Talk:Incidents at SeaWorld parks

The whale deserves its own page

After three deaths, the whale should get its own page. Maurreen (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the orca fails WP:PERPETRATOR guidelines. Shadowjams (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of that seems to be motivated by BLP concerns, which do not apply to an orca. -- Avenue (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Further, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual." Maurreen (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, considering that the whale is neither human nor a criminal, I don't see how WP:PERPETRATOR applies at all. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody made the article on March 1, but I had missed it. Maurreen (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am of the belief that Brancheau should be mentioned there on a permanent basis: we generally include the names of a killer's victims (if they are public knowledge) in the killer's article. In this article, which is about a lot of unrelated incidents, not all of which are lethal, the names of the victims have a degree less relevance. However, while the story (and the name of the victim(s)) are actively in the news, it is reasonable to include the names here.--Father Goose (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Accordingly, I have redirected Dawn Brancheau there.--Father Goose (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated previously - no issue with the victim's name appearing on a page that is dedicated to the incident. If the incident is notable enough to have it's own page, then feel free to name drop. If that is a page that is dedicated to the incident, then Father Goose has my support in his actions.SpikeJones (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. At least the redirect will make sense no matter the eventual conclusion here. Gigs (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no it's not fine with me. It seems we have the same two editors censoring her name over there as well. Gigs (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, the includes outnumber the excludes in the RfC above, so putting the name in should be fine. Who keeps removing it? Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to outnumbering them, on the merits of the case, our argument is stronger: The issue is whether the name is "relevant to the content." Nearly ever source uses her name. So in the judgment of almost every WP:RS, the name is relevant. Therefore it belongs in the entry. --Nbauman (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Orca-related articles

Thought this would be helpful to indicate some of the different articles that may need to be updated whenever an Orca incident occurs or new information about an existing incident comes to light:

• Captive orcas#Issues with captivity
• Incidents at SeaWorld parks (or other appropriate amusement park incident article, if applicable)
• List of captive orcas
• Orca attacks on humans
• Shamu (SeaWorld show)
• SeaWorld
• Tilikum (orca)

Hope this helps. SpikeJones (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

1999 Death

"On July 6, 1999, a 27-year-old man was found floating naked in the pool of the killer whale named Tilikum. The man had died of hypothermia[16]. He had visited SeaWorld the previous day, stayed after the park closed, and evaded security to enter the Orca tank.[17] Investigators determined that the man, either before or after death, had been bitten by Tilikum."

Citations 16 & 17 link to articles that report on the February 24, 2010 incident. Also, there is no citation for the last claim that the man had been bitten.

--Sonicboom90187 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

They will be removed, thanks for catching it. --A3RO (mailbox) 16:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)