourced and contains basic inaccuracies. For example, it states that Martin Lacey is owner of Linctrek and the Great British Circus, though neither organisation exists anymore . The paragraph should be removed if sourcing and accuracy are not improved. Bristol somerset (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that other contributors have been active since this discussion has been posted and yet no change has been made that addresses these concerns, and no further arguments have been made here that the paragraph should stay, I suggest the paragraph is removed. The emphasis should be on contributors adding back in this material, once it complies with WP policy as mentioned above, following consensus on this discussion page as it is clearly contentious. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added another reference, Wikipedia is NOT censored you realise? Theroadislong (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong WP is the most censored writing of all time. It is censored by everyone who contributes and actively encourages censorship and is founded on the principle of making it 'censor-able' by everyone.

You are just adding the same sources. They are the same bias, questionable sources that are not reliable. As such, this paragraph contravenes WP rules on Neutral Point of View. If you want this paragraph to remain you should quote sources stating the other side of the argument to make it present an overall neutrality. Without this, WP rules are clear, it should be removed. Just because you add a reference doesn't make the content usable on WP. Theoretically, anyone could quote countless websites stating bigoted, extremism views that are properly referred, but it probably would not be true or reasonable content for WP. WP also states that the article must read as written by a disinterested, neutral writer. This paragraph doesn't. It uses very bias one sided sources, and only two of these, both highlighting the same point of view. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I am confused about what is being questioned here. I watched the original BBC TV programme and followed the story in the press afterwards. The proprietors of the zoo did not challenge the allegation that they had links with the Great British Circus. And this story is what prompted the zoo to be thrown out of BIAZA for bringing it into disrepute. To this day the zoo is not a member of BIAZA, despite it being the main regulatory body for zoos in the UK. The Great British Circus no longer exists but it certainly did at the time of the story. I'm not sure what factual material is being challenged here. Peteinterpol (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree this paragraph needs work, whilst appreciating its a complex issue to word properly to meet WP guidelines and mutual agreement if possible. In answer to Peteinterpol, the questionable content is the wording which can be read to imply Noah's Ark still has a relationship with the GB Circus for its animals. This isn't the case, as the GB Circus doesn't exist any more. Also, I would argue the BBC reference is misleading. I too followed the story closely (I live in Bristol and visit both Bristol zoos), the BBC articles claim "Noah's Ark Zoo near Bristol breeds tigers and camels for the Great British Circus" but there is no source for the claim. The video and half our documentary (Inside Out West) actually disprove that claim, the zoo is quoted as acknowledging the link was with the Circus owner, Martin Lacey but NOT the circus itself. Mr Lacey had a private collection of animals used for some media work called Linctrek which is where the tigers are stated as coming from by both parties http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Noah-s-Ark-Zoo-Farm-denies-breeding-animals-circuses/story-11237312-detail/story.html. Khan the tiger is shown in a promotional circus video from years back, but according to the sources was not in the circus itself. Mr Bush was asked IF tigers were bred at Noah's Ark (which they weren't) and Martin Lacey decided to use them in his circus business on return to Linctrek, would he have been happy, to which he said yes due to his opinion on Circus welfare standards. There is no evidence that Noah's Ark were breeding tigers for use in the circus, nor has Noah's Ark admitted to that. (As an aside, I heard from a Bristol news source that the BBC were at risk of being sued by Noah's Ark with a very good case for libel, because the journalism on this story was very poor, sensationalist stuff.) This is a contentious paragraph but I agree needs to be better worded / removed. BristolJK21 (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

.."the questionable content is the wording which can be read to imply Noah's Ark still has a relationship with the GB Circus for its animals.". Not any more, it is now in the past tense in the article. Peteinterpol (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Past tense in part, but I feel it isn't clear enough when read in full. The sentence "In October 2009 the zoo admitted a number of animals were on loan from the Great British Circus" could easily lead a reader to believe the zoo still has the same animals on loan from the Circus. But the Circus no longer exists. And the reference is a poor one, contradicted by other sources, for example the one I linked above. Happy to discuss rewording with you and others? BristolJK21 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Good discussion guys. My issues on this paragraph are around neutral point of view. It says that the zoo promote Young Earth Theory. The zoo says it doesn't. The zoo's view isn't mentioned and so overall in this paragraph a neutral point of view is not presented. WP says that it's role is to report on the argument in a disinterested, neutral way. Currently one side of the argument from bias, non neutral, questionable sources is presented only. The zoo's website provides a biased source (obviously) as well but would mean, that if both were quoted, the core WP value of neutrality would be preserved.

The paragraph then states that the zoo has been criticised for undermining education of both science and religion. Again with 2 questionable sources. The other side of the argument needs to be stated for this to be neutral. The zoo had school children going round when I visited and has educational awards. This side of the argument should be made if the text around undermining education is to stay. If the other side of the argument is not made, then neither side should be made as it is not neutral and WP is clear any article should be neutral.

The undermining religion comment is also one-sided. The other side of this argument (presumably that it upholds a view of science that support biblical stuff) should be made or the statement about undermining religion should be removed. The BIAZA reference, bbc investigation and GBC reference should only be included if the opposite side of argument, i.e. the zoo's point around this is made alongside this statement with equal weighting.

I don't think this is hard to understand. WP is an encyclopaedia not a platform to air negative comments about a subject. Can anyone here imagine the encyclopaedia Britannica claiming that a zoo, of all things, undermines education and religion or that its owner was delusional? Of course not it would be laughable and ridiculed by serious readership. The emphasis here is on the contributors who want this paragraph to stay to make it neutral. If that can't be done it should be deleted which would be my preference as the current sources are questionable and highly bias. (WP definition not my own)

Personally this should be a page about a visitor attraction like all the other pages that I edit about zoos. They are generally impartial, descriptive and don't get involved in contentious issues. (although all zoos have them in my experience) Encyclopaedias generally avoid contentious issues and report fact rather than opinion. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You make a number of quite detailed points here, Gloucestershiredad, so it might take some time before I can fully respond to each of them. So please bear with me until I or other editors do so, before making any specific changes based on your arguments. You state: "The BIAZA reference, bbc investigation and GBC reference should only be included if the opposite side of argument, i.e. the zoo's point around this is made alongside this statement with equal weighting.". In Wikipedia this is not supported by official guidance: WP:UNDUE states that "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view." Many of the zoo's viewpoints are minority views and this needs to be taken into account. WP:BALANCE is also relevant here: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint". It could plausibly be argued that the sources of the current items you are questioning are far more prominent than those presenting an opposing view. I can't find any reliable sources contradicting the BIAZA story for example. Peteinterpol (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You state, Gloucestershiredad, that "the paragraph then states that the zoo has been criticised for undermining education of both science and religion. Again with 2 questionable sources. The other side of the argument needs to be stated for this to be neutral. The zoo had school children going round when I visited and has educational awards. This side of the argument should be made if the text around undermining education is to stay. If the other side of the argument is not made, then neither side should be made as it is not neutral and WP is clear any article should be neutral.". What is questionable about the two sources? And see above in relation to your comment on neutrality. Your visit to the zoo doesn't count as a reliable source. In terms of the educational awards, please refer to the debate in the page archive regarding their non-Notability. Peteinterpol (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol - I have explained already why the current sources are questionable. Please see previous talk point. You are arguing against key core values of WP (i.e. NPOV) with minor points. Until NPOV is adhered to in general your minor guidelines from WP are not really relevant. On the education point I would argue that the award presents the majority viewpoint and not a minority view. The reference sources used are the same over and over and they are minority views as well representing a very insignificant section of society that actively promotes extremist views of forced secularisation of society. 'Many of the zoo's viewpoints...' - what do you mean by this statement? If you want to argue the point on education then you have to present neutrality even if that means used non-notable information. Neutrality is the key principle of wikipedia. Up to you, include the other side of the argument using what you claim is non-notable (other people disagree) or don't make the undermining education point at all as it is not presented neutrally. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Gloucestershiredad. Thank you for this. What are "minor guidelines from WP"? Are they guidelines that can be ignored? If so, how can I tell them from major guidelines and know whether they should be followed? Peteinterpol (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

WP has three core content policies which are key overarching principles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies The second paragraph doesn't adhere to the NPOV. Arguable it doesn't adhere to the other two either actually. I guess I just think that the point is that you haven't addressed any of my arguments and instead picking up on a couple of minor points that even then may support what I am saying, in my opinion! Given that no further useful arguments seem to be being made, and my points remain un-addressed, I can only suggest removing the paragraph entirely. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring WP rules

[[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong] - Please stop making edits to sections that are already the subject of discussion on the talk page without discussing the edit first and getting consensus. You are aware of this guidance from WP because you have argued it the other way previously. You continue to show a complete disregard for the opinion and input of other contributors. One of your recent edits states that WP is not interested in what the zoo has to say about itself. I have already explained that this is not the case. See below and previous discussion thread.

Referring the zoo's own website

Theroadislong You are mistaken about WP guidelines on using the zoo's own website as a source. You should read the guidelines here: WP:selfsource I've copied the key part below for ease:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: • The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. • It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). • It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. • There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. • The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloucestershiredad (talk • contribs) 06:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports on what the reliable sources say about a subject only the most uncontroversial content can be sourced to the subjects own website and to suggest that the self publication of a book about his zoo is a "cultural reference" is laughable.The sentence in the lead section "Noah's Ark is home to the 'Big Zoo Animals" is promotional puffery sourced to their own website, it's a marketing term used by the zoo, it is NOT encyclopedic in tone, it is "self serving" and has no place in the article.Theroadislong (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - if you google "Big Zoo Animals", most of the hits on the first page are related to this particular zoo. The phrase has no accepted general usage outside this zoo, where it is clearly justy a localised marketing term. It should be removed. Peteinterpol (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Lots of zoos have got rid of larger animals as conditions for keeping them improved. As such this zoo is notable for having large zoo animals. As mentioned previously, consensus is needing for change and so I have reverted your edit until people have had a chance to discuss this edit. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You may well be correct that the zoo is notable for having large animals, BUT the term 'Big Zoo Animals" is promotional in tone, sourced to their own website, it's a marketing term used by the zoo, it is NOT encyclopedic in tone, it is "self serving" and there is no consensus for it to be in the article, Please stop edit warring and find proper sources for your content.Theroadislong (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong This isn't edit warring. I am sticking to WP principles of trying to get consensus before making contentious changes. You appear to disregard these. Please suggest an alternative phrasing that we can agree on rather than simply deleting someone else's content that has stood for considerable time unquestioned. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

There is a section in the article titled 'alleged links with the circus' I propose that the text copied below should be deleted as it isn't relevant- the claims were found to be grossly unfair or notable. The content also does't fit with the section heading.

Earlier in the year, the Western Animal Rights Network (WARN) and the Captive Animals Protection Society (CAPS) made several claims of animal cruelty against the zoo, and charged that it regularly culled animals during winter months to reduce costs. The zoo denied these charges and explained that it had euthanised some chickens to protect the quality of the flock.[21] In March 2010, an investigation by North Somerset Council into the claims made found that all CAPS allegations of animal cruelty against the zoo were "grossly unfair". However, zoo inspectors said there were some failures to comply with the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice. As a result, tighter licence conditions were imposed including bringing independent vets in to check every six months.[22]

Gloucestershiredad (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. This appears a factual, properly sourced and balanced account of the events at the time. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this paragraph cannot remain in its current form. It is part of the 'alleged links with the circus' section, and has absolutely nothing to do with that topic - it clearly needs to be removed from that section right away. We can discuss adding it back in somewhere else, but I think that the fact that the charges were dropped and found to be "grossly unfair" suggests that it is not notable enough to be included. Surely unfounded accusations do not meet the definition of notable? Bristol somerset (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol You appear to have missed the points I made. It is not notable. The claims were proven false. False claims are clearly not encyclopaedic, notable or relevant content. You haven't answered the point on the relevance under the section heading either. Zoo inspectors suggesting a zoo makes minor changes to procedure is not notable. It is what zoo inspectors are paid to do and do every day. Please answer these arguments or if there is no answer then I am sure no one will object to me removing the content. 'I disagree' is not really good enough unless you state an argument opposite to the points I am making that demonstrates why you disagree. Avoiding answering my points simply implies that really you agree and have no response. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Opening section

Setting aside for a moment all the other interesting discussions, above, I'd like to point out that the opening section is quite poorly written and formatted - with duplication, non-sequiturs, and references that should not be needed in an introductory section. I propose the following:

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm is a 100-acre (40 ha) zoo developed on a working farm in Wraxall, North Somerset, 6 miles (9.7 km) west of Bristol, England. It is themed around Noah's Ark, promotes a form of Young Earth creationism, and has been criticised for undermining education of both science and religion. In 2009 it was expelled from British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the main industry regulatory body, for bringing the association into disrepute. The zoo has the largest elephant enclosure in Europe.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed the current version is appalling and even worse after recent edit; your proposal is succinct and summarises the content of the article as a lead section should.Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for joining us Ghmyrtle. In general terms I think your edit is much better. Thank you for your time on this. Can I point out that the zoo doesn't promote a form of Young Earth Creationism? It has an exhibition that expresses the views of evolutionists, young earth creationists and also expresses recolonisation theory that has a very different view on the earth's age and I don't believe should be lumped into the same terminology. Also, there is no evidence I can see that the zoo undermines religion and no sources have been referenced saying this.

Whilst you are involved in this article. Can I ask that you take a look at the later sections as I am concerned that they don't present a NPOV and that some of the information and quotes don't even really make sense?

I note you have put the gallery at the end. Would you suggest pulling out the images into relevant sections instead? I simply felt that the images of the elephants etc. were best placed near the information about them. I do also suggest including the information about larger zoo animals being part of the collection in the introduction. It is after-all an article about a zoo.

Thanks again for your engagement on this. As a final question, do you view transport links as sensible, encyclopaedic content for zoo pages? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My view is that the images should be taken out of a gallery and included in the main text, if they add to the encyclopedic content of the article. If they are decorative rather than informative, they should be removed. Regarding transport links, this is not a tourist guide - the article provides the zoo's location, and in my view the only references to transport links should be if special services are provided to it. Regarding the extent to which it espouses an unscientific "creationist" approach, I would need to check sources and look through previous discussions more carefully, which I haven't yet done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There are a number or reliable references that say it DOES promote Young Earth Creationism and this [2] supports the undermining of religion statement.Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong

Theroadislong As stated previously, they are not reliable but questionable sources according to Wikipedia's definitions. Did you look at the links that I posted that explained this? The zoo itself, and the text later in the article, (of which the introduction is supposed to be a summary) clearly contradicts this. I don't understand why you would suggest using this term at all just leave out the inaccurate 'young earth' bit and stick with it promoting creationism. Please explain why you would keep the YE bit. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We keep the "Young" bit because that is what the reliable sources say! In The Guardian here [3] Theroadislong (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong The article you quote mentions that Recolonisation theory undermines one small group who have affiliations to religious groups. This cannot surely be used to backup a claim that the zoo undermine religion as a whole. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The reference clearly says children are "exposed to the undermining of their religious education by an Anglican who contradicts the position of the Church of England on evolution. Theroadislong (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong Your one source for this claim is written in a very bias, unencyclopaedic way which does not suggest it is reliable. It is a questionable source (given how the website describes itself) and therefore should be used with great care and only if the other side of the argument is conveyed and also only if the reader is made aware of the sources bias position. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The source's "biased position" is the position of all modern science which Wikipedia relects .Theroadislong (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This suggested edit to the opening section on the whole definitely seems like an improvement (completely agree that there is too much repetition in the two paragraphs currently, and they would benefit from being consolidated into one). I propose a slightly changed version to modify the more contentious parts:

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm is a 100-acre (40 ha) zoo developed on a working farm in Wraxall, North Somerset, 6 miles (9.7 km) west of Bristol, England. It is themed around Noah's Ark and advocates a form of Creationism. In 2009 it was expelled from British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the main industry regulatory body, for bringing the association into disrepute. The zoo has the largest elephant enclosure in Europe.

Bristol somerset (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong - In which case you should have no problem finding a reliable source. In the meantime the content should be removed. The current source's position on science does not make it unreliable, the source's strong bias position on actively promoting secularisation and strongly arguing against creationism is what makes it bias. It is clearly and demonstrable non-neutral on these issues. If your source promoted modern science without stating active opposition to creationism then it would be more neutral but it's own website clearly states that this is not the case. Bristol somerset I agree with your edit. It is the only way to comply with WP core guidelines and the first paragraph should be changed accordingly. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle - Any further thoughts on this? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course the source is biased against creationism...the whole of modern science is biased against the pseudoscientific beliefs of creationism and that is what Wikipedia relects. Theroadislong (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Random content?

Dear all,

Can people please comment on whether they view this information from the page as notable. To me it seems to be not notable or encyclopaedic.

Ben Goldacre, author of the Bad Science column in The Guardian, especially criticised the zoo's statement, "To follow Darwinism is to recognise only the fleshly side of our natures, and, as we know, the flesh perishes; Darwinism, in other words, is a philosophy of death". To which Goldacre retorted, "Harsh words. Bring on the darkness".[27]

Gloucestershiredad (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2015 (UT

I think you need to provide some reasons why you feel this. As it stands I disagree with you. This is a comment by a Notable person on WP, Ben Goldacre about one of the things (Creationism) that is Notable about the zoo. No problem. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol The comment, presumably by the zoo's owner, and the response of Ben Goldacre has nothing to do with the topic of this page. It isn't about the zoo's exhibition of evolution, creationism or re-colonisation theory. It isn't notable, relevant, encyclopaedic or even clear what Mr. Goldacre means by his retort. Your notable argument doesn't stand as you argue that the topic is notable. My point is that either of these quotes is not notable in relation to the topic of creationism. It also does't adhere to NPOV either. Ben's clear views in relation to the topic at hand should be stated in any reference to what he says about the zoo. His status as an author in the guardian is not relevant to his point of view. His strong aetheist views are relevant and should be listed. The text is also wrong. He no longer writes that column for the guardian and hasn't for 4 years. That, along with clearly stating the opposite view with the same balance is the only way to retain NPOV. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Goldacre's retort is not a logical rebuttal but simple obscurantism. Why not make the whole statement a footnote?--John Foxe (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

There is a clear difference of opinion on this page as to whether recent changes to this article have been made following a process of consensus. I find it laughable to suggest that such consensus has been achieved. It is being claimed in order to ram through highly contentious changes not supported by WP policy. If this continues I think there may be a case for considering dispute resolution options, perhaps seeking the views of an independent third party editor, as per WP:3. Peteinterpol (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed... SPA accounts are claiming ownership of the article and editing disruptively. Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This is definitely something that could be helpful. This article stands out amongst other zoo articles on WP as being highly unbalanced and lacking in neutrality currently. We all need to endeavour to achieve consensus on the development of this article, but when a couple of zealous editors are utterly unwilling to consider even the smallest changes that present the zoo in a more neutral and balanced way, other options should be considered. Bristol somerset (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Your only edits so far have been to this article, I have more than 27,000 articles on my watch list, I have no interest in the zoo per se, I am concerned with the Wikipedia project as a whole. If you think that balance means giving equal weight to pseudo scientific religious beliefs then you are going to be disappointed, Wikipedia reflects what mainstream science says. The reason this article stands out is because the zoo is the only one pushing a form of creationism. Theroadislong (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. I am astounded if I am regarded as one of the "zealous" editors referred to above. Just check my record of contributions I have made on many different subjects on Wikipedia. There is clear WP guidance on neutrality and consensus, now being regularly ignored on this page. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting discussion here. Balance according to wikipedia is about neutrally describing the argument rather than engaging in the argument on the page. Clearly the current page is heavily bias and non-neutral. It doesn't describe the other side of the education argument at all, for example. However I feel that we have enough contributors here to sort this out, if we all agree to stop editing the article or reverting edits without discussing first. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)146.198.69.214 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Indexing..

Little confused by the reverting of my very simple edit (with explanation) of the 'Indexing' settings of this page by Theroadislong. Google currently shows an outdated, incorrect version of this WP if you search for Noah's Ark Zoo Farm. Common sense to allow search engines to re-index to capture the most up to date information. Having read up on Index on WP I can't see a problem with policy. Please comment to educate me if I am mistaken! Good faith says to me we all surely want people to see the current page, as it represents the most accurate... Thanks in anticipation! BristolJK21 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not required, Google catches up on it's own very quickly and it is of no concern to Wikipedia what Google is displaying in any case. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you're wrong on this one Theroadislong. And your logic doesn't make sense. Google hasn't re-indexed this Wiki page for over 2 months and is showing an historic opening paragraph. You may know already, but search engines need permission to index some websites and pages. I am simply 'allowing' this for this page and requesting its done now. Why don't you want Google to show the most up-to-date information, edits that we've all worked together on to improve? Google Noah's Ark Zoo Farm and see for yourself. I don't see why this is contentious or a big issue for you to revert. And please don't make accusations on my Talk page when I'm working to improve a WP article. BristolJK21 (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I see now why you want Google to reflect the most up to date version, as that doesn't have the word creationist in the first sentence, but the fact that the zoo is informed by a creationist belief is precisely what contributes to it's being notable enough for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Indexing is also a setting on WP itself, with associated WP policy so that doesn't seem to work with your argument that it is of no concern or irrelevant. BristolJK21 (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong I'm unsure if you're serious or not. The issue is that Google isn't showing the content which we all contributed to and which is the current version on WP. So it's incorrect and outdated. I see your agenda here is less about WP policy and more about your frustration with a change in wording that, in your view, down-plays the Creationist issue. The article still very clearer sets out the creationist element, it's not hidden at all.BristolJK21 (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong I see now why you DON'T want Google to reflect the most up to date version. You're arguing the same point on creationism that has already been laid to rest when we altered (in agreement) the first paragraph- so that is irrelevant. I see no reason why this indexing edit can't be made if you believe Google will update itself eventually anyway? HelloBristol99 (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are gaming the system, and trying to influence what Google displays, NONE of the 28,333 other articles on my watch list include this code and neither should they, feel free to ask at the WP:HELPDESK or The Teahouse. Theroadislong (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't get this. I would have thought WP wouldn't provide the option if they didn't want people to use it? If we have worked together to improve content then lets make sure any other site displays the correct content? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent disruptive edits by two Single Purpose Accounts

I think it is worth noting the following guidance in WP:SPA:

"A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. If you are in this situation and some editors directed you to this page, pointing that you made "few or no other edits outside this topic", they are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy. This is because many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favoured point of view, which is not allowed." Peteinterpol (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this. I am confused why it should be a problem to wikipedia that a person focuses on a set of articles though. Surely people will focus on an area where they have certain knowledge or expertise? I am also confused why some editors of this page seem to have no edits on any other zoo pages. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)146.198.69.214 (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please log in when responding, it's considered sockpuppetry not to. Theroadislong (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. Didn't realise. I am now logged in and going back through signing my comments. Was not intentional. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

To answer your query, User talk:Gloucestershiredad, as to "why it should be a problem to wikipedia that a person focuses on a set of articles", please note the following from the WP:SPA guidance I previously referred you to:

For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts to determine whether they are here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or whether they are editing for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. Although the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy.

It is particularly appropriate that such scrutiny of SPAs is applied by other editors on this page as you will see from the archive that an employee of Noah's Ark Zoo Farm previously made many substantial and unfounded changes to this page in the supposed interests of NPOV before finally declaring their conflict of interest.

I consider many of your edits and those of Bristol somerset to fall into the category of Single Purpose Accounts that require additional careful scrutiny from other Wikipedia editors. Your aim has consistently appeared to be to present the zoo in a more positive light, under the guise of supposedly addressing NPOV issues. You have invoked 'consensus' to back up your changes when none exists, and have regularly ignored WP guidance drawn to your attention on the Talk page. If you make further disruptive changes without foundation, my belief is that would be constructive to seek third-party dispute resolution services offered by WP, to ensure a return to objectivity and to WP good practice on this page. Peteinterpol (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

My account can also be considered SPA by your definition. But this is simply that I've joined WP because im interested in editing zoo and tourist attraction pages in Bristol, particularly Noah's Ark Zoo Farm as i've visited and it interests me. We all begin somewhere, logically. I have a job, so I have limited time to concentrate on multiple page projects but will contribute to others this winter. This doesn't make my involvement or efforts invalid. It's clear from this page two users create consistent conflict by stopping new edits to this page, which in itself means editors like me have to invest more time to Talk page disagreements, time which could be used on other WP articles. You are creating the edit wars yourselves and making this page a very difficult place to work together. Its clear your agenda is to try to keep this page negatively-focused on Noah's Ark and mostly on creationism because it clearly angers your sense of scientific reason. That is not an acceptable basis to control a page on a tourist attraction which has other notable elements to it. As editors quoting the volume of other articles you edit (as a reason for your authority on this page) your attitude and bias is disappointing. Noah's Ark is a large-scale zoo and tourist attraction and needs to be portrayed fairly. I hope we can all work together to resolve this, I'm keen to with you all. BristolJK21 (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because you've edited other WP pages doesn't make you an expert on NAZF, and it also doesn't mean you have more right to make edits than people who haven't made as many edits to other pages. I openly admitted that I created my WP profile in order to add well-intended content to this page, as I have an interest in Noah's Ark. I would argue that much of the content that already existed was not well-intended and this page was used as a platform to express criticism of NAZF. HelloBristol99 (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

None of us need to be "experts" on any of the articles we edit, Wikipedia is ONLY concerned with what the reliable sources have to say about a subject and cares not a jot how much we may "know" personally.Theroadislong (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol Seek an independent opinion if you wish. My history of edits on various zoo pages including removal of blatantly promotional content and marketing language clearly put up by zoo employees, speaks for itself. There is no guise. NPOV is extensively written about as one of five pillars of WP. I am simply trying to get this article to abide by this in spite of consistent, determined opposition. I welcome an independent opinion on this but ask that it includes scrutiny of the all the original content that was created on this page that violates other clear WP rules and stated rude, unfair remarks about a living person. I also highlight that changes have been made by other editors, including yourself, without consensus. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Gloucestershiredad - I'm not sure that you understand what an independent editor would mean; it wouldn't be for your (or any other editor) to ask what they do and don't do. That's why they would be independent. Peteinterpol (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Quote from Bush

I added a well sourced quote from the owner Bush which explains some of his thinking regards the age of the earth. It has now been hidden in a reference in a disruptive manner it is NOT a reference? Theroadislong (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to go into detail on Anthony Bush's specific views on elements of Creationism such as the age of the earth, please create a separate Anthony Bush WP article. This article is about Noah's Ark Zoo Farm.Bristol somerset (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The article has a section on creationism and the quote is entirely relevant to the zoo and is well sourced, I don't believe he is notable enough for a stand alone article.Theroadislong (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not relevant to an article about a zoo. If the zoo states this in its displays then maybe it should highlighted with appropriate references. Unless this can be provided this comment shouldn't even be included in the footnote. It is not about the zoo. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Conservation section

There is no need for the new section that has appeared without any debate on this Talk page. Conservation is not Notable in UK zoos; they all do it and many of them are part of the scheme mentioned. If it must remain then it should be further down the article to reflect that lack of Notability compared with other material. Any views from other editors? Peteinterpol (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's hardly notable enough to mention let alone deserving of a whole section? The WP:SPA seems to be here only to promote the zoo. Theroadislong (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is notable and is in line with the vast majority of zoo pages. Not sure that notable and uniqueness are the same thing? Just because most zoos do a level of conservation does not make this zoos conservation efforts not notable surely? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)146.198.69.214 (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is going to be a struggle for you to achieve consensus around your view on this one Gloucestershiredad, given that John Foxe removed the 'Conservation' heading and two other editors oppose your view. The content has remained in the article without a separate heading despite misgivings of some editors, so there has been some compromise. Peteinterpol (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to the 'other editors' comments to be stated here and discussed. I am not sure it is for you to assume their views? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to comments already made by other authors. Peteinterpol (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought consensus was about discussion not just stating that it won't be achieved? Can't we all be a bit more constructive to building a good article? Also you and Theroadislong have argued from a 'notable' perspective. See previous comment on why this does't stand for content on a page. As such your argument so far is void? As such it seems to be me and John Foxe differing unless you have different points to make?

Gloucestershiredad (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I am all in favour of seeking consensus. I don't agree with your take on the references I have made to Notability; I think your comments on this reflect a subjective viewpoint. And I am not sure I understand the point in your final sentence. Peteinterpol (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It is true that most zoos in the UK are involved in conservation, but equally true that most UK zoos have a conservation section on their WP page - 3 examples: Edinburgh Zoo, Marwell Zoo, Bristol Zoo. Is there anything about Noah's Ark's conservation efforts that means that it should be an exception and not have a conservation section on WP? If not, I think it would make sense to put this section back in.Bristol somerset (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

And equally, many zoo pages do not have a Conservation section. Perhaps those that do need to take account of those that don't. This is a circular argument. Wikipedia content is determined by policies and guidance, not common practice vaguely becoming a precedent. Peteinterpol (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That being the case, is there anything in WP's policies and guidance that specifically precludes Noah's Ark (and all the other zoo pages) from having a conservation section? (putting aside personal subjective opinions on what is and isn't notable) Bristol somerset (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You're getting desperate now Bristol somerset. There is nothing that specifically precludes this, no. But there is nothing that specifically precludes headings on Pseudo-science or Anti-Education. But we don't have headings on those. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol - Wikipedia has notability requirements for new pages on new topics. WP specifically says that these are not applicable to content of articles. Your arguments on notability are therefore invalid as we are discussing content. So unless you have another reason why the conservation section isn't included then I suggest that we put it back up. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Daily 'Big Cat Talk' and a 'Big Cat Feed'....

...are part of the zoo's marketing material and of interest to zoo visitors but not Notable in Wikipedia terms. Therefore removed. Please do not engage in edit warring by putting them back. Peteinterpol (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Was this change discussed or agreed here first? If not then surely it wouldn't be edit warring to put it back - it would be correcting a change that was done without consensus on the talk pages and therefore reverting an edit that shouldn't have been made? I have visited many zoos and a lot do not have big cat feeding or talks about big cats. Wikipedia surely should provide useful content to people about the zoo? What is notable should be agreed by consensus as it is subjective surely? I think this is notable. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)146.198.69.214 (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the zoos I have visited advertise the times of feeding sessions for their animals and present talks and demonstrations about them. Not notable. I would be happy to follow standard WP dispute resolution procedures on this one and seek the objective views of independent third party WP editors on this content. Peteinterpol (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to seek independent objective views. But first see my comment on the other discussion which makes it clear that your use of 'notable' is wrong. I have undone your edit as you did not seek consensus first and therefore broke WP rules on this as well. Please state zoos that provide big cat feeding as I know of only one other that feed tigers for the public. The feeding at Noah's Ark is done by hiding the food to improve stimulation for the cats. This is also notable as it is about improving conditions for the animals. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol - Given that you have not replied to me on this but have replied to other discussions, I am assuming that you are happy for me to add this content? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Second paragraph in creationism section

The second paragraph in the creationism section is heavily bias and against POV as extensively explained previously.

As a start towards neutral wording, the people who are currently quoted in the article should have a small amount of text that explains their bias in order to abide by WP policy. As such I suggest the following change to the wording in an attempt to gain consensus.

The zoo has been criticised by the British Centre for Science Education, who have the goal of "countering creationism within the UK", for "contradicting vast swaths of science needed to pass public examinations" contrary to its claim that it supported the National Curriculum. The zoo has also been criticised by Ben Goldacre, a prominent atheist and by Alice Roberts, a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association, who said the zoo had "absolutely nothing to do with science education".[16] In August 2009, the British Humanist Association urged tourist boards to stop promoting the zoo because it might "undermine education and the teaching of science", and the Humanist Association has continued its campaign against the zoo being awarded the Learning Outside the Classroom’s (LOtC’s) Quality Badge as recently as February 2014.

Gloucestershiredad (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. It is cluttering the article with so many statements of the alleged bias of the people quoted that the paragraph is becoming almost unreadable. Other WP articles do not do this and it is not necessary. I see no evidence that the existing wording is not neutral in WP terms. Peteinterpol (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the other articles you refer to are also in breach of NPOV? WP says it is necessary and I've highlighted previously where WP says so. Why do you so persistently ignore WP guidelines? Clearly this is not neutral. The whole paragraph is currently highly negative by quoting bias sources and ignoring perfectly usable content to state the other side of the argument i.e. the LOTC stuff. How can you possible state that it is neutral? Surely common sense dictates otherwise if nothing else? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is interested in what reliable sources say about a subject. Invoking common sense, however strongly you feel about it, is irrelevant in WP terms. Peteinterpol (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I also disagree, there are wikilinks for those wanting to find out more about these organisations and people. It is not needed. All modern science and thinking counters creationism, we don't need to point it out for each individual organisation too?Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This section definitely does not meet NPOV currently. If editors are going to insist on having 4 quotes in this section from different people all stating the same argument, those quotes need to be given context and the opposing argument included (alternatively, it would make sense to reduce it to one or two quotes? The Creationism section is already the longest section of the article). Bristol somerset (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It is the longest section because that is what makes the zoo notable!!! Theroadislong (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - the number of prominent and notable scientists criticising the zoo's pseudo-scientific approach is significant, and under WP neutrality guidance this needs to be reflected in the article. There is no WP requirement to provide equal weight to all sides of an argument when one side is in a clear minority in promoting their view. This point has been made several times on this page already. Peteinterpol (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol & Theroadislong This section is not about 'the zoo's pseudo-scientific approach', it is about the zoo's educational approach. Maybe this is why you have not understood my previous comment on neutrality? This paragraph needs to be neutral on education and the zoo. It isn't really about the creationist aspect. You seem to be hung up on this and not looking at the article from a clear perspective? If this paragraph was about creationism then your point on minority is valid. But it isn't - it is about a zoo's education of children. As such there is a requirement to provide a balanced, neutral approach. Particularly when you are using non-reliable sources as I have previously extensively explained. It is a bit odd that you continue to refer to the sources as reliable when I explained before they are heavily biased? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have lost me totally, I don't understand what you are suggesting here. Can I suggest you get other editors involved at Wikipedia:Requests for comment Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Section titled creationism

The second two paragraphs of this section state a very negative view of the zoo and the education the zoo provides. I think this breaches WP guidance on NPOV and should be removed. There are other views on this including the fact that the zoo has a quality badge from the LOtC - a government initiative that are not represented in this article. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see the Archive for discussion on this. The LOtC badge is not notable, it can be obtained in part by self-assessment and paying a fee. Hundreds of organisations have obtained it. I disagree that this paragraph is negative; you really need to provide evidence that it breaches NPOV before it can be removed. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol I've read the archive discussions. They weren't concluded and the NPOV argument wasn't raised. Notable content is subjective. NPOV is far less so. You haven't answered my point on NPOV. If this can't be answered (and clearly it can't) then the content should be removed. As I said, you choose - include the LoTC info to help demonstrate NPOV or remove the poorly sourced, biased quote that claims the zoo undermines education as it violates WK core guidelines. Please note that just because hundreds of organisations have it doesn't make it less notable. Arguably it makes it more notable and more recognisable. The quoted source clearly thinks it is notable or they wouldn't have published information on apoplexy complaining to government to have it removed from the zoo... Gloucestershiredad (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear all inc. Peteinterpol - I want to get to consensus here but my last point has gone unanswered now for a couple of weeks and my edits to sort this out reverted without explanation in this discussion. Please reply to the points raised so we can make some progress on something that, to me, is clearly in breach of NPOV rules. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Gloucestershiredad - With regard to the supposed notability of the zoo's educational awards, as I recall any organisation can apply for them, there is a large element of self-assessment, and you pay a fee. The debate last time concluded with a suggestion that the awarding body's Special awards, that are far more selective and chosen by judges, might have a stronger case for notability than those that have been applied for by hundreds of all-comers. But the zoo hasn't won any of the Special awards. Peteinterpol (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol - As explained in other discussions, you are mistaken in using notability to determine page content. As such I assume that you are happy for me to add the Lotc award into the content? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

New Controversies Section

Having looked into other zoo pages on Wikipedia, it is commonly accepted practice for zoos that have been involved in controversies to have a section entitled 'Controversies' or 'Incidents' at the end of the article. See Edinburgh Zoo and Berlin Zoological Garden for examples.

I suggest bringing this article in line with other zoo articles by combining the 'charges of professional misconduct' and 'creationism' sections into a new 'controversies' section at the end. Would any other editors have any reasons for not making this change? Bristol somerset (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't usually encourage "controversy" sections. We don't want the most important notable content tucked away either. Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia discourages use of such 'Controversies' sections. The two other examples quoted are not a precedent. It would only conceal two quite separate matters. Peteinterpol (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The second paragraph of this section is really not notable as argued previously. I suggested it is removed entirely and then the section re-titled to reflect the remaining content.Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 146.198.69.214 (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Any objections to me removing the second paragraph, as discussed above and in previous discussions, without any opposed comments being made? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No objection to its removal. The notability of accusations that took place almost a decade ago and were found to be "grossly unfair" is very dubious. There is no reason why these two unrelated stories deserve their own section entitled 'charges of professional misconduct' - the zoo was never charged with this anyway? Bristol somerset (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Gloucestershiredad - I object to your suggestion to remove the second paragraph, for reasons argued at length on this page. The content is notable and there is no consensus for its removal. It refers to events six years ago, not ten - that is a distortion. And the zoo has never re-joined BIAZA, the main industry regulatory body that expelled it for bringing the association into disrepute, so the story is still current and ongoing. Please therefore do not remove the paragraph. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

How is the culling of chickens and charges proven false in any way notable? Re-joining BIAZA is not relevant to the second paragraph only the first. I am not suggesting removing the first only the second. It is not for you to determine consensus, by the way. Please focus on discussion the issues rather than just obstructing improvements to the article. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the following edit for the various reasons already discussed:

==Controversies==

In October 2009 the BBC and the Captive Animals Protection Society charged that the zoo's tigers and camels were owned by the Great British Circus,[14] and the zoo admitted a number of animals were indeed on loan from the Circus.[15] In December 2009, BIAZA stripped the zoo of its membership for what it claimed was a refusal of Noah's Ark to provide BIAZA requested information and for bringing "the association into disrepute."[16][17]

Anthony Bush is an Oxford graduate and Anglican Christian who advocates an uncommon variety of creationism called "Recolonisation Theory".[21] Zoo displays argue the historical truth of both Creation and Noah's flood.[22][23] Nevertheless, Bush does not accept flood geology, and he believes the age of the earth to be about 100,000 years old—much older than the 6,000 to 10,000 years that Young Earth creationists believe it to be, but much younger than the 4.54 billion years of scientific consensus.[24][25][26]

The zoo has been criticised by the British Centre for Science Education for "contradicting vast swaths of science needed to pass public examinations" contrary to its claim that it supported the National Curriculum.[21] The zoo has also been criticised by Ben Goldacre, author of the Bad Science column of The Guardian[27][28] and by Alice Roberts, professor of Public Engagement in Science at the University of Birmingham, who said the zoo had "absolutely nothing to do with science education".[20] In August 2009, the British Humanist Association urged tourist boards to stop promoting the zoo because it might "undermine education and the teaching of science",[29] and the Humanist Association has continued its campaign against the zoo as recently as February 2014.[30]

I have removed the part from the Anglican vicar as it is poorly sourced and the context cannot be seen. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Multiple edit requests from two SPAs

I am weary of the multiple edit requests proliferating on this page from two Single Purpose Accounts - Gloucestershiredad and Bristol somerset - under several different headings. These are all seeking a more "positive" presentation of the zoo and correcting a perceived "bias" in the article. To save having to respond individually to any future such edit requests, I am stating here once and for all that I do not accept the regularly repeated premise behind all these edits: the suggestion that equal weighting is not being given to both sides of the argument (e.g. four critics of the zoo in a paragraph should be "balanced" by four supporters). WP guidance is very clear that this is not required for minority viewpoints such as Creationsism where so few people hold the view, versus the consensus held by the massive majority of scientists and educationalists. From now I will not waste time objecting to every single such edit request; it just takes too long and the two SPA editors are not listening anyway. Instead I will refer to this paragraph when reverting edits that do not meet WP guidance and for which there is no consensus amongst regular editors of this page. Please desist from repeating multiple edit requests on the same old unfounded basis. Peteinterpol (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this sets a precedent for similar behaviour to the contrary, if making a users position clear once on the Talk page is agreed as enough to cover their revert behaviour without having to justify it. Bear in mind Peteinterpol that will likely mean others of us who disagree with your position will follow your lead. The issue here is not about people ignoring WP policy, several of us don't believe this page meets the 5 pillars and it is highly agenda-driven in its crafting to keep pushing the anti-creation angle at the cost of allowing a page to be produced which more accurately explains ALL the notable elements of Noah's Ark Zoo Farm. I don' think any of us are arguing that the creationist / recolonisation element of Noah's Ark is not notable or one of the more notable aspects; the issue is you are deliberately stopping edits which follow WP protocol and which would lead to a more accurate portrayal of Noah's Ark Zoo Farm as park which has notable animals, notable European breeding program involvement, notable interest to visitors and families as a visitor attraction. This page can't exist simply as a platform to war against creationism when there are clear WP precedents being overlooked which stop this page looking anything like the page of other zoos. BristolJK21 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If there are reliable secondary sources, (not the zoo itself) then of course other material can be added.Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol - I have read up on this. It is true that I have currently only editing articles that are about zoos. It could appear narrow but I am a new user I plan to expand on my editing over time. SPA refers more to the way a user edits and their neutrality. As stated:

Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

I would argue that your interest, and that of Theroadislong in this article seems to be more in breach of this than me being a relativity new editor and starting with zoos. You appear to be editing from an anti-creationist viewpoint. Your arguments on this page highlight this. You seem to think everything is about the creationist thing where as I have no interest in this and I feel I am arguing about NPOV on the educational aspect of the zoo, for example. Your arguments and discussion are clearly non-neutral and this has come through in the article which is the point I keep making and you don't appear to understand or agree to any changes to make this article more neutral.

Please note also that by stating this comment above you are in breach of WP policy on good faith. WP:GF

So I suggest we stop discussing this at all and focus instead on discussing how to make the article better? WP is quite clear that we state the changes we want to make, discuss them and to seek consensus. Making unfounded accusations of other editors is not part of this constructive process to improve the article.

Theroadislong- Please point out the WP guidelines that state a secondary source is necessary? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Theroadislong (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

But nothing that has been discussed recently to include in the article is "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic". As such a secondary source is not necessary. In the page that you highlight WP states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Given the nature of material that is being proposed, no secondary source is necessary. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This is such a slow motion conversation in multiple sections that it's hard to determine exactly what you ARE proposing. Theroadislong (talk)

Theroadislong See above talk sections that make it very clear what I am proposing. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Elephant consultant

Peteinterpol Please do not make edits without getting consensus on the talk page in accordance to WP guidelines. You cannot remove the comment from Alan Roocroft without removing the negative comment from the born free foundation as otherwise this paragraph breaches WP guidelines on NPOV. The reference was from a reliable source and there are no WP guidelines that state a person need a WP page to be notable. What is notable is the comment that the elephant enclosure is a 5 star destination for elephants when most zoos no longer have elephants. Born Free clearly are a bias organisation with an agenda and a POV that is entirely against all zoos and private collections of animals. If you wish to include something from them then you must provide something that states that opposite view for the page to remain balanced. I know that you appreciate that requirement of WP because you previously stated to it me in another discussion. Please note Born free hold a minority view, as demonstrated by substantial visitor numbers to zoos, and as such their opinion should be given much less weight in the article than currently in order for the article to adhere to the WP: Balance policy that you pointed out to me previously. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Alan Roocroft would fail the notability requirements of having his own WP page. His viewpoint is subjective and not a reliable source on this matter. Having ones own WP page is an easy test of notability. His comments should be removed from this page. In addition, it is a bit rich for Gloucestershiredad to say amendments should not be made without consensus, given the sheer volume of changes he has made without this. Peteinterpol (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed! Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol There is no WP requirement that something or someone needs their own WP page to be 'notable'. His viewpoint as an expert is reliably sourced in accordance with WP guidelines and therefore this should stay on the page. It also represent NPOV which is a core principle of WP. If you want to remove it, then remove the reference from Born Free who are clearly bias in this matter in a negative way. I don't believe I have made any changes without consensus once they were started as a discussion on the talk page. You and Theroadislong seem to ignore WP rules on consensus when it doesn't suit you and you just make edits to contentious information without first discussing it. Either way it is not worth arguing over. WP rules are clear. Consensus on the talk page before edits are made. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and ignore your own advise on consensus in a disruptive manner. Wikipedia reflects the mainstream scientific view on these matters and is NOT interested in pseudoscientific religious beliefs. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the way that 'consensus' is being inappropriately invoked in support of changes that Gloucestershiredad is making based on persistent misunderstanding, and sometimes deliberate ignoring of, WP guidance (by calling it "minor", whatever that means). I think more caution is needed before invoking 'consensus'; a fuller debate perhaps, followed by checking that other editors agree there is consensus before making any changes. The suddenness with which consensus is claimed after a few initial contributions is astounding. Peteinterpol (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol & Theroadislong - you seem to have gone off topic? Can we stick to the point here? I am not talking about pseudoscientific religious beliefs (I have no interest in this, for reference Theroadislong). What I am talking about here is the second of Wikipedia's five pillars - NPOV. The article mentions a quote by Born Free who are clearly negatively biased towards all zoos and so the source is unreliable. The article therefore should not include this quote, or if it does, it has to put the other side of the argument in order to have abided by the second pillar of wikipedia. Currently, the Alan Roocroft quote is an obvious way of achieving NPOV. Please put it back in, or don't include the Born Free quote. There is no other option as otherwise it is entirely against WP guidance on NPOV. Please do tell me if I am missing something here or am wrong as to me it is really clear that the article currently blatantly breaches WP rules? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic? Born Free maybe negatively biased towards all zoos but that doesn't make the source unreliable.Theroadislong (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It does according to WP guidelines: WP:RS. Any source that has a bias should be handled carefully, according to WP. Surely this is common sense? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Born Free are notable in WP terms, whatever their views on zoos, Alan Roocroft is not. Without his own WP page it is almost impossible to assess the value of his comments. Peteinterpol (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol Having a WP page is not a WP requirement for notability. The issue here is one of NPOV and you have failed to address my point on this. Here is a bio so you can use to assess 'notability' of Alan if you wish. http://elephant-management.com/lecturers/mr-a-roocroft/

You use 'notability' as an argument a lot although you are wrong to do so. WP states: "These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." WP:NNC As such you should revisit all previous discussions where you have incorrected stated this as an argument for content as that it not in line with clear WP guidelines.

I am looking for other editors opinion on this before making the edit, but it is clear that this paragraph has to read as follows to abide by WP policy on NPOV. WP:POV.

In September 2012, the zoo began building an elephant sanctuary of 20 acres (8.1 ha), and the first elephant arrived in February 2014. The Born Free Foundation, whose stated aim is to keep wildlife in the wild, said the acreage was too small for the purpose. However, international elephant management consultant, Alan Roocroft, described Elephant Eden as a "five star destination for elephants".

Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Gloucestershiredad - It is not in the spirit of Wikipedia's open and collaborative philosophy to say that "it is clear that this paragraph has to read as follows to abide by WP policy on NPOV. WP:POV.". It is not for one editor to determine how the article "has to read". I find your wording subjective and lacking even-handedness in presenting the two viewpoints. And it is still not clear what relevance Alan Roocroft's comments have. He is just a consultant, not a recognized authority in Wikipedia terms. His comments are not relevant in this context. (Not sure what the relevance is of his being "international", whatever that means in this context). I don't support the form of words you are proposing. Peteinterpol (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I stated the WP guidelines to back up my 'has to read' comment. Everything I argue is about Wikipedia's philosophy as clarifies in the five pillars. Please argue the point in light of these guidelines or agree to the change. If you want to suggest an alternative wording, feel free! Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I take the silence to mean that I can add in the comment by Mr Roocroft? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Gloucestershiredad I agree with your suggested edit to add in the quote from Mr. Roocroft. If the regular editors on this page insist that we prohibit the inclusion of quotes from anybody without their own WP page on the basis they are not notable, surely we need to remove other quotes such as the one from Michael Roberts further down the article? Bristol somerset (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Gloucestershiredad - Not sure if your question is directed at me, but in response please note I have not been silent in this section - see my comments above - and I would also request that in future you do not assume that silence equals assent. There have been multiple repeating edit requests from yourself and Bristol somerset covering a very similar interpretation of WP guidance, and it is tedious and time-consuming to keep having to make the same points to you again and again in response. Peteinterpol (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol - You haven't answered my point. You aren't engaging in constructive conversation. Please see WP:CON If you aren't prepared to discuss this or take into account the valid arguments made then you shouldn't mind me putting this content back in? You mentioned not liking the term 'international' so maybe we could agree this wording:

In September 2012, the zoo began building an elephant sanctuary of 20 acres (8.1 ha), and the first elephant arrived in February 2014. The Born Free Foundation, whose stated aim is to keep wildlife in the wild, said the acreage was too small for the purpose. However, it is the largest elephant enclosure in Europe and is described as a "five star destination for elephants" by internationally recognized elephant management consultant, Alan Roocroft.Gloucestershiredad (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use qualifying comments like "whose stated aim is to keep wildlife in the wild" and "internationally recognized" it is not neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong - See WP:BIASED. Wikipedia actively and clearly suggest exactly this kind of qualifying comment. This is a quoted example taken from the page linked at the beginning of this comment:

Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

WP clearly states that the specific relevant information about the source's views should be used as an in-text attribution. 'Internationally recognized' is referenced from reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7844447.stm Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ben Goldacre

A recent, now reverted edit that was added with not attempt at consensus, describes Ben Goldacre as "a prominent atheist". He is best known for his journalism against pseudo-science, which is what is Notable here. His personal religious views appear to have been invoked in this edit for reasons that breach NPOV so I have reverted this. Peteinterpol (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol - Ben Goldacre has not authored the bad science column in the guardian for over 4 years. The statement is in-accurate which is why I changed it. See WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. What is notable here that is the source is not reliable and is heavily biased by his religious leanings. As such, in order to maintain NPOV, the article should mention the bias nature of the source by stating that he is a prominent atheist. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)146.198.69.214 (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Gloucestershiredad - Ben Goldacre is a highly respected scientist and to suggest he is unreliable as a source is just bizarre. He is not particularly noted for his "religious leanings" - his WP page makes one minor reference to this in a late "Other Writing" section. And I think we have to go with his own expressed opinions on his beliefs rather than sticking inappropriate labels on him: he describes himself as an "apatheist". Given the high regard he is held in within the scientific community, I think it would be totally wrong to qualify his criticism of the zoo's approach to science, with irrelevant comments about his supposed personal religious beliefs. Peteinterpol (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Peteinterpol - He is a biased source. I am simply using WP guidelines on this and so you are describing WP as 'bizarre' not me! WP:BIASED 'Highly respected', 'not particularly noted' and 'high regard' are your opinion and are subjective. It is not totally wrong to qualify his criticism - it is entirely necessary according to WP. You can still use him as a source but you need to abide by this: WP:NEUTRALSOURCE It helps to inform the reader of the source's bias to achieve this and that is all I am trying to do. In this case his clear, published religious leaning will bias his statements and the reader should be made aware of that. Same with the other sources who are bias. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

He is a scientist. A zoo that ignores scientific consensus might find him biased, but it would be wrong to call him that on the pages of Wikipedia which do not ignore scientific consensus. Peteinterpol (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

He is an "apatheist" and therefore bias against individuals or organisations who have a religious tenancy different from his own and that therefore includes Noah's ark zoo farm. If he wasn't bias, why would he have been negatively vocal against the zoo publicly? His comments even in the quoted source show bias. It is not exactly a scientific, reasoned and logical rebuttal of creationism is it? Surely this is common sense? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

An apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to their life. The vast majority of scientists also rebutt creationism regardless of their beliefs or lack of them. Wikipedia reflects thisTheroadislong (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

If someone is an "apatheist" or has strong religious beliefs, it does not necessarily follow that all their writing is biased. Many atheists and Christians can still write in a balanced way on a subject even if they don't personally agree with it. And as for "if he wasn't bias[ed], why would he have been negatively vocal against the zoo publicly?" - because he is a scientist and he is known for opposing the sort of pseudo-science peddled by the zoo. Peteinterpol (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

WP seems to suggest differently. Please read the links provided previously before continuing this discussion. 'Opposing' clears implies bias. Your own argument makes my point! Gloucestershiredad (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that no further argument has been made I am suggesting the following change:

The zoo has also been criticised by Ben Goldacre, an atheist who describes himself as an "apatheist", and by Alice Roberts..... Gloucestershiredad (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

He is a highly respected scientist, his atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with this, his opposition to pseudoscientific nonsense is the stance of all modern scientific thinking. Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong - See WP:BIASED. Wikipedia actively and clearly suggest exactly this kind of qualifying comment. This is a quoted example taken from the page linked at the beginning of this comment:

Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

WP clearly states that the specific relevant information about the source's views should be used as an in-text attribution. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Using that logic we should say "The scientific Ben Goldacre" then.Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Theroadislong 'scientific' is not a view. I think you miss the point. WP policy is that the source's view should be stated, as that helps the reader appreciate the bias. Whether he is a scientist or not is not relevant to his view and therefore his bias comments on the zoo. The article is not writing about his science but his views on the zoo. Therefore what affects his views should be stated as a description. Gloucestershiredad (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

But how does his atheism have any bearing on the matter? He is NOT biased, he is promoting the mainstream views of modern scientific thinking. Theroadislong (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)