Talk:SeaWorld

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, witch 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)

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))

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)

belive

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)