Talk:Joe Exotic/Archive 1

Requested move 27 March 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Maldonado-Passage → Joe Exotic – Joe Exotic is the subject's WP:COMMONNAME. Also, per WP:NATURALNESS, an article's title should be one that readers are likely to look or search for. A Google search for [//www.google.com/search?q= "joe exotic"] returns 6,000,000 results. A search for [//www.google.com/search?q= "maldonado-passage"] returns under 12,000. Even searching for [//www.google.com/search?q= "joe maldonado"] returns less than 35,000 results. While the birth or legal name is preferred in most cases, the name most commonly used by sources should be used. Titling the article "Joe Exotic" promotes recognizability: readers who are familiar with this subject are more likely to know the subject's common name rather than his legal name. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose: Readers are having no trouble finding the article (over 400,000 readers over the last two days). FYI: there is already a Joe Exotic redirect leading to the Joseph Maldonado-Passage page so readers find the article several ways. He is legally Joseph Maldonado-Passage, and he was indicted, and convicted in that name ...and referred to as such by all. Joe Exotic was a nickname he gave himself and he had many. There should be no concern that readers cannot find the article. Lightburst (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The number of visits to the page is irrelevant without context. The article is one of the first things that show up when you Google "Joe Exotic". The question is would it have gotten more hits if it had been titled after his common name? Legal names are always used for legal proceedings, but that doesn't mean that i.e. Bill Clinton becomes William Jefferson Clinton simply because he was a party to William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, Petitioner v. Paula Corbin Jones. And just because there is currently a redirect doesn't mean it should stay that way. Both pages should still exist, but Joseph Maldonado-Passage should redirect to Joe Exotic, not the other way around. Bmf 051 (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Our main consideration should be accuracy, and ability for readers to find the article. I also started another article a while ago. Jennfer Mee, she is known as the Hiccup Girl. Her article is called Jennifer Mee and a redirect from Hiccup Girl leads to Jennifer Mee. Would you have it the other way around? We serve our readers by being accurate. I guess I could go either way on the name, but when I started the Joseph Maldonado-Passage article I went for legal name (widely published) - as I also did in the Jennifer Mee article. Lightburst (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about that article, we're talking about this one: consistency is only one of the 5 characteristics of a good WP:Article title. But since you asked, the WP:COMMONNAME argument is harder to make in that case. "Jennifer Mee" returns roughly the same number of results as "Hiccup Girl" (I realize that this isn't the only measure of what is the COMMONNAME for something, but just giving an example of why it is a completely different scenario). In the case of Joe Exotic, it is easy to see what the COMMONNAME is. Bmf 051 (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have advanced a good argument for the name change. Whatever is best to serve the readers would be my choice. Lightburst (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Virtually every source refers to him as Joe Exotic. The amount of readers that have found him is largely irrelevant because a Google search for him brings up the Wikipedia page either way. Speaking of Google searches, Joe Exotic brings back 8 million results in quotes compared to roughly 11,000 for Joseph Maldonado-Passage. Also compelling is the Washington Post article which straight up says "Joseph Maldonado-Passage, better known as Joe Exotic". Sulfurboy (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't think there is any problem with the Google WP:HITS you are quoting? Don't consider that maybe something is way off and that this person doesn't actually have 8 million hits out there? -- Netoholic @ 11:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , The hit count isn't being used to denote notability. Again, you've misinterpreted policy in this discussion. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is simply no way possible for this person to have 8 million hits related to him. Raw Google searches are have too many potential causes of inaccuracy for them to even be considered. -- Netoholic @ 14:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if you restrict your Google search in the manner described in WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. restricting to just a "News" search, eliminating results that contain the word "Wikipedia", searching for only English language results), you still get 1.5 million results for "Joe Exotic" and under 2,500 for "Joseph Maldonado-Passage". Bmf 051 (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Input should probably also be seeked from as they were the one who moved it. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked them to move it as I thought it was an uncontroversial move. Bmf 051 (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Per Sulfurboy. I think it should be moved because he is better known as Joe Exotic. Analog Horror, ( Speak ) 03:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, as the apparent common name of the topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone asked for the page to be moved, and I moved it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this article is largely WP:SINGLEEVENT, and sources are all related to the crime this subject is convicted for. That alias is not how this subject is identified primarily in the sources, though they, like we, do acknowledge he formerly went by "Joe Exotic" (and several other names). There are no sources from prior to this crime pointing to independent notability for the subject or his use of this stagename. -- Netoholic @ 11:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Are we looking at the same page? In 11 of the 12 media sources that are referenced he is called Joe Exotic. Also, this isn't a notability discussion and that's a terribad interpretation of WP:1E. Subject was pretty widely known and featured in coverage before the crime, I don't think anyone else would reasonably suggest otherwise. There's likely a heavy leaning on sources after the crime as they will be more up to date, national and deeper dives. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Prior to the media attention related to the crimes, this article did not exist (and it would not)... at best it'd be a redirect to the Zoo's article (which did exist). That's why I cite SINGLEEVENT. Also, every source introduces the subject by his full legal name first... and then mentions he is "also known as" or "formerly known as" Joe Exotic. That name is not his current name, nor COMMONNAME during the period of time he gained notability (after the crimes). Being that sources introduce him by full name, that is how we should title this article. -- Netoholic @ 14:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , It is very common for news stories to lead with a person's legal name, however the use of "Joe Exotic" in the title of nearly all of those sources show that the sources know that to be the name that is will be most recognized by readers. Some sources such as WP outright say "better known as Joe Exotic". I also have no understanding why you keep diving into a notability concerns in a merge discussion. If you want to have that discussion then nominate it for deletion. Otherwise, stick to what the purpose of this discussion is. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might consider striking your oppose !vote as I have. Then we can have a snow close and do the inevitable name change. Lightburst (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, obvious WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Move - WP:COMMONNAME Eastendersgeek (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME (from COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). I get "Joe Exotic" for about 1.26million G-News hits vs. just 2,400 for ""Joseph Maldonado-Passage". Unless there are ambiguity concerns, COMMONNAME outweighs OFFICIALNAME due to recognizability. Yosemiter (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. —Lowellian (reply) 03:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. There's a reason Reginald Dwight redirects to Elton John, not the other way around. -- GentlemanGhost  (séance)  09:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Referred to as Joe Exotic, almost everywhere in the media. It's esentially a stage name, and should be treated as such. dmartin969  04:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow close It seems to me we can do a snow close of this discussion and make the suggested move. Lightburst (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we mention his single that he has released?
This year, a single titled ‘Here Kitty Kitty’ was released by him, alongside ricky retro. This could be mentioned in a section titled ‘Musical Career,’ if wanted. Sometaintedlove (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a section about his pseudo music career? Lightburst (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a fairly in-depth article about his music. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi all. Added a section: Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020
Joe Exotic got locked up in 2019 not 2020 2605:A000:1235:82E7:D987:3DB6:4369:D206 (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Categories
This page has been added to a whole slew of categories. Some seem spurious and/or potential violations of WP:SOAPBOX. Carguychris (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Has a credible source characterized Joe as a gun rights advocate? Yes, he often made a display of shooting stuff and flashing guns, and he ran for office as a Libertarian candidate, but I would argue that such acts don't make one a gun rights advocate per se. WP:NOR?
 * Yes, he engaged in scandalmongering about Carole Baskin, but similarly, does that make him a conspiracy theorist?
 * Is he considered to be from Oklahoma or Kansas?


 * Agreement with the above. Same goes for the American Libertarian category, he's an opportunist who went after the LP gubernatorial nomination because he thought he could get it, not because anyone considered him a serious Libertarian figure.  It also seems a stretch to have him in all these business-people categories, he was a zookeeper and entertainer which involved owning the business but it would seem to me that it require a little more than for the business-person categories for them to be meaningfully descriptive.  Nobody thinks "Oh, Joe Exotic, the businessman."  --Okcgunner (talk) 13:45, 7 april 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed in turn. Reliable sources treat his libertarianism and ownership of small businesses as incidental at most. Carguychris (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the libertarian aspect. If someone ran as a candidate for Governor in the Republican or Democratic party, would we question whether they were worthy of being considered a "real Republican" or a "real Democrat"? It seems to me that self-identification should be sufficient. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A counter example is Rand Paul, who is listed as an American libertarian despite being a Republican. But more like Joe Exotic is Joe Miller (Alaska politician), another person not listed as an American libertarian, despite being the Alaska LP Senate nominee in 2016.  This was opportunism similar to Exotic, with Miller endorsing Donald Trump instead of Gary Johnson and holding to his previous positions that are contrary to the Libertarian platform.  On his Twitter Miller identifies himself as the Alaska GOP nominee for US Senate in reference to his run in 2010, not mentioning the LP at all.  Lastly, Howard Stern is listed as an American libertarian based on his aborted 1994 NY gubernatorial campaign.  Stern's top issue was re-establishing the death penalty in NY, a position contrary to the LP platform, and was clearly a publicity stunt accomplished by having his fans pack the NY LP convention.  A search of the word libertarian at his website brings up two results about other people and Stern doesn't identify himself as libertarian while writing about them.  In my view, just because someone was registered or even ran under a particular party label once should not by itself mean they actually really identify themselves as such and it certainly doesn't mean that other people generally identify them that way.  --Okcgunner (talk) 14:04, 13 april 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, although I doubt we can find a direct source for it, in the docuseries his campaign manager outright says Joe doesn't even know what a libertarian is. So being an opportunist instead an actual prescriber of the party seems way more likely. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, the fact that someone was filmed saying something in a documentary is verifiable evidence that they said it. The documentary can be cited as a reliable source for such facts. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems possible that the use of the categories is insufficiently clear about whether being a libertarian refers to holding particular views about government and freedom, or alternative refers to being a member of a party that has that word in its name. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Timeline issue
"Travis Maldonado arrived at the zoo in December 2014, and just like Finlay, began a relationship with Schreibvogel within a month. Schreibvogel, Maldonado and Finlay were unofficially married in early 2014."

If Travis Maldonado didn't arrive at the zoo until December 2014, then it seems like a mistake to say the three were unofficially married in early 2014. 72.196.127.193 (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I checked the source that was cited nearby. It says Travis Maldonado arrived in December 2013, and the unofficial marriage was less than a month later, so in January 2014. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"Exotic" for short?
Twice someone has changed the article to consistently refer to him as "Exotic" (without a first name, e.g., in "Exotic worked at various jobs before opening a pet store with his brother Garold in Arlington, Texas, in 1986" and "In 2000, Exotic acquired his first tigers"). Does that seem OK? It strikes me as odd, partly because "Exotic" is not his surname and is not his stage name / nickname. (His nickname is "Joe Exotic", not "Exotic", as far as I know – as a shortened name, someone would probably call him "Joe" rather than "Exotic".) I also suspect that he has not had that nickname throughout his life, so it may be anachronistic to refer to what "Exotic" did in 1986 (since he was probably not "Exotic" yet at the time). —BarrelProof (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is strange to refer to him as exotic throughout the article. His nickname is an adjective which also complicates things. More appropriate to refer to him with his legal last name. Lightburst (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources shorten it to Exotic. It's not a description. "Exotic" is used as his surname, even if it's a nickname. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 18:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources seem mixed. The NBC and ABC articles that are cited refer to him as "Maldonado-Passage", not as "Exotic", when the first name is omitted. In my view, an encyclopedia should use a relatively formal tone. I suggest that the higher quality sources are the ones more likely to use "Maldonado-Passage" rather than "Exotic". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a well-documented date when he started using the Exotic alias? For what it's worth, the Dallas Morning News article refers to him as "Schreibvogel" until he opens the Oklahoma zoo. I used the name "Exotic" in my recent edits simply for the sake of consistency. For what it's worth, the Wikipedia article about one of the world's best-known historical figures to use an alias—Leon Trotsky—uses that name throughout the article, including his early years when he was still going by Bronstein. Carguychris (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * After scouring through the Wiki style guide, per WP:PSEUDONYM: "If people published under one or more pen names and/or their legal name, the name most frequently used in independent reliable sources ought to be selected." (This presumably also refers to instances where people choose pseudonyms for reasons other than publishing.) Multiple independent reliable sources refer to him as "Schreibvogel" prior to the opening of GW Zoo and "Exotic" afterwards. Thus, I think this is the proper use for his original surname within the article text. Carguychris (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple high-quality independent reliable sources refer to him as "Maldonado-Passage" when referring to him in recent years, so I suggest using that when the first name is omitted. In addition to NBC and ABC as I previously mentioned, The Dallas Morning News article and The Washington Post articles also use "Maldonado-Passage" and do not use "Exotic" by itself. I agree with using "Schreibvogel" for the period before his marriages to Maldonado and Passage. My understanding of Wikipedia's typical way of operating is that if someone wants to make a change, and there is disagreement, the prior article content is kept as it was. In this discussion so far, I have seen two of us who dislike using "Exotic" by itself and two who think it is desirable. Since the opinions are split, I think the article should revert to using "Maldonado-Passage" or "Schreibvogel" when "Joe" is omitted. Older drafts of the article, e.g., this one from before the RM was closed, do not use "Exotic" by itself. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Maldonado-Passage" As someone who has just read this story. I found "Maldonado-Passage" incredibly confusing since they are the surnames (and short names) of 2 other people mentioned in the article... Why not just use "Joe Exotic" Seriously. It's the title of the entire article. The story is already twisted enough without using the use of his most confusing alias. Joe Exotic seems like common sense given that every single press article uses that name. I only learned the name "Maldonado-Passage" when I read this article and had to re-read a paragragh to figure out who died in an accident since CLEARLY it wasn't joe exotic. JericVgilbert (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "Joe Exotic" is fine, at least for the period of time after he started using that name. The problem I see is the use of "Exotic" without "Joe". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I also found this article incredibly confusing. I don't really care which name you use for him, but can we please at least keep it consistent? ... also, please use sufficiently full names whenever there is a second individual with a very similar name, so that people know who is being talked about. The personal life section was particularly confusing. 82.5.43.129 (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes to improve the clarity – using "Joe Exotic" more, especially in the section discussing his relationships and marriages. I also added first names in the paragraphs where it is important to distinguish between people with similar surnames. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * His birth surname should be used before his marriages and his married/current legal surname after his marriages. cookie monster  (2020)  755  00:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Son Suggestion
In the infobox, Exotic has a son listed as Brandon Chappell. There is no mention of this son in the article (besides the infobox) and there is no citation. I tagged it with the citation needed template. cookie monster (2020)  755  00:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are two sources: https://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/smart-living/he-treated-his-son-worse-everything-we-know-about-joe-exotics-secret-son-brandon/ar-BB12AbdA https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/10/tiger-kings-joe-exotic-secret-son-feud-drove-apart-revealed-12537303/ —BarrelProof (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2021
Incorrectly reported that Joe was convicted of Animal Abuse. His charges are 8 Lacey Act violations and 9 Endangered Species Act violations. Those charges are not akin to being tried for Animal Abuse or cruelty which is it's own charge, and most of the violations have to do with incorrect paper work. Thank you! JEM1109 (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bestagon (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Occupation in infobox
I have blanked the Occupation field in the infobox because it's dubious to characterize Exotic as either a zoo operator or an animal rights activist. He no longer operates a zoo and seems unlikely to do so in the future, although his past operation of a zoo is certainly notable, so this may warrant inclusion. On the other hand, it's indisputable that he has acted against animal rights in the past, and his characterization as an animal rights activist seems to rest solely on recent statements that could have been made for purely self-interested reasons (i.e. to secure a pardon or early release). Carguychris (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Joe’s Name
Hey, Joe’s legal name is now Joe Exotic. He says so in the docuseries. I don’t have the rights to edit it but someone needs to get this updated To themax143 (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , We need a verifiable source showing that. Him saying it in the docuseries means nothing. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is obviously not true. If it was true, the legal documents, federal prison record, Department of Justice press release, etc. would list that as his name. They don't. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * His legal name is Joseph Allen Maldonado-Passage. cookie monster  (2020)  755  00:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW The name of the homosexual, novel-writing cook at the Bear Flag brothel, in John Steinbeck’s Sweet Thursday is Joe Elegant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44b8:3102:bb00:75c0:d84:4ad3:c12b (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Health section needed
I know it has yet to be mentioned by the press or on various internet websites, but I feel as though Joe's diagnosis of prostate cancer is notable enough to include in this biography. It already mentions that he was "suffering from an unverified medical condition". Additionally, I feel as though the information about his health problems (with or without the recent diagnosis being included) is not really relevant to his imprisonment, it should have its own section in the article.--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Joe's son
I have now reverted the addition of Joe Exotic's son's name to the infobox multiple times. As he is not involved in the subsequent narrative of Joe Exotic's life in any significant way, it is adequate to simply say that Exotic has a son; it is unnecessary to list his name here per WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. We should err on the side of privacy. Carguychris (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only that, Exotic himself has denied that he even has a son.--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguity
‘Born in Kansas in 1963, Exotic and his family moved to Texas, where he briefly served as the chief of police in Eastvale.’

This sentence reads as though Exotic became chief of police the same year he was born. It also links two unrelated ideas: his family moved to Texas, and therefore he became chief of police?--2001:44B8:3102:BB00:4161:1F1:D544:10FC (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Name was wildly inconsistent within the article. I have standardized to "Joe Exotic" or "Exotic"; please discuss here.
The subject's name ought to be standardized within the article (unless talking about when the name has changed). The subject is referred to as "Maldonado-Passage", "Schreibvogel", "Exotic", etc., in a way that makes the article extremely confusing to read. We need to pick a name and refer to the subject by the same name throughout the entirety of the article so we know who is being talked about. He is known professionally and by the public at large as "Joe Exotic", so I think we ought to just use that name and for now I have switched the references to "Exotic". If we decide on a different name, please just make sure to use the same name throughout the article. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that change. Please see the discussion section above that has the title Exotic' for short?". It is strange in several different ways to call him "Exotic" in the article.
 * He wasn't known as "Joe Exotic" until a later part of his career, so it is strange to refer to him by that nickname in the period before he used the nickname.
 * "Exotic" is not a surname. It is part of a pseudonym. The pseudonym is "Joe Exotic", not "Exotic". Reliable sources have been identified that refer to him by his actual surname rather than this fragment of a nickname.
 * Formal court proceedings and convictions and incarceration records use his actual name, not his nickname.
 * It seems informal and tabloidish to use the nickname so extensively.
 * —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for pointing out this discussion to me. However, I do not agree that we should be using the name "Joe" for part of the article. Using a first name is discouraged by the MOS guidelines, and it does not seem clear that was the name he frequently used then either. I also do not share your concern with the use of a pseudonym, as that is widely used in the sources, which is why it is reflected in the article title as the most common name. Using pseudonyms, including just the surname of it, is common practice on many article. If you want to change all the names to his real last name and you think the sources would support that change, then I would not object to that. For now, I have reverted the changes to "Joe" back to "Exotic". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also pinging in case they are interested in responding. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that referring to someone by only their first name is generally inappropriate on Wikipedia. However, this is about the "Early life" section. That makes a difference in two ways. One is that it is clearly about a period of his life in which he was not yet using the pseudonym. Also, that section discusses several people who all share the same surname, so in sentences that include discussion of him and his father and brother, if we refer to him as "Schreibvogel" it would not be clear which one of those people is being referred to. I believe it is relatively common to use first names in such "Early life" sections on Wikipedia for this reason. Also please note that in some places I switched the phrasing to use a pronoun, which should be less of an issue. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Occupation as Police Chief
In the introduction to this article it is stated that Joe briefly served as the chief of police for Eastvale. However, the wiki article for Eastvale says this is false. Neither have adequate sources, but the conflicting information should be updated. Thearkranger (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Early Life" section of this page references news stories from New York and The Dallas Morning News. Both state that he was police chief of Eastvale although his story about the car accident is disputed. Both sources are reputable mainstream news organizations that easily satisfy WP:RS, and Exotic was the subject of several Morning News stories long before the emergence of the Tiger King mythos. Carguychris (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point, I did not see those sources further down in Early Life. Seems like it is the Eastvale article that needs to be updated. Thearkranger (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you get to be Chief of Police immediately after leaving High School? America… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.215.236 (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Joe exotic released ?
Is joe exotic released from prison 170.103.89.157 (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No. --HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Joe Exotic Education
There is no evidence that Joe Exotic ever attended college. The article has been changed multiple times to state that he was enrolled at Iowa Wesleyan University, however, employees have searched the University's internal systems multiple times for each of Joe's names and have confirmed he never took classes or was otherwise enrolled. The only education he is known to have is Pilot Point High School. KHefner (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should be removed. Btw I apologise for saying I "supported Joe" in an edit here a month ago, I do not affiliate myself with anyone involved in Tiger King for obvious reasons. I love animals and as such don't support anyone convicted of abusing them.

A while ago, there was another dubious thing added to the article, the mention of Joe supposedly contacting Steve Irwin at one time. It got removed as it was unsourced. --HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Use of mug shots in objective articles
I dont think mug shots should be used as the main picture for any articles unless there are no better pictures, it presents the person in a rather non-objective light and condenses the entire article about a person to one about a criminal. Think of how gauche it would be if Britney Spears had a mug shot for her main article picture. 68.199.2.103 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)