Talk:Noah's Ark Zoo Farm/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bush's book

To suggest that the self publication of a book about the zoo is a "cultural reference" is insulting our readers intelligence it is nothing more than self serving promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, such vanity publications are not notable and should not normally be included on WP pages. I would suggest removal from this page. Peteinterpol (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I put the information in a footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you feel strongly on this you edit other zoo pages accordingly. I personally have found information on books written on zoos useful information as a WP reader. If you disagree with the heading, change the heading don't delete useful content.Gloucestershiredad (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:OSE Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that at least a modicum of material in a self-published history might be both non-controversial and useful in improving the article.--John Foxe (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, has anyone read it? Theroadislong (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If you give me a month, I'll get a copy and make appropriate additions to the article, hopefully without precipitating additional drama.--John Foxe (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Brave man! Theroadislong (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a copy on order and will read it soon hopefully. Theroadislong thanks for highlighting WP:OSE - although by reading the first sentence you ought to have been aware that the argument I made can be valid? It is valid in this case as highlighted by teh rest of the article and the examples given. What other reference do we have for what should be included on a zoo wikipedia page than other zoo pages edited by wiki users? Gloucestershiredad (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)146.198.69.214 (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the book should be mentioned in the development section. It is relevant content and allows readers to find out more if they wish. Other zoo pages have similar content about books written about them and including it in this section would address concerns made over the sub heading previously used. I suggest the following:

In 2015, Noah’s Ark joined the European Endangered Species Programme (EEP), which oversees management and conservation of protected species. The zoo is building an enclosure for two spectacled bears (Andean bears), scheduled to arrive in 2016.[13] A book titled 'Building Noah's Ark: From Cows to Tigers' was self published in 2012 by the owner, Anthony Bush about the development of the zoo.Gloucestershiredad (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been reading the book—which is certainly above average for self-published autobiographies—and I think, since the zoo is impossible without Bush, that he deserves a short paragraph of his own.--John Foxe (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Poster Image

There is no information about where the photo of the poster that supposedly once hung at Noah's Ark came from. It is not taken from the Guardian article that is sourced in the caption and I can't find any information to its origin, so I suggest we remove it unless it can be properly sourced.Bristol somerset (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Photographs are not usually referenced? Do you doubt it's authenticity? Theroadislong (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I originally loaded the photo after obtaining the written permission of the person who owns its rights, who willingly changed its copyright status to ensure it was allowed to be shown. As Theroadislong suggests, there is absolutely no doubt where this photo was taken, and it fully complies with all appropriate Wikipedia rules. The zoo were happy for it to be on display to its visitors which makes it completely relevant to the content of this article. Peteinterpol (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There can be no question this picture was taken at the zoo. And it is far from being the only such poster the zoo has displayed. Here is a photo of Bush himself quite happily posing in front of a second version of the poster at the zoo: http://skepticblog.org/wp-content/uploads/anthonybush.jpg Peteinterpol (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I certainly wish we could have that photo. The only problem I have with what's there now is the esthetics—a poor photo of a poorly produced poster.--John Foxe (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If it is to remain, then I think at least the caption should be amended, as it seems be inaccurate and in breach of NPOV.

A poster once displayed at Noah's Ark Zoo Farm asserting that apes were unrelated to man, one of several false claims made by the zoo that were ridiculed by physical anthropologist Alice Roberts

Firstly the poster is entitled 'Differences Between Apes and Man', so it is not actually asserting anything just selectively highlighting characteristics (arguably it may be designed to lead people to make their own assertions, but that's not the same thing). Also the use of the NPOV term "false claims" should surely be removed? As I say, I'm not sure this poster is making an assertion or claim (false or otherwise), let alone being "one of several false claims". What are these other false claims?

I have made the following change to the caption to make it more neutral:

A poster once displayed at Noah's Ark Zoo Farm entitled "Differences Between Apes and Man", which received criticism from physical anthropolist Alice Roberts

Does anybody have any further suggestions or amendments for this caption?Bristol somerset (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Bristol somerset - you are incorrect and your whole argument is constructed on the poster's title, not the content. Nobody argues that humans are different from apes; but I have seen this poster when I visited the zoo, and like the variation behind Bush in the above picture, it argues that humans and apes did not, as science has established, evolve from a common ancestor. I therefore intend to revert your amendment as it is based only on the title and not the full content of the poster.

I can't find on that poster a statement that humans and apes did not evolve from a common ancestor. (Maybe there's a different—hopefully more esthetic—poster that can be substituted?)--John Foxe (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It is clear from the Bush photo above that the purpose of this poster is to promote Bush's creationist views on humans and apes. But I take your point, John Foxe, and I think your wording elegantly summarises the position. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input, however the caption still does not make sense. A poster once displayed at Noah's Ark Zoo Farm listing differences between man and apes and implying that humans and apes did not evolve from a common ancestor, one of several false claims made by the zoo that have been ridiculed by physical anthropologist Alice Roberts - an implication is not the same as a claim, so the sentence is poor in terms of its use of English. Also we do not have the luxury of reading implications and interpretations into an image if they are not clear and obvious from looking at it.Bristol somerset (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Come off it, the zoo makes no secret of the fact that it does not accept the scientific and proven fact that humans and apes have a common ancestor. It would be disingenuous to pretend that this is a poster that is simply highlighting the accepted scientific differences between humans and apes when we know what the zoo's agenda is. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Supposed"

I submit that if the word "supposed" is to be used in the image caption ("displayed posters like this one emphasizing supposed differences between man and apes"), there should be a citation to some authority. Certainly some critic should have noted the fact if the differences described on the poster are illegitimate.--John Foxe (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care what word is used, but the differences described on the poster are neither "legitimate" or "illegitimate". There are just many that are opinions on how much more beautiful humans are than apes. Describe that how you want, but they certainly aren't ideologically neutral! They are properly the opinions of the poster maker and really nothing more. jps (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you can call something "supposed" on your own hook. You need to cite an authority.--John Foxe (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose an alternate wording that avoids Wikipedia asserting these opinions as fact according to policy. jps (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Done.--John Foxe (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I think you're probably right that it was Bush who probably made or at least commissioned the poster, but I'm not sure we've verified that. jps (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

We can always cite the ideas to his book. He's got a full page.--John Foxe (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Facts are facts

1. Apes and humans shared a common ancestor. This is a fact. To pretend that it is an opinion is a violation of WP:ASSERT.
2. When someone asserts that apes and humans do not share a common ancestor, they are believing something that is false.
3. Flood geology is the belief that the flood myth of Christianity was true and explains most of geology.

jps (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the above sets out the correct WP approach to much of the material in this article. I believe it should guide more of the material in the article, for example the introduction should state that the zoo promotes false claims about animals. That is what the zoo is doing. It is not just promoting an approach to science to which some people have a different point of view, which is the implication of the current wording and many recent pro-zoo edits by two SPAs.

I would suggest the following wording for the intro:

"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, that promotes false claims about animals based on creationism. It has the largest elephant enclosure in Europe. 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." Peteinterpol (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not normally describe religious beliefs that do not align with scientific consensus as "false". If you believe that it should, perhaps you could start by amending the WP pages for Christianity, Judaism and Islam accordingly, rather than using a Somerset zoo's page as a guinea pig for this approach? Bristol somerset (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not about "religious belief". If someone notably advocated, "1+1=0" it is perfectly fine to point out they are advocating for something that is false. That's why we have WP:ASSERT. jps (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The zoo ignores scientific facts and presents untrue statements to the public that no scientist accepts as true. The whole debate on this page in recent months has been about whether such actions mean the zoo should be presented as simply another tourist attraction, no different to other zoos. It is the only zoo in the UK that openly presents such falsehoods, and it would be dishonest of this page to mislead the public by ignoring this. Peteinterpol (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's what Anthony Bush says he believes: "There are some obvious similarities between apes and man, such as skeletal features, placental birth, nails instead of claws (albeit very slow growing in apes) and susceptibility to certain diseases....I felt it was time apes and other primates were seen to be in a different order to man. So perhaps God took the ape blueprint and added a huge number of modifications to their frontloaded DNA to make Adam and Eve as the first humans." One can say that such a statement opposes scientific consensus, but I don't understand how it can be declared "false." How could its falsity be proved? For that matter, it's not even clear from the statement that Bush is denying that apes and men have a common ancestor.--John Foxe (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Not from that statement, no. But Bush did pose in front of one of his zoo's own posters which had the sub-heading "30 reasons why apes are not related to man". So we know where his sympathies lie.

And we do know it is a scientific fact that humans and apes share a common ancestor. That is a fact that is not open to debate. Peteinterpol (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Posing in front of a poster (especially when an image of that poster isn't provided in the article) shouldn't trump what Bush has written.

2. I asked for proof and you've given me scientific consensus. You can declare that humans and apes share a common ancestor, and there's certainly scientific consensus for such a declaration. That doesn't make it a fact "not open to debate." Not only is it unproved, it's unprovable.--John Foxe (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Point (2) is either a non sequitor or it is false (depending on what you mean by "prove"). If you believe that literally nothing in science is fact, that it is all "unproved" and all "unprovable", then that's an epistemological claim that borders on nihilism. We're not equipped to deal with it here. If, instead, you think that the fact that humans and great apes share a common ancestor is peculiarly unprovable in science -- a claim that is less certain than others, you have entered into the territory of WP:FRINGE promotion and your perspective is not accommodated at Wikipedia. You would be better served to edit Conservapedia or the CreationWiki where this peculiar (and erroneous) outlook is accommodated. jps (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

When he says, "I felt it was time apes and other primates were seen to be in a different order to man..." that's simply false. Apes and humans are in the same order (taxonomy). In fact, they are in the same family (taxonomy). To say otherwise is simply wrong and it is not a problem for Wikipedia to plainly point that out. jps (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

People created the taxonomical orders, and people change them when they think it's appropriate. They're constructs. (I'd certainly be reluctant to base any statement on the groupings I had to memorize in biology class fifty years ago.) What's "simply wrong" is the notion that taxonomy in its 2015 incarnation is proof of anything.--John Foxe (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy today is done on the basis of genetic relationship and last common ancestor tree graphs. To argue that primates are not an order is to either argue that a) they're misplaced in the taxonomic tree (e.g. that they should be at a different grouping taxonomically) which is an toothless argument because the choice of taxonomic vocabulary is always relative to particular branch and not on the basis of a universal standard, or b) that there is no last common ancestor and so there is no possible taxonomic grouping. It is 100% clear from the context that Bush is arguing for (b) and not for (a). He is saying that humans and other primates do not have a common ancestor. This is false. Full stop. To argue otherwise is either ignorance or sophistry. jps (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Bristol somerset - Your comparison with WP pages about religions is not a strong one. If a planetarium was run by an advocate of the Flat-earth society and put up signs and notices falsely stating that the Earth does not orbit the sun, that is so unusual it would be right to foreground it in their WP article and not simply treat them as just another tourist attraction. It is the zoo's promotion of false statements about animals that is by far its most WP-notable feature - and this article needs to state this. Peteinterpol (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to mistake notability with idiosyncrasy. Notability in WP terms is about highlighting the most important facts about the subject, not just things that make it different from other similar subjects. The most notable elements of the NAZF are the same as any other similarly sized zoo, i.e its animals. Also i do not believe a convincing case has been made that NAZF makes 'false claims' about animals - you are relying on the 'differences between apes and man' poster (which no longer hangs at the zoo), which as discussed previously is not really making any claims (even if it is implying something, that is not the same as claiming).Bristol somerset (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Bristol somerset - Based on WP:ORG, "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Without a doubt, a significant amount of the zoo's coverage in such sources has been about its creationism and the article therefore needs to reflect that.

This article does not need to rely on this poster alone to state that the zoo puts forward false claims. There is the following page from the zoo's own website which is riddled with factual inaccuracies and false claims about evolution: http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/pages/about-us/earth-history/evolution/

When I visited the zoo there were many notices and signs full of such inaccuracies, and a look at the reliable editors on the zoo's Tripadvisor page indicates they are still there.

The evidence is overwhelming: the zoo presents false information to the public, in its signs, notices and website. This article needs to reflect this. Peteinterpol (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello John Foxe, just responding to your most recent edit above but thought it would be confusing to embed responses there. I take your points.

However, WP's own article on the Human species states:"Modern humans (Homo sapiens, primarily ssp. Homo sapiens sapiens) are the only extant members of the hominin clade (or human clade), a branch of the great apes;" Similarly, the Evolution article states "All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor". No qualifying statements that these are theories. They aren't. They are facts accepted by the scientific community.

And I agree that the written statements of the zoo (and Bush where he is speaking on behalf of it) should trump a photo of Bush standing in front of a poster. That photo is not included in the article. But there is masses of material on the zoo's own website that presents untrue statements as if they were facts. I think more of such material could have a place in this article. Peteinterpol (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It is curious that the zoo's own website presents large quantities of such creationist, inaccurate material, but two SPAs have argued for this article to minimize the emphasis on creationism and to treat the zoo just like another local attraction. The zoo doesn't even see itself in the way that these two are suggesting the article should show it. Peteinterpol (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Peteinterpol. We agree that the belief that man and apes have a common ancestor is scientific consensus. I would prefer that the article state the position just that way rather than describe the unprovable (say, that God infused apes with human DNA) as "false" or the that scientific consensus is "true." (For the record, I believe the notion that man developed from apes is a fable, a myth of the learned.) We also agree (in contradistinction to the SPAs) that this article should emphasize the zoo's position on creationism. That's what makes it noteworthy.

Realistically, I understand that the creationist views of a non-scientist will have little weight here. They should have little weight here. Opposition to creationism is scientific consensus. (I suspect there may be more quiet slippage in the pews than might be evident from listening to the professional pulpit. After all, if a scientist openly professes creationism, there very well may be serious consequences for his career.) I see my job at this article as trying to keep the grammar and syntax tightened up, and if on occasion I'm able to communicate that consensus is not proof, that's lagniappe.--John Foxe (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you John Foxe for this helpful clarification. I note that we agree on the need or the article to emphasise creationism.

Interesting comment about slippage in the pews - intriguingly Richard Dawkins makes a parallel point about religious professionals such as bishops and priests, claiming that some probably don't believe much in the Bible but can't say so due to the consequences for their careers! Perhaps both views are true - and luckily on WP we only need concern ourselves with what can be reliably sourced, which should save much debate on this.

I understand your approach to editing this page and am glad you are happy to make such contributions, which I generally find very fair-minded and wise. And I had not heard of Lagniappe but it is a useful concept!

I guess we only really disagree on the issue of whether the zoo's non-scientific consensus statements should be stated to be "false" in this article. I think they should, because science does not regard Darwinian evolution as a theory that is open to debate; it treats it as a fact as certainly as it accepts that the Earth orbits the sun. But I welcome constructive debate and opposing views on this, to try to achieve editorial consensus is possible. No doubt others will add their views to the debate. Peteinterpol (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not what makes a fact true. The proof of common ancestry comes in the form of the vast amount of evidence for it and the lack of contradictory evidence against it. Thus, it is perfectly fine, as it says in in our guidelines to plainly state that humans and apes share a common ancestor as a fact. It certainly shouldn't be qualified as merely "consensus". That gives the reader the impression that it is subject to revision. jps (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What makes a fact true for Wikipedia purposes is having a conclusive majority. You do. But Bush's theory that God inserted human DNA into apes is neither provable or disprovable.--John Foxe (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As there is zero scientific evidence for this claim, we don't have to treat it as anything more than a fringe theory like flat-earth-erism. this is exactly what WP:ITA was designed for. jps (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You can treat it as you wish; you just can't prove the statement false. To prove the earth is round, we have big blue marble photos. Nothing about Origins is provable in that way. Consensus, no proof.--John Foxe (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Why should pictures be the way people prove something? I have lots of pictures of fossils that to the trained eye show precisely that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Do you have sufficient training to be able to distinguish which pictures of the Earth are artistic impressions/composites and which are properly "evidence" that the Earth is really round? Just because it is obvious to you does not mean that it is an unassailable "truth" in the epistemological sense, otherwise the obviousness that humans and apes share a common ancestor/earth is round would be convincing to literally everyone (which is just about the only standard that you can possibly accept if we're going to follow your line of argumentation). The point is that scientists say with the same amount of certainty that the Earth is round and that apes and humans share a common ancestor. That you aren't convinced by this is irrelevant to the larger point of WP:ASSERT and WP:ITA. Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. If you want to argue that there is a difference between creationism and flat-earther-ism, feel free to hop on over to Conservapedia or the CreationWiki where your erroneous claims will be taken seriously. Here, they will not be taken seriously. jps (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm simply asserting what should be obvious on its face, that nothing about Origins can be "proved" without recourse to scientific consensus, a different matter than say a proof in geometry or physiology. Scientific consensus can't prove that Bush's notion about God infusing apes with human DNA is false just as he can't prove it's true.--John Foxe (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If we are to take you seriously, nothing at all can be "proved" without recourse to consensus (scientific or otherwise). Proof in geometry is indeed epistemologically different, but it is different because it is not based on inductive reasoning. Proof in "physiology" can mean a lot of things, so you'll have to be specific. Or, better yet, realize that, like "Origins", literally any claim about physiology can be objected to and there is nothing you can provide which can convince literally everyone of the veracity of a claim about a physiological process. Inasmuch as scientific consensus "proves" anything it has shown that God did not infuse apes with human DNA (or vice versa). When there is no evidence for a claim and all the evidence that exists contradicts the claim, that's as good as science gets. There is no evidence for divine action in the genome and all the evidence for how the genome came to be contradicts the hypothesis that there is divine action. Or take your favorite physiological process and use the same argument. There is no evidence for divine action in the limbic system of any animal and all evidence for the physiology of the limbic system contradicts the hypothesis that there is divine action in the limbic system. jps (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Scientific consensus can't prove anything about Origins. If it could there would be a lot fewer people like me.--John Foxe (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's some fantastic original research. Fortunately, your ignorance about the facts of evolution is irrelevant our task at hand. Until you can point to a reliable source that says you're right and I'm wrong, we'll go with me. jps (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got the votes—that is, after all, the meaning of scientific consensus—just not proof.--John Foxe (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeating your ignorance doesn't make you correct and it certainly doesn't do you any favors as a Wikipedia editor. But as long as you don't WP:POVPUSH in article-space, I'm not too bothered. You would probably be better served to talk about this elsewhere though considering WP:TALK. jps (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My primary job in regards to this article is to improve its coverage and readability, especially by keeping a wary eye on matters grammatical and syntactical. Presumably even ignorant creationists can handle such things when provided a bit of guidance now and then by the enlightened.--John Foxe (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to know what to make of people who espouse ideas that would affect content on Wikipedia in intolerable ways yet refrain from implementing those ideas in article space out of, what exactly?, fear of the others? I think that's part of the reason for WP:TALK telling us to focus on actual edits that are liable to make it into the article. jps (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, we've been talking about scientific consensus, a term implying that an overwhelming percentage of scientists believe my position wrong. I'm up for suggesting a little intellectual humility to the majority now and again but not for banging my head against a wall to no purpose.--John Foxe (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If your idea of suggesting intellectual humility is to argue for creationism, you'll find you don't get very far. Some might even suggest you're trolling. jps (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As the Wikimedia page on trolls counsels those who have been accused of trolling, "Maybe someday someone else will come along and raise the same issue, and the discussion can begin anew, and this time turn out differently." Anthony Bush—half-optimist, half naif that he is—seems to believe such. In a 2006 interview cited in the article he said, "I would love to get locked in a church with Richard Dawkins to straighten things out. I think he would be more relaxed than some".--John Foxe (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it really that hard for you to go to your local college or university and find a person willing to talk to you about how scientific knowledge is created? Do you have to proselytize your religious beliefs on Wikipedia? jps (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it the largest elephant enclosure in Europe?

The only sources I can find for this claim are local news agencies at the time the zoo made announcements about it, and they would undoubtedly have relied on zoo press releases. Can anyone find any independent, reliable expert zoological sources that back up the claim? Till that happens I have amended the content to reflect the fact it is only a claim, not a verified fact. Peteinterpol (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally clueless, but the information was treated as fact by Zoo News Digest and by the Telegraph just a year ago. Surely the place has enough enemies that if NAZF didn't have the largest elephant enclosure in Europe, someone should have called it by now.--John Foxe (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that if the Telegraph, Zoo News Digest and ITV are treating it as a fact then sufficient checks have been done to verify this claim, so I've reverted that edit. However if proof can be found to cast doubt on those sources (i.e. if someone identifies a bigger elephant enclosure in Europe), then I think there would be grounds to change the wording as you wish.Bristol somerset (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The two citations in the wiki article say it is the largest in northern Europe and this is true. Doesn't say largest in entire Europe and that claim would be false. I have corrected this (by adding "northern") to match the citations. By far the largest elephant enclosure in Europe is at Spain's Cabarceno, which covers c. 25 hectares (~60 acres). Roughly three times the size of the enclosure at Noah's Ark. 62.107.215.125 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

As Northern Europe only consists of Iceland, Ireland, Great Britain, Scandinavia, Northern Germany and Finland, it's hardly surprising that it's the largest? Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(Hmm. Wonder if there are any elephants in Iceland or Finland? And that got me thinking about where they'd send mammoths if they ever cloned one.)--John Foxe (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)