Talk:Merlin Entertainments/Archives/2015

Moved discussion

Moved from User talk:Sam Sailor

 – Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sam,

You have undone an edit that I made to Merlin Entertainments under the subtitle Controversies. Your reason being that you felt the article was better before I made the change.

The reason that I made the change was because the original article was both biased and inaccurate. I have no agenda other than to impartially report the facts in a subjective and unbiased manner and to add accuracy in place of passionate rhetoric.

The article as it again reads is as below.

In October 2013 Merlin's Thorpe Park attraction became engulfed in damaging controversy when mental health campaigners accused it of putting profit before the welfare of those with mental illness. Its Halloween attractions included a feature called The Asylum, complete with "scary" patients who had "taken over the Asylum" - coming just weeks after similar controversies involving supermarket chains Asda and Tesco[17] the commercialist behaviour of Thorpe Park management was contrasted unfavourably in the media, Twitter and by mental health campaigners who believed The Asylum perpetrated stigmatising and damaging images of mental illness [18] [19] In November, just after the Asylum had closed for the season, Thorpe Park finally agreed to change the name in response to being reported to Surrey police for hate crimes.[20]

The points that I feel need editing are as follows...

1. It states that 'attraction became engulfed in damaging controversy'. This is purely a subjective comment as there is no proof that the controversy was indeed damaging. Indeed the attraction remained open for the rest of the season and although there were indeed complaints made (including a 6000 name petition), there is no reason to categorically say that the controversy was damaging. 10'000s of customers continued to use the attraction with favourable reviews. My only edit here would be to add the word 'potentially' so that it reads 'attraction became engulfed in potentially damaging controversy'.

2. There is a factual inaccuracy in the article with a reference to an article in the Metro that supports the fact that it is inaccurate. It states 'In November, just after the Asylum had closed for the season, Thorpe Park finally agreed to change the name in response to being reported to Surrey police for hate crimes.[20]' If you look at the article in the Metro that is referenced at [20] then you will see not only that the headline reads 'Thorpe Park ‘considering changing Asylum maze over name row’ but it quotes the official press release from Thorpe Park which states ...

'UPDATE: A Thorpe Park spokesperson said: ‘Thorpe Park has not agreed to change anything. However we have listened to the debate the Asylum Maze has provoked. For us, this has always been about a particular context – the maze forms just a small part of a larger adult aimed Halloween event. ‘No offence was ever intended, it is not nor was it ever intended to be a realistic interpretation of a mental health or any other institution. We have taken this debate extremely seriously, and will take all of the points raised into account when planning any future events for 2014.’

My only edit here would be to say 'In November, just after the Asylum had closed for the season, it appeared that Thorpe Park had finally agreed to change the name in response to being reported to Surrey police for hate crimes, however a Thorpe Park spokesperson categorically said that they had not agreed to change anything[20]'

This official stance by Thorpe Park has been consistent and reported across other media and social media.

My edit on this point could have been to remove the whole sentence, including the reference, as the sentence is inaccurate and the reference doesn't support it. However I am only interested in providing some balance to the article, which has been written from a single strong point of view, and feel that it is important to keep the reference, albeit alongside the correct context.

I trust that you will add the accuracy and balance back into the article and remove the inaccurate bias and subjectiveness that currently exists.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbaker11 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

@Sbaker11: Baker, I just had a very quick read of what you write and the 9 November Metro article. I think you should simply be bold and go ahead and make the changes. Maybe even tone down the text in the artcle further, it does sound biased. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Alton Towers Smiler Crash?

Is it worthwhile writing about the crash of The Smiler@Alton Towers, my reasoning being that Merlin themselves made statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory1132 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have decided that it is best for me to do so, its going to be a very significant part of Merlin's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory1132 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

at this point it is probably WP:UNDUE . We can wait to see how it plays out and where the coverage focuses. Does the portray this as an isolated incident or part of a widespread corporate culture? Is the response seen as a stellar example or as "What not to wear" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ive mentioned it in brief with no speculation, considering its the first disaster of its type at their flagship its worth mentioning, when the HSE have done their report i will mention it here.Gregory1132 (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)