Talk:Tilikum (orca)/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Reason For History Merge Request

The previous article Tilikum was up for WP:AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tilikum and was merged on minor consensus in a mass deletion discussion into List_of_captive_orcas#Tilikum. The recent indecent at Sea World prompted a split from that page to the new location at Tilikum (orca) Therefore I feel the History Merge is need form the old article to continue with the new split article. Also note that Tilikum (whale) redirects to List_of_captive_orcas#Tilikum and probably should be changed to the new page. You can see the last version of the Tilikum article before merger at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tilikum&oldid=270214351 Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 10:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree I think that this would be helpful, to show the history of the main points of the page. A p3rson (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree I concur. I think many details of the prior article would prove useful and merger is appropriate. Ricegator (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree yeah that sounds good.--155.214.128.4 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate

Is there any idea what year this whale was born? Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You may have missed this, but the article already addresses this matter of birth under the section Captivity, stating that "Tilikum was captured near Iceland in November 1983 at about two years of age." So, it would be impossible to know when the whale was actually born, since it occurred in the wild. Skol fir (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is infobox for notable, individual animals, but if there is his estimated birth date should probably be included in there. Cla68 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at other "notable" animals in Wikipedia and found none with infoboxes. However, the birthdate, if known, is often included right at the top in parentheses. In this case, we could just put in parentheses "birthdate unknown, est. 1981." Skol fir (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tommy Lee

Firstly, TMZ doesn't "report" anything except for noise. Secondly, Tommy Lee should stick to being Pamela's "chief sperm bank," because SeaWorld has already responded to this stupid letter. --blm07 04:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

His letter doesn't seem that stupid given that there is a youtube video of sea world employees masturbating killer whales for sperm here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIU2-m_Vc7U Can't see how this could be accomplished without being in the water- they may not be submerged, but neither was Dawn when Tilikum grabbed her... In fact there probably should be some sort of rebuttal to Sea World's statements as the original statement about the cow vaginas by Tommy Lee actually originated with one of their own employees John Hall, as quoted in this article: http://outsideonline.com/outside/culture/201007/killer-whale-behavior-trainer-death-seaworld.html?imw=Y

Why should anyone listen to what a celebrity has to say? Is he a genius when it comes to cow vaginas? All hail Tommy Lee, master of the cow vagina. --blm07 23:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think Tommy Lee is a credible source, and when I read his letter I thought it sounded ridiculous- however those claims actually originate from a Sea World employee as referenced above. Plus the Youtube video, it makes Sea World's statement to the contrary that trainers, '"do not now, nor have they ever entered the water with Tilikum for this purpose,"' a mendacity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.252.66 (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

the aggression section

The two pieces on whale aggression appear to paint a specific portrait of the Tilikum issues, when in essence those pieces are general in term. I would be hesitant to include those two refs on this page - perhaps placed on the List of captive orcas page instead, which is more generalized, than on this page which is specific to a single orca? SpikeJones (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the very reason I included these two references was already mentioned in the discussion under the heading Talk:Tilikum (orca)#intentional? I quote, in reference to one of the references: "The reason for adding this reference above is 1) to corroborate the interpretation that Tilikum pulled in the trainer, and 2) to provide further information that would explain Tilikum's dangerous streak, as he is a "transient" rather than a "resident" type of killer whale. Skol fir (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)."

The second reference is also specifically linked to the Tilikum story because it was written precisely to address this recent aggression by Tilikum, to try to explain why a killer whale would turn from a playful, docile creature one minute to a vicious predator targeting humans the next. I think that both references were never intended to be general at all. They were written precisely for this incident alone, otherwise, one could go to a general survey of killer whale behaviour, which would not specifically inform us about Tilikum's recent misadventure.

Skol fir (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but try reading as a casual observer - you don't want to imply a direct cause-and-effect if these are merely opinion pieces of what *may* have happened.SpikeJones (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure we are reading the same references. Neither of these authors is taking a side on the issue. Both articles (Time Mag. and the MSNBC blog) use numerous informed sources to back up their statements, so there is no bias, merely a presentation of the facts as we know them. It is up to the intelligent reader to think for himself and judge what should be done next.

I think it is necessary to inform readers that aggression exists, and then decide for themselves if the evidence is strong enough to explain what happened at SeaWorld. If someone has an alternate view to balance this evidence with stories of how killer whales are just like pet dogs or cats, then they are welcome to put them in. I thought Wikipedia is for presenting the facts and letting the readers connect the dots. I never used the words "cause-and-effect", and never made a direct connection between this event and the aggressive potential of killer whales. The reader must make that link himself. As the first reference states "Of course, plenty of killer whales live in captivity and never do anything like what Tilikum has done. What was it about this particular whale's experiences or environment at SeaWorld that led to the swish of a ponytail sparking such violence?" Notice the question mark. Skol fir (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not disputing that aggression exists. Just the appearance of these cites in *this* article, making it look like the cites are applicable to only one orca and just this incident - when in reality the cites apply to all captive orcas (in other words, the info is better suited for a more general orca article than it is here). SpikeJones (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ on putting this information in a general article about orcas in captivity, because Tilikum is a special case. He was removed from his family and pod near Iceland at two years of age (first trauma); belonging to a different group called "transients" that do not communicate the same way as "residents"; put under great stress in an environment that restricts movement when he would naturally be adapted to constant changes in the environment; the history of this killer whale is very unusual—in fact, no other killer whale has the same history of violence. It begs the question: why do other killer whales function adequately under the same conditions? If we ignore the question, we do so at our own peril, and put at risk the dedicated trainers who love what they are doing, and do it extremely well. Skol fir (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We do not include or exclude information in WP in order to support a particular point of view. I question why you would *not* want to include it in a general article on orcas in captivity, as the info applies to all. Yes, Tilikum has a history, but should not be solely singled out as being the only one with these tendencies. Post the info in the general article, and link to it from here. Anyone doing research on orcas in captivity would sure to be interested, and may not find the info if it is only placed here. SpikeJones (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That being said, if you think that no one wants to hear the truth about the aggressive side of these killer whales, placed under the stress of captivity, then go ahead and hide this evidence in a general article that no one will visit. That will definitely favor the SeaWorld enterprise, and would be just as much of a bias, if not more. Skol fir (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said delete the info. Just that it is misplaced by appearing here, and makes it look like Tilikum is the only one who may suffer (he may be the most extreme case, but he's not the only one). With regards to eliminating bias, you should try to include both sides of the discussion if possible. SpikeJones (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To relate specifically to Tilikum, I found a most enlightening and refreshing article on what should be done next. It is available at What’s best for "Tilikum" now, and what have we learned? I think that would be good addition to the section on aggression, to make people realize that the time has come for honest and serious debate on this issue. Skol fir (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're trying to link Tilikum to aggression by introducing data on aggression, that would seem to be WP:SYNTH. If we're not trying to link Tilikum to aggression, then it's hard to see what place that material has in this article. Putting material in the wrong article because you want people to see that material is not the Wikipedia way. About the most I can see doing this is to say that "so-and-so theorized that the attack may have been due to yadda", but then we have questions of whether giving that opinion focus may be WP:UNDUE. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have moved all the information on "aggression" to the general article on Captive orcas. Furthermore, I added a statement from the point of view of SeaWorld which could be expanded upon to add a balanced view. I am personally not on either side of the issue, since I actually enjoyed watching dolphins perform in Florida and saw nothing wrong with it. I have attended zoos, circuses, and marine aquariums without making a fuss. It is not about right and wrong, it is about an open and honest discussion so that we can move forward on this issue. I am an open-minded person and would never stoop to derive C from A+B. I am too logical for that :) Skol fir (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's use big dangerous animals for silly childish shows and expect all to be well. Then, when things go very wrong, (what a surprise!), we'll debate endlessly about irrelevant details. 109.178.22.137 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what is the verification for Sealand's training methods, i.e. food deprivation? I see no citation for that, so where did that information come from? Although Sealand is long gone, it seems to be a rather unfair castigation on the still existing company if in fact this is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.213.194 (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed, no consensus to move to Tilikum Mike Cline (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Tilikum (orca) → Tilikum – Primary topic. 294 page views (boat), 14,193 (orca). Marcus Qwertyus 03:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think it's the most encyclopedic usage. Per decision at Avatar, encyclopedic usage trumps primary usage, when determining which article should sit at primary name. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have a hard time believing boat is more encyclopedic than whale. It's like saying an orange is more educational than an apple. Marcus Qwertyus 05:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• And since when is encyclopedia an adjective? Dictionaric? Marcus Qwertyus 05:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Merriam-Webster: encyclopedic -- 1824 -- not up on recent words? 65.94.77.11 (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as it meets WP:NOT, it is encyclopedic. Encyclopedic on Wikipedia only refers to whether a topic merits an article on Wikipedia or whether it just gets an entry on Wiktionary. Marcus Qwertyus 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See the talk archives for Talk:Avatar, where discussion over popculture, "encyclopedic"-ness is reviewed, where what is more scholarly is discussed. I don't think the whale is the most scholarly, most encyclopedic usage of the term. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Que es mas macho: lightbulb o schoolbus?" —Tamfang (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support I looked at the discussion at Avatar, but there is something different. Avatar, as presented in that article, is not a proper name, while Tilikum is, and it's the proper name of two different entities, both of which are notable. A more parallel example would be for The Fox and the Hound, which is the Disney animated film, and The Fox and the Hound, which is the Daniel P. Mannix novel upon which the Disney film is based. The film article removes the expected (film) modifier because it's the more well-known work of the two. In this case, Tilikum the orca is more well-known than Tilikum the ship. --McDoobAU93 16:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trainer name

I see some deleting of the trainer's name in the third instance claiming ongoing discussion and prior consensus. I see none of that here. Is there some reason for this deletion? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a couple editors who believe the trainer's name should be censored. There's a discussion at Talk:Incidents at SeaWorld parks and there's definitely no consensus to exclude the names from this article. Gigs (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I believe there is a clear majority in the RfC. I just readded the name. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree too, as while this is tragic, so are a great deal of other awful events across history that are documented on WP. We do not remove names when known, otherwise articles would be absent of factual info concerning the topic, defeating the purpose of the site – hence why it's very clearly against WP editing policy. Jimthing (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Tilikum was first assigned to Sealand of the Pacific

Tilikum was first assigned to Sealand of the Pacific.

This seems to be an awkward statement. Tilikum, I believe was owned by Sealand of the Pacific, he was not just assigned there. Which would mean Sealand either purchased him from another party, acquired Tilikum on their own, or hired a third party to capture him. However, the only information I can find is that he was sold to Seaworld after the first incident involving Tilikum. Is there better wording we can use? VViking_TalkEdits 05:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's going to be tough to find another source about his ownership at Sealand, but stating the animal "was assigned" gives it humanistic traits. This continues throughout the article especially in the infobox as it lists "employed by".X3799 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph includes a cited sentence that is only a fragment. It is " As a way to express his anger and frustration of abuse from both the other orca's and the sea world trainers." I presume this cites articles suggesting his behaviour has been speculated by some to be an expression of anger/frustration. Sentence has been modified accordingly, but please check to see if this appears to be an accurate reflection of what the sentence is intended to communicate.Jfang86 (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Speculation and who suggests? What scientific evidence do they have. Not lede worthy. VViking_TalkEdits 15:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Would generally agree that it's not lede-worthy, however the inclusion of the reference was not my decision. I noticed the sentence as it stood made no sense, so expanded the sentence based on the citations, assuming that the decision that reference to this point was lede-worthy had already taken place elsewhere. Jfang86 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Second Death, List of Injuries

The cited autopsy report for Daniel Dukes reads "avulsion of the skin of the pubic area including the scrotal sac and testis [...]". In english, this means that the pubis was ripped open and apart. The autopsy report also includes a reference that the pants crotch was torn; meaning the injury occurred through the clothing. I am recommending that some reference to this injury be made in this article summary. I am not recommending this to be ghoulish but because the incredibly violent nature of the injury is vital to understanding the extent of Tilikum's violent behavior. Leaving this information out and providing readers only with an understanding of the contusions and drowning can provide a vastly different notion of Tilikum's actions. I hesitate to do this however because of the nature of the injury and out of sympathy for Mr Dukes' family. I would greatly appreciate feedback from other editors before proceeding. Jaydubya93 (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE I just finished the ME's report on the third death, Ms. Brancheau. With this case as well a more accurate accounting of injury should be presented, particularly in her case given the rumors surrounding her case that she "slipped and fell". The report is available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34026913/Dawn-Brancheau-Autopsy-Report and lists, in plain English, that her left arm was completely severed as was her scalp. These are *extremely* violent injuries and understanding that casts the entire series of events in a different light than simple drowning. Jaydubya93 (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should contain information from reliable sources, without being massaged to create various "notions" and "understandings" that an editor wants to impart; that simply is not an appropriate role for WP editors. -- Jibal (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Official autopsy reports are reliable, quotable, primary sources. Here is the Daniel Dukes autopsy report: [1]. It's been used and quoted in Killer whale attacks on humans; I see no reason it and the uncensored Brancheau autopsy report shouldn't be used in this article. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Food deprivation at SeaLand

The sentence Sealand of the Pacific utilized food deprivation motivation as part of their training methods, and food was withheld from Tilikum when he did not respond to trainer instructions., is a gross, a very gross, manipulation of the two citations used as source. The first source, from CNN isn't even a source at all, but a page that CNN apparently devotes to its Blackfish articles and stories, but nothing on the surface that confirms that Tikikum was deprived food as a punishment. The second source from a non reliable source is comes from an interview with a former SeaWorld trainer who not only doesn't say that Tikikum was denied food as punishment, but who worked at SeaWorld not Sealand of the Pacific. The article needs reliable sources per WP:RS, which is a core content policy.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of RS issues with this article starting with Document shown in Blackfish film. "The Orca Project" which can be used to state their opinion but not fact, since it is an advocacy website therefore not neutral, and anything attributed to Zimmermann. Again these can be used to state opinion but not facts. Do we know for certain they used food deprivation? Or is it stated by others in a 2nd hand or 3rd hand account. VViking_TalkEdits 16:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Page Creation

Soap Boxing VVikingTalkEdits 10:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Page created after the great notoriety gained by this orca following the February 24, 2010, incident at Sea World Orlando. Here is the discussion on the talk page for "list of captive orcas" following that event: Help him he does not disrve to be there he is kept there like a prosiner and he needs help to get out. PLEASE ANY ONE HELP HIM!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.76.159 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Tilikum now needs his own page. He is currently the single most popular search entry on Yahoo, for example. [Beating out the olympics, hollywood stars - everything.] While his notoriety will fade in time, it is clear that his relevance to any discussion of orcas in captivity has, for unfortunate reasons, just escalated dramatically. Given the number of visits that new page will likely get over the next couple of weeks, I'd prefer someone with more experience than I take on the challenge of starting the new page up.Ricegator (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Support ... he has become notable enough to stand on his own, I would think. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Comment: If you do this, please add {Amusement park accidents} to that page's footer. SpikeJones (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the support, McDoob - your concurrence is sufficient for me to boldly attempt the feat. SpikeJones, I concur and will add the suggested link. Ricegator (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Thus this page was started. The assistance of any and all to help clean/revise/improve is sought and hoped for. Ricegator (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sea World paragraph

I don't understand the following sentence: "Although SeaWorld Orlando, Florida, in the United States, allows water work with some of their whales, Tilikum has always been an exception, due to his massive size and involvement in fatality at Sealand of the Pacific and later at Seaworld." Tilikum is the exception to what? He has clearly been used in water work. --Girl2k (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It just means that whereas with their other whales trainers perform in the water with them, they don't with Tilikum because of his size and his history. douts (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on reading the literature, Douts is correct. That said, public confusion was not helped by the linguistically perverse usage of "dry work" to define work in which trainers were restricted to being in "only" up to 12 inches deep water. This could easily have been called "platform" work (the trainer was on a fixed platform at the edge of the pool) - but it wasn't, it was "dry work". FeatherPluma (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Film info should appear.

The Blackfish film focuses on THIS exact animal, hence it should have a paragraph on THIS page to give some detail of it's content. It's no good just offering a link to the film with no context to what the film is about on this page, given it's content is intrinsically about the topic of this page. The basic paragraph added gives such info, succinctly, and without colouring an angle or POV on it's content or views contained – as is appropriate, per WP policy. Jimthing (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is with a full paragraph on this film we doing a diservice and causing a possible fork. A sentence or two with the link to the film is enough. VViking_TalkEdits 23:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur that it should be included AND trimmed down to a sentence or two. The same edit has also been attempted on Captive Orcas article. How many people who come to this article are going to be looking for answers to the following questions:

• What film festival hosted the premiere of a documentary on captive orcas?
• What was the date of the film festival premiere?
• What channel did the documentary appear on in the UK?
• On what date could a BBC viewer first see the documentary?
• Was the appearance on BBC part of a long running documentary series?
• What was the name of said documentary series?

DouglasCalvert (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jimthing. In seeing the movie, this animal is not only the primary protagonist but also the impetus for its creation. This article should have more info about the film, despite it having its own article. One wouldn't insist that Oskar Schindler have only "a sentence or two" about Schindler's List for fear of "doing a diservice and causing a possible fork". It's the exact same equation. GreaseballNYC (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, there is plenty in this article about a documentary. I know other things exist and we cannot make every article the same, however as an example. Columbine High School has exactly 0 references to Bowling for Columbine, and the Columbine High School Massacre has about 4 sentences on that documentary. McDonalds has exactly 2 sentences in it mentioning Super Size Me. We have given Blackfish due weight in this article. VViking_TalkEdits 01:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you've made that clear in your first comment. Reiterating your same points which were considered doesn't strengthen your argument. GreaseballNYC (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of information from Blackfish fails the "good research" test of WP:NPOV. The film is quite clearly biased towards its chosen agenda, and does not rise to "best and most reputable authoritative sources" available for discussion. It has sufficient mention now; more info will simply invite more POV-pushing on both sides of the discussion. --McDoobAU93 03:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. GreaseballNYC (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly Blackfish may (or may not) have issues, but it doesn't fail any actual objective "good research" test of WP:NPOV. It instead fails a pro-SeaWorld sniff test. In the real world, the opinions in Blackfish have prevailed. Sometimes, when it's just "off", the answer is to sniff the sniff test. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to Hypothermia as cause of death

First of all multiple reliable secondary sources state that the cause of death was a "combination of drowning and hypothermia" Sentinel, [2] NY Times and [3] BBC news to name a few. Therefore it is correct to say he died from hypothermia, however we should probably add drowning as well.

Off topic comments that have been made include concerning how Hypothermia is a "convenient excuse." I don't know if you realize this but the water for the Killer Whales is approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature, while it probably won't cause unconsciousness for about 30 minutes, maybe less when the individual is only wearing swimming trunks and weighs 150 pounds, however it can immediately cause confusion and disorientation. Leading to the inability of the individual to realize the way out of the pool. I'm not saying Tilikum did not bite or cause injury to the individual before death. Tilikum is not used to people being in the water with him, he was not conditioned to people in the water. That is not the point the point that is being made is cause of death. Our secondary sources say drowning and hypothermia. VViking_TalkEdits 14:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Viewmont Viking: Your NY Times and BBC references are both deadlinks. 2 out of 3. They don't go to articles, they go to "Page Not Found." If you want them to be taken seriously, please find specific links, so we can weigh their language properly. As you know, D.D.'s autopsy report is readily available, and it doesn't say hypothermia, it says drowning (as the primary cause). It provides 3 pieces of compelling evidence for that conclusion. And it mentions trauma. But not hypothermia. The evidence in the autopsy is scientific and irrefutable - the information is evidentiary. The reliability of the autopsy report far exceeds 2 deadlinks and a poorly researched throw-away piece from the Sentinel. The Sentinel author conveys that he isn't even sure: your source says, "He apparently died of a combination of drowning and hypothermia, the Orange County medical examiner said." The time line on when the OCME said this (not a written report) is not specified -- was this pre-autopsy? - we don't know. (Yes, the piece is post-autopsy, but we don't know what information was used to come to the "apparent" assertion.) What we do know is that Jim Solomons of OCSO initially issued a verbal statement after Dawn Brancheau's death, that she "apparently fell or slipped into the pool", and that Dan Brown, President of Orlando parks, was then invited to speak by Solomons, and that Brown indicated that 2 other SeaWorld people were with him, which allows us to place the OCSO spokesperson as probably having obtained his initial verbally-stated "apparently" impression from these 3 people before the press announcement. And, no, that didn't stand scrutiny in the long run did it? That's why Solomons said, "Apparently." (No, that's not off-topic either - it's an assessment of sources, and a fair-minded example of how problems can happen.) I am well aware that the habitat water is kept cool. And I am also very well aware that this was mid-Florida in mid-July. So as a matter of commonsense it would be exceptionally hard to die from hypothermia if he got out of the pool. Or if he even got half his body out of the water. But he drowned. But when you drown you don't get out of the pool. You say, the cold water (your source manages to use "frigid", which may be a slip that betrays the original potential bias) "probably won't cause unconsciousness for about 30 minutes" but you then go on to hypothesize confusion etc. What matters is the autopsy states, "DROWNING" (source's capitalization). Occam's razor would say drowning. What I see is that you have given us one source that it maybe involved hypothermia as well. Your edit summaries and the information you placed in the article selected "hypothermia" and made no mention of "drowned" and only now, when you are called on it, are you willing to concede it might be "drowning and hypothermia". It is most certainly not an "off-topic" comment to say that "hypothermia" is a "convenient excuse" - you made the deliberate editorial decision to select one prong of your own source and you made an editorial decision not to quote the other prong of your own source. You had been insisting on painting an incorrect picture whereby you suggested that the sources necessarily imply that the primary cause of death was the frigid water causing hypothermic confusion and that he then drowned. As such, "hypothermia" is an excuse (that was a polite euphemism.) FeatherPluma (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC) (subsequent edit: FeatherPluma (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC))

I clicked all three of the links and all of them worked for me actually. Still, the autopsy report just says that the cause of death was drowning, so I'm guessing it's a case of sloppy journalism.*Treker (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @*Treker: - now they worked for me too - if you notice in the edit history list, they were quietly fixed in the interval, but you have to go to the history to find that (no response here). What I now see is 3 reports that use rather similar wording. These sources may not be properly independent of each other, but be essentially mirroring each other. This matters, because if nobody did actual fact checking, or more likely just relied on an initial verbal press conference impression, the sources merely mirror the initial error. But actually it's not even as good as that: the BBC says, "The post mortem revealed that Mr Dukes suffered instant hypothermia the moment he hit the water and subsequently drowned." But the autopsy doesn't say that, so the BBC is demonstrably wrong. Your characterization of this as sloppy journalism would appear to be fair. Commonsense finds "instant hypothermia" to probably be an example of Chinese whispers, even if cold water can on occasion induce cardiac dysrrhythmias. The BBC preceded the instant hypothermia theory with, "The manner of Daniel Dukes' death in July this year is a mystery." The NYT source says, "A medical examiner said that Mr. Dukes suffered hypothermia and drowned." Note, as critiqued above, the use of "said". I think it's fair to conclude from the sources that the article should either state that "he drowned" (autopsy, which would be what I would think is the definitive written source we should rely on) or that "he may have died of a combination of drowning and hypothermia" (if we decide to give some weight to the other refs). I am not comfortable with the idea that he "died of hypothermia" - that's not neutral, as the sources do not in fact support that properly, only being capable of being taken that way with utmost naivete. That the BBC and NYT are typically deemed generally reliable is only one component of assessing the specific sources properly (per guidelines). FeatherPluma (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Viewmont Viking: I reviewed the article's edit history. I discovered you yourself removed "hypothermia" on Feb 8, 2015 with an edit summary that said it was based on the autopsy. Maybe you forgot, it's certainly possible. Anyway, I edit for pleasure, to get to know about topics in detail, and my attention span is maxed on this theme. I have a comment about the absence of content about the initial way in which this orca was taken, which I will place above in the section "Orca was hunted", where you have a previous comment. You can choose to modify the text I added to the article or not. I think I am done with this article. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Orca was hunted

Editors have reverted my factual additions that this animal was hunted and other matters. It is plainly non-pov fact that it was hunted. It was not detained for its own protection, or arrested whilst engaged in an attack, or any other circumstance in which it was captured. Therefore, I will make this point here, and then take it to a wider body of editors who can consider the facts. Bluehotel (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Issues with your "factual" additions. "Claimed ownership", according to the laws at the time and currently in Canada and United States his ownership was Sealand of the pacific. To say otherwise is a POV statement, hinting that there is something neferious and ownership was not actual. The addition of "captive orca hierarchy" is also POV since in the wild most animals also have a Social Hierarcy, including Killer Whales. This statement is trying to lean the reader to the fact that he was low on the social ladder because he was a captive orca. It was probably more to do with size, or being outnumbered. But Social hierarchis happen not just in captivity. Do you series think named by Humans in NPOV. We name animals in the wild, we name animals doing research we name our pets, named by humans seems to be trying to make it sound like evil humans gave them names. Of course we (as in people in general) gave them names. Everything around you has been named by humans, the name Killer Whale was given to them by humans, the name ocean, given to the ocean by humans. Please read WP:NPOV. VViking_TalkEdits 13:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am placing "Tilikum was captured when two years old, along with two other young orcas, by a purse-seine net in November 1983, off Berufjördur, Iceland. After almost a year in a concrete holding tank at a zoo in Reykjavik, he was transferred to...." (sourced to Zimmermann 2011) in the text, along with some other minor modifications. Feel free to edit the addition, which attempts to briefly touch on the relevant known facts neutrally. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

ORIGINS

This article doesn't discuss how he was acquired. It doesn't mention how he was taken from his family and his parents actually followed the boat and fishermen who captured him for miles while crying for him. Are you afraid to post the facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.88.31.190 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is a reliable and unbiased source that provides this information, then it certainly should be in the article. Fair warning: Blackfish doesn't qualify as reliable. --McDoobAU93 13:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Several sources attest to this - but I have no doubt whatsoever that we would be fisked to distraction even if four or five of these sources were lined up and presented. And frankly it's time to say "no" - I personally have had enough of this whole theme and I am moving on. People bizarrely argue in an edit summary that "the trespassing man died of hypothermia". This doesn't correspond to the OHSA report, which says that we don't know the exact sequence, and also points out the severe blunt force trauma confirmed at autopsy. Hypothermia is a convenient excuse, a theme that the judge properly pointed to marching down through the SeaWorld approach time after time, including some utter rubbish about ponytails the SeaWorld expert essentially made up (read the court case) that the OSHCR AJL threw out as unsubstantiated conjecture of no weight. Which is why we are where we are today, since March 2016, with a program that is now thankfully coming to a gradual and definitive end over the lifespan of the current cohort of orcas. That's what matters. We retrospectively now know this whole thing was a mistake, which we didn't know back at first, but damn it took SeaWorld a long time to learn, they were still trying to shape the argument into 2014. I started fairly neutral about the topic in general, but I must say anybody reading the various books and the OHSA court case, and watching SeaWorld's spokesman's first comments on things ("slipped and fell into the pool" - !!!) cannot but find SeaWorld to have been sadly self-delusional. Given that this is a talk page, we can freely say with good conscience that Blackfish is 100% more reliable than the self-serving twaddle SeaWorld put out over the years. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Blackfish may not be an objective source but I definitely believe it more than Seaworld. The idea that the treaspaing man died hypothermia seems very fishy. So he just ended up in the pool and stayed there until he froze to death and the dolphin didn't start playing with the body until after he had died. Am I supposed to believe that? The animal has had an history of hurting other humans, why would we assume it was any different this time, especially with the raport?*Treker (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the place for general discussion. Perhaps Twitter would be a better place for your opinions on the situation otherwise the talk pages are for article improvement discussions. JOJ ^Hutton 03:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: Really? Really, you want to suggest I didn't give "on task commentary"? Because here's my Technicolor Twitter "opinion", fully on task (see the initial question):

1. About Namu: "He towed the orca, which he named Namu, 450 miles back to Seattle in a custom-made floating pen. Namu's family pod—twenty to twenty-five orcas—followed most of the way... ... Namu was often heard calling to other orcas from his pen in the sea, and he died within a year from an intestinal infection, probably brought on by a nearby sewage outflow."

2. About the legality of taking these orcas: "In 1972 the Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibited the taking of marine mammals in U.S. waters, but SeaWorld continued to receive killer-whale-capture permits under an educational-display exclusion. In March 1976 Goldsberry pushed his luck and the limits of public opinion. He sighted a group of killer whales in the waters just off Olympia, Washington's state capital. In full view of boaters—and just as the state legislature was meeting to consider creating a Puget Sound killer whale sanctuary—he used seal bombs and boats to chase six orcas into his nets at Budd Inlet. Ralph Munro, an aide to Governor Dan Evans, was out on a small sailboat that day and remembers the sight. "It was gruesome as they closed the net. You could hear the whales screaming," Munro recalls. "Goldsberry kept dropping explosives to drive the whales back into the net.""

3. About Icelandic takings: "The state of Washington filed a lawsuit, contending that Goldsberry and SeaWorld had violated permits that required humane capture, and as the heat and publicity built, SeaWorld agreed to release the Budd Inlet killer whales and to stop taking orcas from Washington waters. With the Puget Sound hunting grounds closing, Goldsberry flew around the world looking for other good capture sites. He settled on Iceland, where killer whales were plentiful. By October 1976, SeaWorld's first Icelandic orca had been captured."

4. About Tilikum: "In November 1983, in the cold, rough waters off Berufjördur, an Icelander named Helgi Jonasson drew a large purse-seine net around a group of killer whales. Three young animals—two males and a female—were captured and transported to the Hafnarfjördur Marine Zoo, near Reykjavik. There they were placed in a concrete holding tank. The smaller male, who was about two years old and just shy of 11.5 feet, would remain there for almost a year, awaiting transfer to a marine park. In the pool he could either cruise slowly in circles or lie still on the surface."

Do you have anything to say about the question of why Blackfish is so boldly dismissed as demonstrably and objectively "unreliable"? Which part, exactly, of Wikipedia's definition of reliable does it fail? Do you have anything you want to say about bombing these orcas to drive them into the nets? Do you have anything to say in defence of getting around U.S. law by going to Iceland, and taking them unwitnessed, and then leaving the orca in a concrete holding tank for almost a year? Sure, let's stay on task and comment on the initial question in this section, right here. Do you have any objection to the essential elements of the above reference going into the article? Do you think this content or the long list of names of his artificially inseminated offspring is more to the point as to what is culturally going on? Do you have anything you want to say to get out of the logic hole you just took yourself into? This is one source, there are several others. All this under the auspices of an "educational scientific exclusion permit"? FeatherPluma (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: And by discussing whether a source is reliable or not and what explanations of events should be used I feel like I'm contributing to the articles content.

I didn't go on a save the whales rant I made an argument for why the hypothermia explanation shouldn't be used because it comes from an organisation which isn't reliable and that it is pretty unbelievable when examined compared to evidence found on the body and the fact that animals which have shown aggressive behaviour in the past are likely to do so again.

I don't enjoy being made fun of for attempting to involve myself in a discussion about an article and I don't appreciate editors who tell others to go and whine on Twitter, (I doubt anyone would). Which honesty is pretty immature in my opinion. Maybe next time if you're really attempting to to tell someone about wikipedia guidelines try to be a little more polite about it. That usually goes a long way compared to telling someone to leave and complain somewhere else.*Treker (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This section, as the previous section, both raise the legitimate question of why the orca's origins were not in the article. The edit history shows that this has been added and redacted and tweaked on numerous occasions. And that ultimately, for obscure reasons, it was removed altogether. I added brief, referenced, neutral content to address the issue. Feel free to edit the addition. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Dawn Brancheau image

Dawn Brancheau on orca at SeaWorld Orlando in 2006

I added this image to the Tilikum_(orca)#Third_death section. It was reverted by User:McDoobAU93 with the comment: No proof this is victim, no proof it is Tilikum, no relation to incident. I agree that there is no direct relation to the incident. However, this is Dawn Brancheau - the photographer says it is, which is all the proof we are using for all the images in this article. The photographer doesn't say this is Tilikum, true, but we are not asserting that. It is, however, an excellent photo of the victim doing what she loved, interacting with an orca, so an appropriate image for this section. --GRuban (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

But is it appropriate to describe the incident, which is the section in which it is added? In my opinion, no, as it seems to be more intended as a memorial to the victim, which is something Wikipedia is not. --McDoobAU93 18:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Brancheau, an orca trainer, was killed by Tilikum, an orca, at SeaWorld Orlando. The photo is of Brancheau, acting as an orca trainer, on an orca (not necessarily Tilikum), at SeaWorld Orlando. Seems to hit most - not all, but most - of the necessary points to describe the section. Compared to the appropriateness of the other images in the article, seems to easily reach their level. --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I probably have a dozen or so pictures that could meet this criteria, that does not mean they should all go into the article. I don't really see how it improves the article.VViking_TalkEdits 20:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What we can actually say from reading the literature is it isn't Tilikum, who was not included in "wet work" only in "dry work", defined as having the handler be in up to 12 inches of water, rather than full immersion. Yes, the definition of "dry work" is odd, part of the language of self-delusion and flawed circular logic (not my terms - what the court concluded) that overwhelms you when you read the OHSA reports and the OSHCR court case. The argument that wikipedia is not a memorial is being used, perhaps unintentionally, to obscure the full brunt of how dangerous wet work was, and how "dry work" was less so, but still extremely hazardous. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It is also quite problematic that the only aspect that a certain brand of editor can grasp hold of is the death incident in a narrow isolated way. That this was dangerous, talented, hard work by athletic people who were working year after year to bring to the public what they saw as valuable, edifying and uplifting efforts to choreograph the power and capability of these animals is completely unappreciated, and hence the misplaced angst over the 2006 byline. FeatherPluma (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

intentional?

do we have a good source for him pulling the trainer in? The news peice I saw said she slipped.--155.214.128.4 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC) -forgot to login.--Marhawkman (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Today I heard Russ Rector, a former dolphin trainer, speak about the incident on a talk show in my home town, and you can find the whole story of what really happened here: Killer-Whale Tragedy: What Made Tilikum Snap?. We should not be so naive as to think that SeaWorld officials are immune to spinning their own version of the incident, to protect them legally against potential blame for the death of their employee. Skol fir (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason for adding this reference above is 1) to corroborate the interpretation that Tilikum pulled in the trainer, and 2) to provide further information that would explain Tilikum's dangerous streak, as he is a "transient" rather than a "resident" type of killer whale. Skol fir (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What's interesting here is who put out the "slipped" idea. And how it then put out, oops, no, sorry, it wasn't "slipped", it was "pulled by a ponytail that caused a reflex". And all this in the face of irrefutable photographic documentation of close contact for decades and ponytails for decades. So in case no one noticed: the Canadian worker who died (the first victim) was said to have "slipped" into the pool. And that has stood the test of time because we have no proof otherwise. But a reviewer would have to be brain dead not to sense she did not slip at all but was very possibly pulled in. When the definitive book is finally written on this, it will responsibly raise this as being just as legitimate as the "slipped" theory that gets traction (pun intended). FeatherPluma (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Place of capture

This article has conflicting information. The opening paragraph says he was captured in Hafnarfjörður (west coast of Iceland) then later in the article it says it was Berufjördur, which is on the opposite side of the island. Which is it? If neither can be verified, then perhaps it should just say 'coast of Iceland' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookie21 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tilikum and the Darwin Awards

If I'm not mistaken, Tilikum was mentioned by name in one of the Darwin Awards articles... perhaps the Daniel Dukes death was the one the DA article was talking about. --DBoyWheeler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E42:8150:D46A:78C0:18F4:D134 (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC) There's a woman in new Zealand who does things with orkas like swimming out with them in the wild and stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.250.161.17 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Page Focus

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

All questions answered below

I don't necessarily agree with how Tilikum was portrayed on this page. The information given makes him seem like a monster to the public and those who don't know about the effects of captivity on these animals. It all seems kind of biased to me. I think there should be a section added explaining how captivity and neglect causes these animals to backlash aggressively. There should also be sources to the scientific research done to prove how stressed marine mammals in captivity are. I am in no way justifying Tilikum's actions and the deaths he caused, I just think that the other side should be represented in the article. The citations include many articles that are 'pro-Tilikum' but the article doesn't reflect these views. However, I am glad to see that this page is kept up to date, especially since Tilikum's recent death. -Revolutionary27 (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Post edited -Revolutionary27 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral terms

When an article subject is consistently referred to in a specific non-neutral terms in reliable sources, it is accurate to present that information to the reader. It is not a violation of WP:NPOV. I will quote: "...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Wikipedia's editors are to be neutral, to write neutrally, and represent the subject as they are represented in reliable sources. Removing those terms is introducing a bias, and actually whitewashing a subject. Tilikum has been featured in the headlines of articles, and the first sentence, as notorious in such publications as NBC News, National Geographic, Today, NPR, The New York Daily News, Huffington Post, and others. These are mainstream sources, not blogs or opinion pieces. Remember, NPOV is about editor neutrality - NOT about content neutrality. Scr★pIron^IV 14:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Why can we not let the reader decide how the whale was known? There is plenty of cited material to discuss Tilikum's history in the article, and the reader should be free to make up their own mind instead of us telling them how they should view them. There are also numerous sources that do not use that particular adjective to describe Tilikum. Why should those particular ones be given excessive weight over those that do not use that term? --McDoobAU93 15:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents what is said, not what some did not say. These sources effectively included this information in their ledes; it would be disingenuous for us to exclude it from our own. Personally, I would like to see a wording change along the lines of "...who became notorious because of..." because it is less glaring than just calling him notorious. As for undue weight, the sources provided are top tier sources. It would be undue weight if we were the examples were local news sources or tabloids. And bear in mind, these are just a few examples - there are many more. Scr★pIron^IV 15:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer this be kept scholarly rather than sensational - remember the old news adage, "if it bleeds, it leads". That said, I'm okay with the "became notorious because of" phrasing. Reduces the weight, and is sourced. --McDoobAU93 15:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

What about the middle of the lede: Change "Tilikum was involved in the death of three people..." to "Tilikum became notorious for his involvement in the deaths of three people..." Clean, low key, and lower in the lede. Scr★pIron^IV 16:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV I can agree to that. I had a big rebuttal to including it where you did, but an edit conflict got in the way. I think this is a good compromise VViking_TalkEdits 16:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I second Viewmont ... far better, and connects up where the notoriety came from. --McDoobAU93 16:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Done - thank you all for the cordial discourse. Scr★pIron^IV 17:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

And it is a great way to make that sentence better. Well done. --McDoobAU93 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree with the reworded intro any more than I agreed with the original version. We cannot under any circumstances report opinions as if they are facts, and "notorious" is pure opinion. We can report that sources describe this whale as notorious; we cannot endorse the view that it was notorious. This is exactly analogous to things like film reviews. We can and should say that critics regard The Godfather as a great film. If our intro said "The Godfather is a great film, made in 1972, etc etc", that would be a shoddy travesty of what we are supposed to be producing here. Merely moving the violation of policy a little further down the intro does no good.

"Tilikum became notorious for his involvement in the deaths of three people" contains no information which is not also contained in "Tilikum was involved in the deaths of three people". If you want to talk about how widely reported his involvement in these deaths was, then you can do that neutrally very easily. Using the word "notorious" in this way is not doing that. Mermaid99 (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you really need to read the linked essays and guidelines. That will aid you in understanding what "neutral" means here on Wikipedia. Your proposal is not neutral; rather you are suggesting that we introduce a specific bias by omitting what reliable sources have said about the topic. Scr★pIron^IV 19:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you need to read again exactly what I wrote. I am not suggesting what you claim I am suggesting. Assuming that you misread rather than deliberately constructed a strawman, I'll reiterate. Think about film reviews; mentioning that the Godfather is described as a brilliant film = good, describing the Godfather as a brilliant film = bad. Similarly, mentioning that a whale is described as notorious = good (possibly), describing a whale as notorious = bad (definitely). Now consider, say, an article about a terrorist. "X was a notorious terrorist"? I sincerely hope you see that would never be acceptable, for any value of X. "X was described as notorious after carrying out three bombings"? Less unacceptable, certainly, but still carries no information that is not there in "X carried out three bombings". Mermaid99 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

She was dragged in by her arm not her ponytail 141.92.67.43 (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please provide specific sources that make this clear - the sources cited in the article don't support that assertion, and the article has had to be protected because of disruptive editing on this point. A Wordpress blog isn't an acceptable source - this incident has been extensively investigated, it shouldn't be hard to find an authoritative source. Acroterion (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Granny (orca) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2019

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: See Talk:Granny_(orca)#Requested_move_27_May_2019 Interstellarity (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Tilikum (orca) → Tilikum (killer whale) – Consistent with killer whale. Interstellarity (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I agree it would generally make sense to follow the precedent of Killer whale. However, for whatever reason, "(orca)" is currently more common than "(killer whale)" as a disambiguator for articles on individuals - by 12 to 6 (compare searches for intitle:/\(killer whale\)/ vs. intitle:/\(orca\)/. If you want to propose moving all 12 of the "(orca)" articles to use "(killer whale)" I would support that. But not a big fan of singling out this particular case for a rename. I'm sure it's not your intention, but given this particular whale's involvement in human deaths, there could be a perception of WP:POVNAMING in renaming this article to use "killer whale" while the majority of others use "orca". Colin M (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chimo (killer whale) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of captive orcas which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Advocacy and POV

I recently reverted some changes to this article because of POV issues and Advocacy issues. I was reverted so I want to talk about it. For the advocacy: The Dolphin Project has long been against any sort of captivity of marine mammals. SeaWorld Fact Check is an advocacy group specifically set as an organization against SeaWorld that is a major POV issue. Tim Zimmermann has been a long time critic of SeaWorld. POV:

"who spent most of his life performing at SeaWorld", is unsourced, he spent most of his life at SeaWorld, but not performing a few 45 minute shows per day and his portion was just a few moments of those shows is not most of his life performing.

"Found draped over his back in his sleeping pool" - this is not in the cited source.

"Despite numerous cameras around and inside the poll, that are supposed to monitor orca's wellbeing, SeaWorld claims the event wasn't captured" - This is pointing to a cover-up or conspiracy theory, that is a POV issue.

The section on OSHA restricting close contact between orcas and trainers, it is already suggested and makes it sound like SeaWorld only changed their procedures with Tilikum because or the restriction set by OSHA. In fact the restrictions were already in place with Tilikum. This seems to be beating a dead horse, SeaWorld is evil see they didn't follow safety precautions, OSHA said so.

We already have information about the drop in SeaWorld attendance in the SeaWorld article this is a Fork.

Finally: I don't remember where it was said, but I remember a discussion on naming the 3 individuals whose deaths have been associated with Tilikum and I think it was always decided to leave them out, which is why they were not in the article at this change.--VViking_TalkEdits 17:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020

Dawn was not pulled underwater by her ponytail. That was a lie from SeaWorld. What really happened was Tilikum was frustrated that he was in captivity when we could be roaming in the ocean. He was taken from his family to perform in front of millions of people. Tilikum was essentially kept in a cage for the majority of his life. If someone was in a cage for the majority of their life, they would be pretty frustrated too. Tilikum killed Dawn as an act of frustration, nothing else. 76.97.172.38 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

For about the 94th time, provide a source for your assertion, per policy, and leave out the commentary. Then maybe we can lift the article protection that has been necessitated by your conduct. And see my previous response, which you haven't addressed. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Dawn Brancheau

"The veteran trainer was rubbing Tilikum as part of a post-show routine when the orca grabbed her by her ponytail and pulled her into the water."

It currently states she was pulled by her ponytail, but that is according to SeaWorld. As written elsewhere:

At least two witnesses, however, told investigators they saw Tilikum grab Brancheau by the arm or shoulder.

I think it should also contain this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FGeber (talk • contribs) 09:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Tim Zimmerman wrote that chapter of the book, Tim has been a long time critic of SeaWorld and is not NPOV on the subject.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The witness statements are also corresponded by newspapers: "Suddenly, I saw the whale grabbing the trainer by the shoulder and pulling her down in the water near the window," said guest Susanne De Wit. So maybe add "Some witnesses reported seeing Tilikum grab Brancheau by the arm or shoulder." --FGeber (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess that's that then. --FGeber (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

In the section named LIFE with the subsection under Third death, it states "The veteran trainer was rubbing Tilikum as part of a post-show routine when the orca grabbed her by her ponytail and pulled her into the water." According to the CNN documentary Blackfish, that was a cover-up by Seaworld to make it sound like it was Dawn's fault that she died. If you watch the video and look at the pictures taken by guests at the park Tilikum actually has a grab of her body or leg, not her ponytail. 2600:1700:7EA0:6010:D16C:2C3D:8F7E:35D1 (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done, this is not a neutral edit.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources for 'Decline and death' section

It claims "bacterial pneumonia, a common cause of death in captive and wild whales and dolphins" but the citations for this are a dead SeaWorld link and another link that says no such thing. Even were the SeaWorld link extant, it would hardly be a neutral source about captivity and it would certainly not be a reliable source about the wild. Salopian (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Dawn Brancheau ponytail

I know this topic has already been discussed but I feel we should take this a step further. We shouldn’t say “The veteran trainer was rubbing Tilikum as part of a post-show routine when the Orca grabbed her by the ponytail and pulled her into the water” we should instead say something along the lines of “Seaworld claims Brancheau was grabbed by the ponytail and pulled into the water, however several witnesses claim she was pulled by the arm and shoulder”. The sources provided for the ponytail claim are dated and/or unreachable. To my knowledge, no one who has actually seen the event has stated that she was pulled by the ponytail, only Seaworld. I understand this is only a sentence but it is extremely important. The narrative that Dawn was pulled by the ponytail gives the impression that it was her fault that she died and that she shouldn’t have been wearing her ponytail so high. However, one would only have to look on google to see countless pictures of other trainers doing the exact same thing. There is no reason to my knowledge to believe that she was pulled by the ponytail. So I ask why is this stated as if it’s obviously true.Tremeny (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

On about the 3rd death, it said dawn was pulled by the hair. which is untrue, and is used by seaworld to cover up its role in all of it, blaming dawn. an autopsy shows that he most likely riped her arm out of the socket while pulling her into the water to drown her. Spicyleaves (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As in the previous requests, you'll need reliable sourcing, not speculation. Acroterion (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2021

In the offspring section, it should be noted that Tilikum only has 9 remaining offspring after the death of Unna in 2015 and Skyla in 2021.

sources: https://whalesanctuaryproject.org/orca-skyla-dies-at-loro-parque-zoo/ https://www.dolphinproject.com/blog/seaworlds-chronically-ill-orca-unna-succumbs-to-resistant-disease/ Confusedbiscuit (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 July 2019 and 22 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marina20019. Peer reviewers: Etp00, Jcallahan2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ponytail doubt

There is uncertainty regarding the part of the body the victim was grabbed for. In lack of further details i suggest just leaving "grabbed", omitting the body part 2001:B07:6461:1FEE:6DC4:BBC5:BCBD:9701 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, people have been way too hung up on what was grabbed. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2022

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Tilikum (killer whale) → Tilikum (orca) – If the page for "killer whale" is now the proper "orca", shouldn't the pages disambiguated by the word be changed too? Forgive me if the circumstances make it uncontroversial and I should've just gone ahead and moved it myself, I just wanted to make sure, and let the results of this be the precedent that allows the moves of similarly disambiguated pages. -- CreecregofLife (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support unless the term "killer whale" was more common in most of Tilikum's life (though I'd given more weight to towards the end his life anyway) all others in Category:Killer whales should probably be moved unless they are mainly when "killer whale" was more common. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I will say it’d be very awkward (and probably nonsensical?) to split up specimens of the exact same species be split up by colloquialisms that aren’t even regional. However, I do think Killer whale attack might have reason to stay where it is. A lot of it is reported attacks. The kind of sensationalist journalism too ignorant to use the proper terms in their reporting--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There are 20 other articles using the disambiguation "(killer whale)" in Category:Individual killer whales (not to mention the name of the category itself).Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

And? They should be moved too--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife Comment are you suggesting those pages to be moved and discussed in this requested move? If so, please list them above in the requested move. Thanks, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:50, 9 March 2022 (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.

@EpicPupper: I will set up a new more encompassing move request on one of the other similar pages since this discussion closed--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)