Talk:SeaWorld/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Captivity

This needs alot more aout the criticism of sea world and keeping intelligent animals in captivity. --Ehouk1 18:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Accident in Ohio

There definately needs to be a mention of the Baywatch stunt show incident at the now closed Cleveland Seaworld. Buzda 03:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Added it. Buzda 10:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

The bulk of this article and the SeaWorldOhioMemories.US Park History article are identical (or nearly-identical to the point of plagiarism). A portion of said article on the external site is credited to "Jeffrey Saunders" but past that I have no idea of knowing the source of either article or which came first, or if they were simply both written by the same person. I'm also not versed enough in how Wikipedia operates to know what to do in this situation other than making people aware of it by posting this note. --(Jtkauff 17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

Capitalization

Under wikiproject cetaceans the names of dolphin species are to be capitalized, just a note since I noticed my spelling of Orca got changed to orca. BabyNuke 20:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just thought that was a typo, i have changed the article to fit the standardised use of capitalisation outlined in wikiproject cetaceans. disscusion about this can be seen here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cetaceans#Things_to_be_standardized --Ehouk1 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Gallery to commons?

There's a needlessly large gallery at the bottom of the page. Perhaps it'd be better to move all images to commons and refer to that? BabyNuke 22:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Believe

Shamu is my favorite!He is doing an all new show! BELIVE!! I think it could use some touches...or not!--70.157.212.170 17:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)skylar

Shamu is the name of the first orca obtained by SeaWorld. She passed away back in the 1970's. However, Baby Shamu is the name of Kalina, which is the first surviving orca born in captivity. Shamu is a stage name given to all of the orcas residing within the SeaWorld parks. The orca you are probably referring to is Tilikum, which is the largest orca in captivity. SWF Senior Trainer 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Incidents section unnecessary?

I read over that section, and it's only one sentence long. It doesn't have any sources. If no one's gonna improve it, I'll just take it off. Abby724 22:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Seaworldlogo.jpg

Image:Seaworldlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Drowning Incidents

I've added a part about show animals almost drowning their trainers. I'm surprized nobody's posted it here until now Bearflip 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

149.169.89.192 17:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of being encyclopedic

Since much of this article focuses on the Orcas and those still living and performing, shouldn't this article also mention some of the Orcas that have passed away while living at SeaWorld? I know of several from my time growing up visiting SeaWorld of Texas in the late 1980's to early 1990's -- Kotar, Samoa, Kenau to name a few. - Ageekgal 17:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed gallery

I removed the gallery as it doesn't add much to the article having a whole bunch of shots at the bottom. There is a link to a commons page if people want more media and photos could be added there, or perhaps one or two more could be added two the article itself. But a large gallery like this isn't needed and looks more like a place where people are putting their holiday photos from a visit to SeaWorld. BabyNuke 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. - Ageekgal 03:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Whales' Names

Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but when I went to Sea World as a kid (early 80s) I seem to remember besides Shamu there was his "girlfriend", Namu? Anyone else remember this?

Namu is the first male orca ever captured. Shamu is the name of the first female orca ever captured, in which she was supposed to be a companion for Namu. Both resided in the care of Marineland Canada, but Shamu and Namu experienced social conflicts. Shamu was then obtained by SeaWorld and she eventually passed away back in the 1970's. Continually, the name Namu was a stage name given to Katina whereas Ramu refers to the stage name given to Winston. Baby Shamu is the name of Kalina, which is the first surviving orca born in captivity. Respectively, her parents are Katina and Winston. Furthermore, Grandbaby Shamu is given to Kalina's first calf - a son named Keet. Although today, "Shamu," "Namu," and "Ramu" is a stage name given to all of the orcas residing within the SeaWorld parks. SWF Trainer 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've only ever been to the Texas SeaWorld park but in the late 80's and early 90's I too remember "Name" as a show name. In fact, for awhile 'our' Orcas were introduced as "Shamu, Namu and Kandu", and the names were (at least to my understanding) pretty much interchangeable during shows although not necessarily so (one of the Orcas at the Texas park at the time was Kotar, whose distinct bent dorsal made him readily identifiable as, in this case, "Shamu"). I was never a trainer but spent MANY hours at the park, almost exclusively at Shamu Stadium, and watched much of the goings-on in between shows so I picked up on things like each Orcas actual name, stage name, their individual personalities, etc... as much as a park attendee can, anyway. - Ageekgal 03:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Educational criticism

I added the educational criticism based on the book cited. But think it should be thought about by others. This part may require more elaboration/clarification. Ebright82 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see how it could be expanded. The book barely mentions the criticism and it's not like SeaWorld is a school; their job is to make money not give people an education, what do you expect? --RucasHost (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed Alex Jones Cristism

"Notable conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones has criticized Sea World for using biometric hand-scans for seasons passes." was removed from because it does not exert any significance to the article. Numerous theme parks (SeaWorld, Busch Gardens, Disney World, and Universal Studios) all use the biometric hand-scans for various ticket passes. This avoids the transferring or selling of passes and theft! There is really nothing controversial regarding this procedure as it ensures the protection of theft from the theme parks and the original ticket holders. SWF Trainer (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's also a self published source.--Addhoc (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Although it prevents theft, many people consider this an invasion of their privacy. This is at least as controversial as "not mentioning evolution" in their parks. --RucasHost (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Invasion of their privacy? I don't see why. It's like a more digital form of having a signature or photograph on it. Further, the source is incredibly bullshit (forgive my wording). Just read this: "it was a part of a federal program in conjunction with major corporations to prepare us for the cashless society that is being set up to track all of our purchases, activities, and is being used to build detailed psychological profiles on all of us"

Seriously, we don't need tinfoil hat stuff in wikipedia articles and thus I am deleting this section.BabyNuke (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Stay Calm!

There is a heated debate over animals in captivity. Please remember that you are working on an encyclopedia, which requires factual evidence to defend anything posted. Please try to improve the article, not just to defend your opinion in this debate. And remember, this article is about SeaWorld, one of many parks with captive marine mammals. Criticism posted on this page should be about SeaWorld's practices, not about animal captivity in general. Thank you. 68.205.171.80 (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Animal Inventory

I have removed all of the Orlando-based dolphins listed within the cetaceans section of this article. Yes, I do believe there should be an animal inventory section. However, that particular heading belongs on the individual theme park's article. This is because there are numerous animals within all of SeaWorld's parks and to compile a list on the SeaWorld article would be too much (overload). Now, I have already compiled an animal inventory section on SeaWorld Orlando's article, since I am extremely familiar with this particular theme park. By the way, I did add some of the dolphins that I missed or have been recently named - thanks! Furthermore, some other individual has started a Commerson dolphin inventory on Aquatica's article. Anyway, it would be great if someone from San Diego and San Antonio can compile a dolphin inventory section within those particular theme parks. This way we can completely remove all of the animal names listed on the SeaWorld's main article. SWF Trainer (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

COI

An editor who has frequently contributed to this article, SWF Trainer (talk · contribs), has been notified of possible Conflict of interest issues with this and other Sea World related articles.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that I have done nothing wrong and in fact have reverted numerous blatant vandalism to the SeaWorld articles. Furthermore, you cannot assume I am associated with any organization, due to my screen name. I may have worked within the SeaWorld company at some time, I may just be a frequent SeaWorld visitor, or I may have connections via friends whom work within the parks. I comprehend the rules to Wikipedia and I have NOT broken any rules. Thank you! SWF Trainer (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Having edited and followed this article for quite a while and also being aware of some of the other articles edited by SWF Trainer (talk · contribs), I have never noticed any serious issues regarding biased editing or attempts at censorship. I am certainly not aware of all edits made though, so should there be clear attempts at changing this article in SW's favour feel free to point it out. But from what I know, I have no problems with SWF Trainer - even if (s)he does work at SW. BabyNuke (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an accusation of wrong doing, just a reminder of Wikipedia policy. If SWF Trainer (talk · contribs) has some past or present connection then editing of articles is strongly discouraged. A declaration of interest should clear up any questions based on the username. --Rtphokie (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Foremost, I comprehend it is strongly discouraged for individuals associated with an organization to edit Wikipedia articles. The emphasis here is strongly discouraged which does not mean prohibited. Continually, I should not have to declare wether or not I am associated with any organization for I have done nothing wrong. I could understand if I was not using a neutral point of view or just added information that has not been released to the press. However, I have always attempted to maintain a neutral point of view and in fact I have added not only praise but criticism to the SeaWorld articles. Nevertheless, I have always cleared up SeaWorld articles, in order to remove vandalism, speculation, and poor grammar. I am sorry, but I believe you are just upset because I reverted one of your past edits. You clearly added speculation to the article concerning the free beer. I comprehend you included a citation from a local newspaper; however, the cited speculation still came from a third party individual who runs an unofficial theme park website. Therefore, this cited information cannot be declared as correct for it did not come from a reputable source, such as the Orlando Sentinel or directly from SeaWorld, BEC, or AB-InBev. With everything being stated, I support my decision not to revel my identity and for reverting your edit! As long as I am following Wikipedia rules by improving articles and not vandalizing, then it should not matter whether or not I am association with an organization. Thank you! SWF Trainer (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is tagged for WP:COI but doesn't appear to have any e.g. WP:NPOV violations... WP:WHYCOI? -- samj _in^out 17:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Orca vs Killer Whale

The section I created called ‘Orcas’ has been renamed ‘Killer Whales’. I feel it should be called ‘Orcas’ for the following reasons:

• The Wikipedia article on Orcas/killer whales (a featured article) is named Orca; I feel this should be kept consistent.
• Orca is a better name as orcas are not whales but dolphins
• The 'killer' makes people think of man killers, which is false.
• Orca is also used more internationally.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? If there are no objections I will change it back. --Ehouk1 11:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with all these points. The species common name is "killer whale," whether you object to it or not. Or whether it's used internationally or not. Or whether it offends you or not. The fact that they are dolphins is irrelevant. Seahorses are not horses after all. We did not create the common name for this species and it is not within our province to do so now.

As to whether they are indeed killers, that is not a matter of dispute. It is also irrelevant. They are most certainly killers. "The killer makes people think of man killers, witch (sic) is false It does? Why would someone be drawn to the conclusion that the word "killer" indicates a proclivity to kill human beings? And, for the record, there have indeed been documented cases of killer whales attacking humans beings, and they most decidedly do kill other animals, anything they please and sometimes in ways that appear to human eyes to be gratuitous.

The trend to erroneously change the name of this species is based in something emotional, anthropomorphic and unscientific. It should be (and will be) changed back to "killer whale."

(The above was added by Fredjake) --Ehouk1 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment on two tangential points from the previous entry.

The term " Killer Whale" does indeed conjure the notion of a "man killer" as it is obvious most other carnivourous animals such as lions, bears, jackels etc. are not called "killer lions", Killer bears" etc. Thus, the use of the word killer in the animal name sensationalizes the animal's carnivourous actions.

I would even venture to geuss that the use of the term "killer whale" at an amusement/entertainment center such as Sea World intends to play off this conotation by anthropomorphisizing these creatures (i.e. they are "killers" thus their human trainers are at an increased risk from their violent tendencies) think of the movie titled "Natural Born Killers". After all humans kill to eat and defend themelves, but we only use the term killer to indicate murder, wanton killing.

How is this anthropomorphisization? Well, it is attatching a human type cognitive sense (that of a wanton killer) to the action of an animal which when it kills in the wild is perfectly natural and when it kills in captivity is most likely acting under duress.

Next I would like to address the term anthropomorphism itself. This term is often bandied by humans who wish to denigrate or belittle the concerns of other humans regarding acts of cruelty toward animals. The term connotates that ascribing human-like responses such as fear, pain, emotional deprivation, emotional loss ect. to animals is romaniticism, juvenile, emotional, biased and (most cuttingly) unscientific. This itself is an area of some controversy.

Philosophically (it is epistemologically debated) many hold that it is impossible to say whether or not your human neighbor experiences, fear, pain etc. in the exact same manner as yourself, so leveling this criticism against those with concerns regarding animal cruelty is disingenuous. Science however will point to the fact that you and your neighbor's biochemical, biomechanical, and bioelectricl responses to various stimuli are similar therefore giving evidence to a similar response. This is where the criticism of anthropomorphism really fails since many animals exhibit the same biochemical, biomechanical and biolelectrical responses to the same stimuli, ergo they feel pain, fear etc. T

he notion that animals are distinct from humans in their responses to a variety of stimuli continues to permit their explotation. While not all humans and animals share the same degree of similarity it is a distinction of degree and not kind for the most part. Humans and mamals thus cetaceans would share a very high degree of similarity.

The captivity of non-human animals is indeed an ethical question. We should consider the criteria by which we determine who is deserving of rights. Humans have a long history of denigrating their fellow humans to the level of "animal" as justification for exploitation and cruelty towards humans.149.169.89.192 17:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fredjake,

Firstly welcome to Wikipedia. I assume you are the same person as the previous IP edits that were very similar to your edit (correct me if I am wrong). I do still disagree with you.

I feel that internationally its common name is "Orca," and Wikipedia is international. I never said I was offended by the name. I take your point about it being a dolphin and the 'killer' part of the name however my main point is that the article on Orcas is called 'Orca'. I feel that it is important we keep Wikipedia consistent; they had a discussion as to what the Orca article should be called that is documented in its talk section.

You do not mention that you deleted a load of criticism of SeaWorld in relation to its orcas. You did not explain this, save for the edit summery in witch you said one line (about still births) is incorrect, this is in fact backed up by scientific studies witch I will find and reference.

I am not going to revert immediately as this would be an extremely stupid edit war, but I may look for informal mediating or edit later with reference. --Ehouk1 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ehouk, I am indeed the person who has made previouis edits of this type. The arguments I made in favor of killer whale versus orca don't take into consideration the discussion had for the article titled "orca." If it is inappropriate here it is also inappropriate there, but that is a debate for another day.

For the record, I am the communications director for the company that owns SeaWorld and I recognize that a legitimate ethical debate on these issues exists and that it is incumbent upon us to engage in it. I did delete some, but certainly not all, of the criticism of marine mammal captivity, primarily because it belongs in an article devoted to that subject. SeaWorld is one of hundreds of facilities worldwide that display marine mammals and using an article on our parks as the focus for a far larger debate on captivity is misplaced and unfair. I mention earlier that I do not shy from a debate over captivity, but way too many people who argue the points you make trade in half truths or outright falsehoods. For every scientists like Ellis, by the way, there are 10 who hold precisely the opposite opinion. Their voices should be heard too.

If mediation is required here, we will certainly accept the outcome.

Fred Jacobs Busch Entertainment Corp.

I already had put in a request for informal mediation before I read this, you can view and add your opions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-03_SeaWorld#Request_Information

I believe the section on Orca captivity does belong here as the criticism of Ellis and WDCS, as well as other scientists and organisations are often directed at SeaWorld for the simple fact it owns 55% of the worlds captive Orcas. If you feel that there is evidence that SeaWorlds captivity of Orcas is positive or that the criticisms are unjust then I suggest you add these two the article; this promotes debate over war.

For the record, I am personally opposed to the captivity of Orcas and Dolphins, but I am not a member of any organisations that are. I believe this article should have some of the criticisms of SeaWorld reflected in it. However overall I want to build towards a better encyclopedia.

--Ehouk1 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I side with Ehouk1. Wikipedia is for informational purposes, not corporate propaganda. For this article to maintain its factual value, it needs to mention all sides of an issue and not be subject to censorship from large interest groups. This article helps gauge my thoughts: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19wikipedia.html?_r=1&ex=1188360000&en=d1e0a7c5c56d1ec4&ei=5070&oref=slogin

Both "positive" and "negative" attributes of any organization, person, ideology, etc must be explicated. Wintermute49 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

When an article is in a pedia, people expect the maximum information, both negative and positive. I myself came here looking for information on the 'Shamu' attack incidents and to know if there is popular criticism to Seaworld using the marine animals for showbiz, information which I was unable to find in detail. Please add more about it. Don Thomas don thomas (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Shamu's Happy Harbor

• The park has an extensive playground for children, Shamu’s Happy Harbor (formerly called "Cap’n Kids’ World").

[1] This article claims that Cap'n Kids' World and Shamu's Happy Harbor were in different areas of the park. I'm not sure whether the quote above was meant as "formerly named" or not (it seems as if that's the case). I'll edit the sentence now. If there are any objections, don't hesitate please. talkingbirds 01:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

PETA as a reliable source?

A recent expansion of the "Criticism" section seems to be pushing a specific point-of-view with hardly any counter-points to balance it out. It has been tagged as such, but here's another question. In the last couple of years, PETA has made a number of "suggestions" when animals have entered the news. One such example was included in the article, when PETA claimed it had a buyer for SeaWorld who would turn all the animals loose and replace the exhibits with virtual reality, animatronics and such. More recently, PETA suggested to the University of Georgia that, instead of replacing its just-deceased mascot Uga VII with another bulldog, they should instead use a robotic version. Such suggestions border on WP:FRINGE territory, but, in fairness, that would be my opinion on the matter. So herein lies the question ... does anyone really take PETA seriously anymore, and do they belong in an encyclopedic article? There is enough scientific discussion regarding animals in captivity for the subject to be valid, but I don't believe PETA has the credentials to discuss it in a neutral manner. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Having read through the rewritten criticism section, as it currently stands, the bulk of the 2nd paragraph (beginning "Aggression in captivity") is a description of events rather than a cited analysis of how those particular events have led to park criticism. I understand why the editor chose to leave it in, but when taken in conjunction with the paragraphs that precede and follow it, that paragraph reads as if it is out of place. Based on how that section is now, if it were up to me I would delete that 2nd paragraph entirely for better continuity between paragraphs 1 and 3. At the very least, it needs to be re-written as a citable park corporate criticism of some sort. SpikeJones (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried removing the part about the protests, but another editor reverted. First, the criticism section is about criticism and not about protests. Also, we already had a discussion about the death being mentioned on the main page and if we arent' going include the death on the main page, how can we include protests? BashBrannigan (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example of how I would rewrite the entire criticism section. Do with it what you may:

Organizations such as the World Society for the Protection of Animals and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society campaign against the captivity of dolphins and Orca. Two reasons SeaWorld is cited in its role are that orca are known to have a shorter lifespan when in captivity than in the wild, and that small pools have caused sensory deprivation in dolphins due to their inability to use echolocation while in captivity. Aggression in orca living in captivity is also not uncommon: In August 1989, Kandu V, a dominant female orca, tried to rake a newcomer orca with her mouth during a live show but hit a wall instead, severing an artery. She later died due to blood loss.. In November 2006, Kasatka held a 39-year-old trainer below the surface by his foot at SeaWorld San Diego, though the trainer eventually managed to safely exit the pool. In February 2010, a female trainer with 16-years experience was killed by Tilikum at Sea World Orlando. Tilikim is associated with two prior human deaths PETA complaint According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), orcas swim as far as 100 miles each day in their natural habitat and keeping them in small concrete enclosures where they must perform tricks to receive food can aggrivate the animals making further human casualties an inevitability. On 6th March 2010, in response to the orca-related death of a trainer, PETA flew an aeroplane over the San Antonio SeaWorld park trailing a banner with the words "SeaWorld: Let Orcas Out of Prison.", and organised protesters to arrive outside the park holding signs that read, "It will happen again!" PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said, "Depriving these intelligent animals of everything that is natural and important to them turns them into ticking time bombs.", while claiming in a news report to have advised SeaWorld officials unheeded that orcas and dolphins should be transferred "to transitional coastal sanctuaries and stop confining oceangoing mammals to small enclosures that to them are like bathtubs."[35][36] PETA offered to buy a SeaWorld park in 2008 so that the animals can be released and replaced with virtual ones. Beer company Anheuser-Busch, which was in control of the SeaWorld franchise did not offer a press response to the offer.[37][38] ((((removed capture item, as it is not a criticism. perhaps should be placed in corporate history section instead?)))) ((((removed orca death item - needs to be cited that the conditions were caused by captivity to be included in a criticism section. Perhaps moved to a section on SeaWorld's conservation/medical research and what they're doing to prevent the 21 deaths from happening again?))))

I just added fact tags where I though they would best appear, regardless of whether a citation existed already for that item or not.SpikeJones (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I found sources and readded some of the information as well as altering the part with the trainers name without removing the whole note. Those suggestions about replacing the animals are not a reflection on PETAs reliability as a source. As a critic (Criticism section) of SeaWorld and other high profile animal rights areas, PETA are head and shoulders above any other group. A letter was circulated by Deborah Leahy (PETA) about the orcas dying and the same day dozens of high profile publications printed it. That is notability for a start. Virtual reality technology is hardly a fringe theory. ~ R.T.G 23:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Silver Spring monkeys. Example of PETA being prolific in turning up cases for animal rights. There's a big list of them I just pulled this one off the Wiki article. More examples in this section

You should read PETA ~ R.T.G 23:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is this picture relevant to the discussion? BashBrannigan (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone questioned PETAs notability as a reliable fact checker. The picture and links are where to start finding out. If the picture offends you remove it but please leave the text and links in place in case our OP still needs to read about PETA which is the topic. It offends me too. Whoever took that picture most likely should be locked away for longer than they can remember. @Spike Jones The capture problems should not be removed if they are accurate. Moved to the right place yes but not deleted in the meantime. It doesn't need to be cited that the deaths were due to captivity, only that SeaWorld are criticised for it by a reputable critic. That basically establishes that fact that the deaths were suspicious. None of the orcas in over two decades died from natural causes and one died every year or so. At least a majority of them died from internal injury or medical complications before an average age. There is criticism for that. It is notable information unless by some shocker it turns out to be a pack of lies which would be a rare case indeed for a PETA investigation as they usually mean business. ~ R.T.G 13:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed picture; I merged the caption underneath into RTG's comment. This should streamline the talk page while preserving the essence of what RTG comunicated. Hopefully I didn't bruise toes too badly.Sklifnir (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My take

The average lifespan for captive orcas is 8 years, 4 months. The average lifespan for wild orcas is well over 50 years. The new documentary A Fall From Freedom refutes any claim made by these parks. If we view this from a scientific standpoint, we can clearly see that these animals do indeed suffer in these parks. All captive orcas should be placed in a sea pen.

Canyouhandlethetruthyet (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. However, this is not a forum to discuss that. --McDoobAU93 11:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In regards to your most recent good-faith attempt to add this documentary into the article: does the documentary specifically call out SeaWorld for its keeping of marine mammals, or is it a more broad discussion on the subject that you have linked to SeaWorld on your own accord? If it's the former, then the description should be limited to simply what the filmmakers said about SeaWorld's practices. If it's the latter, the information would be better suited to a separate, generic article on the practice, since your connecting it to SeaWorld would amount to original research. For what it's worth, this is the same standard we're holding to for the other information in this section: that it specifically mention SeaWorld, or that SeaWorld has specifically responded to it (in the case of The Cove). --McDoobAU93 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The documentary specifically calls out SeaWorld throughout much of the documentary, but other parks have been noted as well as orca captivity as a whole. However, SeaWorld seems to be a primary discussion within the documentary as a whole. As far as my knowledge extends on this topic, I do not believe SeaWorld has specifically responded to this documentary as they did The Cove, however, the documentary went into very deep depths and discussed how SeaWorld acquired dolphins from hunts over two centuries ago. Additionally, it went on to depict the stress orcas endure while they are in a captive environment as well as SeaWorld, and other marine parks shady past. While SeaWorld as a whole was not the base of this documentary, it was one of the most common park chains mentioned as a whole throughout the whole thing. - Canyouhandlethetruthyet (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That's all right, SeaWorld doesn't need to respond to it necessarily. Use the film as a source for something SeaWorld was specifically cited for by the filmmaker. For example, if the filmmaker said (and I believe you tried adding this or something like it) "SeaWorld's marine mammals have an average life of X years, whereas in the wild it's Y years," I think that would be worthy of inclusion. What you had in your last edit was general statements about the film itself and links to it, which is more like you're attempting to promote the work instead of citing it. --McDoobAU93 20:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Trainer death

I added the death of the female trainer to the section on History. It would probably also be appropriate to add it to Criticism section dealing with aggression. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the consensus on the various Wikipedia theme-park articles, such incidents do have a place, but not in the main articles. I have provided a link to the more appropriate Incidents at SeaWorld parks article, which incorporates everything given previously, word for word. As to adding it into the criticism section, that may well be warranted ... in future, after all the facts are in. So far we only have a couple of eye-witnesses, and I believe SeaWorld was holding a press conference this afternoon to discuss the matter. This may be aggression, or it may be unintentional; at this point, we don't know. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this should in the "incidents" article. Reviewing the incidents in Incidents at SeaWorld parks this stands out as markedly different and simply is out of place. This isn't someone having a heart attack on a roller coaster. This was the death of a staff member, a trainer, who would have know the usual risks. Yes, there is the incident of a trainer who had his arm bit off, but death is much more serious. I'm not familiar with the "Consensus on the various Wikipedia theme-park articles" that you refer to, but does it REALLY apply here? BashBrannigan (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes it does. "Incidents" includes anything occurring out of the ordinary within the park. The term "incident" does not distinguish between who was involved or how fatal (if at all) the incident was. For other examples, look at Incidents at Disney parks, Incidents at Six Flags parks and Incidents at Cedar Fair parks, which include both events involving park visitors and events involving park employees. Also, be sure to look at the opening of each article; they're basically the same, as they should be, to reflect what is considered an "incident". I hope this answers your question, and thank you again for adding this event responsibly, with facts and citations. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You could be right, but my instinct is this, if not now, is soon going to be different and it will quickly gain greater significance than the others "incidents". My reason is that this will not be viewed as an "accident", but rather "systemic". In other words, it will be viewed as something inherently wrong/immoral in the basic idea of SeaWorld. That's my sense of where the media is heading with this. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

All the more reason to adhere to this format, because if what you say is correct, then the media is spinning its own point-of-view. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has no point-of-view. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If an incident is clearly and extremely WP:NOTABLE, which this is, it belongs in the main article as well as the "incidents" article.

It's notable and significant because there is a debate among biologists (not just animal activists) about whether theme parks like Seaworld are cruel to animals by forcing them to live in unnatural, unsuitable environments. They believe incidents like this support their position.

Wikipedia editors might decide that the article on breast cancer should have a special page on treatments and their side effects. But you wouldn't fail to mention on the breast cancer page what the treatments are the fact that they have side effects.

You can't use a sub-topic page as an excuse to exclude important information from the main page. --Nbauman (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A favor, please - try not to fragment your discussion points by spreading your comments across multiple pages. That said, we try to bring all the incident information into central locations that can be linked to from the main park articles. Doing this, you have a central location to find similar incidents without having to visit multiple park pages to gauge incident levels/types. You can use a sub-topic page - if it is complete - as a primary info source, but please link to that sub-page from the main page. Users who are interested will follow the links. As for your biologist comment, please be sure to provide appropriate citations to support your statements if you include those into the article text. SpikeJones (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

SpikeJones, could you address the issue that BashBrannigan and I have raised?

I think placing the fact that a trainer died in the middle of the "Criticism" section obscures it. It belongs in the History section and I think in the Introduction.

Isn't the fact that a trainer died as important according to WP:WEIGHT as the fact that Southwest Airlines is the "Official Airline of SeaWorld"? --Nbauman (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidents do not belong in the lead section of this page or the park page. The "official airline" item in the lead should be either removed or placed under a Marketing heading. As written, the incidents are used as a criticism commentary regarding animal treatment and therefore are not buried as they are placed in context (sources are needed to equate the two, anyway). If the incidents are NOT related to the criticism, then they should be broken out into a separate section - be sure to rewrite more tightly and link to the primary Incidents article where more information will be placed as it becomes available. SpikeJones (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean that you wouldn't object if we mentioned the Brancheau incident outside the Criticism section? --Nbauman (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The whale incident, if it had *nothing* to do with criticism of the corporation's history of animal treatment, can be mentioned outside of that section. HOWEVER, if the incident is NOT related to the corporation but is specific to one park, then rather than separating it out into it's own section here it should be removed from *this* page. Remember, the focus of THIS article is the overall corporation, not a specific park or incident. SpikeJones (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

SpikeJones, I'm having trouble following you.

Why can the trainer death incident be mentioned outside of the criticism section only if it has *nothing* to do with the criticism of the corporation's history of animal treatment?

Do you mean that all criticism should be restricted to the Criticism section?

Is that based on a Wikipedia policy? --Nbauman (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's very straight-forward. *This* page is about the corporation that oversees the parks, not about the parks where incidents take place. Criticism about the company belongs on this page, including criticism about the corporation's overall treatment of animals (properly cited, of course, so it doesn't look like it's WP:OR or opinion). If the cited material about the corporation's treatment of animals directly supports talking about the individual trainer incidents, then those incidents can be mentioned in the criticism section. If the incidents are not directly related to a criticism of the overall corporation, then the incident material is misplaced on this page and should be removed from the criticism section. However, if the incidents were not caused by any corporate policy at all - then there's no reason for the individual incidents to appear on this page and they should be removed. Regardless, having a link to Incidents at SeaWorld parks would remain. To sum up:

• This is a corporate page, not a park page.
• If the cited criticism includes information directly related to the incidents, then include the incident info in the criticism section
• If there is citable info that shows the corporation has policies or otherwise created a situation where the incidents occured, then a small "Incidents" section can be included here
• Regardless, a link to the main Incidents page is acceptable.

Hope this helps. SpikeJones (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What SpikeJones says above is reasonable, but I believe we have a unique situation here. If I might make two comparisons. In 2002, a 13-year-old girl was killed when a deflected puck struck her at an NHL game in Columbus. As a result the NHL added protective netting along the ends of all their rinks. In 1989, 96 fans were crushed to death in the stands at a soccer game in Hillsborough. Changes were made to the grounds afterwards. Both incidents are dealt with in the wikipedia articles of the Columbus hockey team and the Hillsborough stadium, because the incidents caused a fundamental rethinking of procedure. I feel the Seaworld trainer death is in the same category. If trainers stop swimming with these whales (if they don't, they're nuts) that will make this death notable and worth mention in the main Seaworld article. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If this death is notable, then you are correct that names would be included in the articles written that are SPECIFIC to the incident; these are not necessarily those page. On these incidents pages/summaries, the victim's names are inconsequential as the focus is on the incident, not the people (Fabio getting hit in the face being an exception, as he was already notable outside of being a bird target). Apparently Brittanie Cecil met notability guidelines somehow, and therefore the name would be included where necessary. The majority of park victims, however, do not meet notability guidelines. (looking at Brittanie's bio article, it looks like it's basically a rehash of the incident and more than likely a potential merge candidate, as the separate page doesn't add to her story IMO)SpikeJones (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My concern was more than whether the trainer's name should be mentioned. I believe the incident, trainer's name mentioned or not, should be in the history section of the Seaworld page, or have it own section on the Seaworld page. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In order to provide a single page that summarizes all SeaWorld-corporation related incidents in one spot, please use the Incidents at SeaWorld parks page for adding the most complete information. As the incident occured at a single park and not at the company's HQ, a simple link to the incidents page from the corporate page should suffice (similar to how the Universal and Disney corporate pages handle this). Because the SeaWorld corporation covers a wide-variety of locations and activities, placing a single incident's information on this page would not be correct when there are more correct places to place it. SpikeJones (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BashBrannigan.

SpikeJones is arguing that a specific problem incident doesn't belong on the page, because this is a coroporate age and the incident isn't about the corporation in general.

I disagree. The Toyota page is about the corporation in the same way, and yet it gives prominence to Toyota's brake problems.

The death of a trainer is SeaWorld's biggest problem right now. Obviously nobody who runs a corporation wants their employees to die. We should give prominence to that problem just like Toyota's brake problems.

I think we have a consensus for including the Dawn Brancheau incident in at least a paragraph of its own, and preferably a separate section, including her name. Any objections other than SpikeJones? --Nbauman (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

update: My argument has been that this death deserves mention on the main page as a separate section, as it will effect a change in working with whales. As of March 2nd from what I've been able to read in the news trainers are still not going into the water with the whales. If I am wrong, please correct me. Also, police release witness accounts describing the speed at which the trainer was killed and how almost nothing could have been done to stop the whale. Again, I believe this death is significant. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC) BashBrannigan (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The trainers not appearing in the water with the killer whales is most likely temporary while they review procedures and meet with experts to determine what went wrong. I don't think I've seen anything in the press that this is a permanent decision, although it may well become permanent. Trainers never went in the water with Tilikum before this incident anyway, if only because he's so large (although even one of the average-sized whales still outweighs an average-sized trainer by at least 50:1). Again, this incident is specific to a single park, while discussions about whether killer whales should be kept in captivity would belong here because they affect all three SeaWorld parks, not just Orlando. That said, the decision to keep trainers out of the water covers all three parks, so there may be something to work with there. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, my objection is that having the information appear here in detail is incorrect placement as there already exists a page dedicated to SeaWorld corporate park incidents. Using your oft-referred to Toyota item, please note the Toyota-focused editors are doing the exact thing that I have suggested regarding how to link the SeaWorld corporate page and Incidents at SeaWorld parks - as they have a brief mention on the primary Toyota corporate page of the recall, followed by more complete info on a linked page containing more detail. The idea is not to have to maintain two separate encyclopedia articles that in essence duplicate each other. SpikeJones (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If the recall is just a blip, even a serious blip, in Toyota corporate history, then you are correct. However, if it causes fundamental changes in Toyota management philosophy, then, in fact, it will end up the main page. Seaworld presents themselves as more than an entertainment park. They aren't a circus. They say they are also a scientific entity. Trainers handled whales using theories and principals they had faith in. They spoke about being influenced by B.F.Skinner. The trainer didn't slip or err. The death was the result of something fundamental. If they are now changing how they handle whales, it's a serious admission. This deserves it's own section. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said - the blip is mentioned on the main Toyota page (nobody is talking about removing anything entirely). But since it's too early to put the blip in overall corporate perspective, it really can't be expanded beyond what is listed there --- especially since the blip already has its own page dedicated to it. It sound like you're changing the topic into one of how SeaWorld treats/trains animals at all their parks and their scientific stuff, which I agree is a viable topic... but you need to find credible sources for every statement that's placed in that section. Currently, what's there is not cited and needs to be brought to WP standards (indident aside). Separate emotion from content with your writing, expand the science/training section, briefly mention the incident and link to the proper page. The incident itself, with relation to what you're talking about, is just one outcome of their training situation - based on what you're saying above. (just trying to help you focus on a single topic at a time here, in order to improve this article) SpikeJones (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't seem to be very successful in explaining myself to you, SpikeJones, however I'll go along with whatever is the consensus. I'm still convinced the trainer death should have a place on the main Seaworld page for the reasons I've already given. BashBrannigan (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't misinterpret me as saying it should be excluded entirely - the answer is it depends, and how is it placed. It needs to be placed on the *corporate* page in context with how it affected the overall company. If it is included specifically due to corporate policy regarding animal training, that's one thing. If you want to include it just because you think it should be on this page merely because it happened at a SeaWorld park, then that's another. We don't list every single part recall that Toyota has done on the main Toyota page because every recall hasn't had a citable major effect on the company. The current brake recall, especially once it involved Mr Toyoda, became a company-wide issue.SpikeJones (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sept 2011 OSHA Case Developments

I came to this article for background information on the OHSA vs. Seaworld case that is related to the trainer death, after I saw as a video on CNN.com (CNN Video Link) (Another News Article). This is pretty fundamental and a current news item, and I can't even find the name of the trainer who died anywhere in this article? Let alone details about the case that is currently pending, which certainly belongs in here somewhere. Seriously, I'm not coming down on one side or the other, but I am wondering if this article is being edited by Seaworld or something? I've rarely experienced wikipedia failing to explain something this fundamental. If the decision could fundamentally change how sea world trainers can interact with the animals (as the media is claiming e.g., Business Week), doesn't that deserve a mention on the page? Chaleur (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed at length when it first occurred last year. To begin, the incident is included in the appropriate incidents article, to which a link is included in the "See also" subheading of this article. Second, the incident does not include the trainer's name because the inclusion of the name does not significantly improve the comprehension of the incident, nor does its omission significantly harm it. The keys to the event are there: the trainer's age, gender and years of experience, along with links to the animal's connection in two other incidents. Now, if you suggest that there should be a February 2010 SeaWorld orca attack article, where all details can be included, then I would suggest being bold and preparing one. One was discussed last year, but after the news cycle advanced to something else, demand for the separate article subsided, much as I would expect it will after this current appeal dies down or some other diversion comes up.

As to the incident's not appearing in this article, again it is consensus amongst theme-park article editors that discussion of such incidents in the main articles is giving them undue weight. Thus, links are provided to the incident articles, such as the one noted above. Lastly, it is worth noting that the main theme-park article editors around here, myself included, have no connection whatsoever to the park articles that we edit, outside of being park fans and enthusiasts. Believe me, we've been keen on looking out for such edits and take care of them appropriately. Nobody is hiding anything. --McDoobAU93 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I also came back here again for backround on the OSHA hearing.

As you can see from my comments above, I believe that the trainer death belongs in this article. Moving all mention of the death to the incidents article is a POV fork.

The term "incidents" is itself a euphemism. People who work on web sites know that most readers don't click on most links, and you can't delete essential information from a page and put it on a link if you want people to read it.

I don't think it's WP:UNDUE to mention in the main article that the business of SeaWorld occasionally results in the death of trainers. I think it's a significant and controversial fact in an article that is otherwise loaded with trivia and promotional material.

It may be the consensus among theme-park article editors that such incidents don't belong in the main article, but it's not the consensus of uninvolved editors such as myself.

People are editing this page who insist on deleting it. The only way to get this information in is to go through the WP mediation processes, if anyone has the energy for it. --Nbauman (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I just reread Incidents at SeaWorld parks. The death of the trainer, Dawn Brancheau, is at the very end of the article, at the end of the section Incidents at SeaWorld parks#SeaWorld Orlando. It doesn't mention Brancheau's name, and if you didn't already know about it, and weren't looking for it, you'd never find it. If you did a Google search for "Dawn Brancheau", you'd never find it. First you say it belongs in a separate article, then you delete it from the separate article. This is WP:CENSOR. -- Nbauman (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Expired link

A sentence in the criticism section;

"Killer whales are believed to have a shorter lifespan in captivity than in the wild, however, recent studies have shown that the average age of killer whales has extended due to better care and for bottlenose dolphins this does not appear to be the case.",

makes a reference to research on the effect of captivity on the lifetime of the animals. The link to this research [21] has expired, moreover the sentence is muddy and seems to contradict itself.

Unless someone can provide access to the mentioned research, I move that the sentence is removed or heavily modified.Sklifnir (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The link is still dead. Also, there is no publication mentioned in the citation, just an author's name and article title, so it can't be verified. Any objection to removing the text and citation? Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the same author wrote the following: [2]. This discusses the common errors in comparisons that are used on both sides of the longevity arguments. If I'm interpreting this article correctly, orcas have a slightly lower life expectancy (this is different, as he explains, from things like average age and mortality rates) in captivity, while sea lions have a slightly higher expectancy. However, most arguments (from both sides) essentially compare apples to oranges (for instance mortality rates with life expectancy) to make their point. I have not yet found the actual article that seems to be mentioned here. Don Lammers (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR

It looks as if SeaWorld fans -- or SeaWorld employees -- have succeeded in keeping all mention of the Orca killings of humans out of this article, and out of the Incidents at SeaWorld parks article as well.

If we want to have an objective article, we're going to have to go through a long mediation process and get some admins to change protect it. --Nbauman (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Unless there are specific issues with SeaWorld's feeding of Killer Whales that are sourced and notable this portion "While different types of killer whales are held in captivity, only a pre-killed fish-based diet is offered to them. Wild killer whales, depending on where they live and if they are resident, transient, or offshore subtypes, eat a huge variety of sealife. Their food can include a selection of the following: thirty different species of fish, sharks, squid, seals, sea lions, walruses, sea otters, birds, and other species of whales." should not be included in an article on SeaWorld. Viewmont Viking (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen the Cove, however my understanding is they do not claim Seaworld gets their dolphins from the practice mentioned in the Cove. However it the WP Article it reads like the move the the Cove claims this. Even the article in Salon which is cited does not specify the claim here that the Cove believes Seaworld gets their dolphins from this practice. If this is the case this section should go. I will be removing it in a couple of days unless someone provides sources to show the Cove is claiming Seaworld gets their dolphins from this practice. Viewmont Viking (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have never seen the Cove then how can you say you have any understanding of what it claims? The article cited says, "While the Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed in the early ’70s, as recently as the ’80s, marine theme parks, including SeaWorld, aquariums and even the U.S. Navy imported dolphins captured in Japan in slaughter drives." The Wikipedia article does present Sea World's claims that they no longer engage in this practice. The section seems fair, presenting both sides, with citations, I can't see any reason to remove it.BashBrannigan (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I can say I have an understanding of what it claims by all the information I have read about it. I apologize, I did not realize that the Salon.com article had more too it, when I clicked on the expand section I saw what you were talking about. Viewmont Viking (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Move the Ohio stuff to a separate page

Way too much of this article is about the Ohio Sea World, which doesn't even exist any more. I expected to learn more about the current Sea World, e.g. the San Diego one which is one of the top tourist attractions in the region, instead of learning so much about Ohio and some accident that happened at a former site of a Sea World (after it had already closed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.168.123 (talk) 16:54, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, there is also still a Sea World in operation in San Antonio, Texas. - Ageekgal 17:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous poster; SeaWorld Ohio needs the bulk of its article either redacted or moved to another page. It should be no longer than the Orlando post; however, it should not be removed under any circumstances, since it is part of the company's history and total identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NVS314 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Orca/Killer Whale Life Expectancy in Captivity

In the killer whale section, it says that Killer Whales in captivity live to an average of 6 years, with a link, I would think that this fact comes from. However, the link says that on average those taken into captivity live an average of 6 years. This does not mean that those in captivity live to 6 years, it means that those taken into captivity, i.e. not born there, live another 6 years.

This fact is incorrect and therefore should be removed. Any thoughts? 194.193.78.109 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I work at SeaWorld and I know for a fact that the whales in captivity live far longer than 6 years. There are whales at SeaWorld San Diego who are over 30 years old and have been in captivity most of their lives. This section of the article should be revised and supported with unbiased fact. It can easily be seen that the website sited for this statistic is biased towards one side of the debate over the ethics of marine mammal captivity.

For the dolphinarium article I use this as a source. Though it does not mention an average age, you can calculate from those numbers that in under 11 years, >50% of captive Orcas will have died. In the wild, this point is reached at around 29 years of age. BabyNuke 21:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we simply use historical evidence of Captive Orcas in the various US SeaWorld Parks? It seems most have lived well over 20 years...am I wrong? Iilikum, Orkid, Namu, Shamu, Shamu II, Kandu V? Take the 4 oldest from each park and find the average? That seems reasonable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NVS314 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism Edit

Under the criticism section, I have edited the following sentence: "Small pools, sensory deprivation (dolphins cannot make much use of echolocation in captivity), and the chlorination of the water are living conditions marked for criticism." By editing, I mean that I have removed the portion concerning chlorination of the pools. This information is incorrect because chemicals are not used within any of the animal exhibits. Within each exhibit, the water is filtered via salt pumps, tested twice a day by skilled chemist, and scrubbed/cleaned by divers at least one a week, in order to maintain crystal clearness. SWF Trainer (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would love to edit the "Criticism" portion, as there is the recent talk regarding the Orca Trainers - this should be labeled as its own sub-topic and re-labeled under "Handling of Orca Trainers" instead of Occupational Safety, as the criticism relates ONLY directly to Orca trainers, not any other staff, general or specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NVS314 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section, redux

I've warned a WP:SPA for edit warring, and more eyes on this will be appreciated. JNW (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)