Talk:SeaWorld/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Animal Rescue and Rehabilitation Program

The entire section on "Animal Rescue and Rehabilitation Program" seems to be sourced to Seaworld's own material, except for some boilerplate from a NAS study that has nothing to do with Seaworld specifically. Seaworld's own claims are not a WP:RS. Unless somebody can come up with a WP:RS to support it, I'm going to delete it.

BTW, there have been many studies of animal rescue and rehabilitation which found that the animals died soon after they were released to the wild. Unless there is a WP:RS source to the contrary, we shouldn't claim that anyone is actually rescuing and rehabilitating animals. --Nbauman (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

SeaWorld's efforts to rescue and rehabilitate animals are well-documented, especially in Orlando-area media, so that shouldn't be a problem to fix. SeaWorld saying it has a rescue/rehab team is acceptable as long as that's all they are being used for, to indicate it exists. Information as to how effective their efforts are would indeed be better handled through independent sources. As to the rest of the section, a lot of it does come across as original synthesis, stating what SeaWorld might/should do, not what it actually does, so I would agree that such information would need to be removed if the provided sources do not explicitly mention SeaWorld. --McDoobAU93 05:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this until know, but I just removed the entire section since none of the information in the section could be found in the cited references. I wouldn't be against adding a new paragraph, but it needs to have proper independent references for a claim such as "For the past 40 years SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment has rescued or helped more than 22,000 animals, including ill, orphaned or abandoned and injured animals." which frankly reeks of PR. SmartSE (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Animal Rescue and Rehabilitation Program

First cite cfnews13.com

"So far in 2013, SeaWorld has rescued eight manatees and returned one back to their natural habitat. In collaboration with the government and other members of accredited stranding networks, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment operates one of the world’s most respected programs to rescue ill and injured marine animals, with the goal to rehabilitate and return them to the ocean. SeaWorld animal experts have helped more than 22,000 animals in need - ill, injured, orphaned and abandoned - for more than 40 years." Directly from citation, SeaWorld rescuing over 22,000 animal for more than 40 years.

I agree the second citation does not specifically say some of this information, It did mention that biologists not associated with SeaWorld would determine releasability of some of the animals. Some of this information that looks like it was included in the second citation came from SeaWorld's website. Yes their own website would be considered PR, but there are a number of sources that talked about each of these animals and many including who makes the decision to release. Please do not throughout the entire section. The first half of this is from a Reliable Source, and the rest of the information can be found. VViking_TalkEdits 01:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that I didn't see that part of the source when I removed it which I'm sorry for. Regradless though, much of that content isn't found in the references and the '22,000 animals in 40 years' is almost certainly copied directly from a press release. Likewise the claim that it runs "one of the world’s most respected programs" needs a high quality source. If this is really the case, then someone other than a local newspaper will have written about it. I've been looking for some sources that we could use - this is the best I've found so far. This source discusses how the program has been a key part of SW's PR following accidents, which strengthens my view that we need to be very careful with the sources that we use to ensure that the article is neutral. (Also did you notice the previous discussion about this above?) SmartSE (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

SeaWorld gets a lot of press in Florida because it is located here. Many of the newspapers and local television affiliates regulary talk about the animals it has rescued. They are would be considered reliable sources at the very least for the 22,000 number and the types of animals they have rescued. As far as just a PR stunt. Since they have been doing this for 40 years, before they would have been having the PR issues caused by the the latest death of a trainer and very one sided movie it doesn't seem to reak of PR. If they are rescueing these animals and if the State of Florida and Government of the United States is trusting them to rehabilitate these animals, this does not seem like it is just a press release from the company. Also the burden should be on you if it is "Almost certainly copied directly from a press release" prove it. VViking_TalkEdits 20:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you take a look at those sources? This has been a strategy since the 1980s - not just recently. The exact phrase "SeaWorld animal experts have helped more than 22,000 animals in need - ill, injured, orphaned and abandoned - for more than 40 years. " can be found in many poor quality sources e.g. [1] [2] [3] which is how I find it hard to believe that they're not copying from somewhere else. SW's site (you need to click on 'rescue programs') and this press release for Discovery Cove (right at the bottom) contain very similar wording. There should be some mention of the rescue program, but we need to ensure that the coverage is given due weight which I don't think it was before. SmartSE (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah now I've found it for certain. Churnalism at work. [4] [5] SmartSE (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with animal rescue and rehabilitation operations that return animals to the wild is that scientists say they almost always don't work.

I've seen studies in scientific magazines that tracked seabirds with bands and concluded that less than 1% survived.

And a lot of biologists think that focusing on individual animals is pointless; the only solution is protecting the environment from encroachment.

And it seems that SeaWorld will keep some of the animals that it "rescues."

The problem is that I don't have a WP:RS to say that specifically for SeaWorld.

I'm sure the local Florida newspapers and TV affiliates would have lots of uncritical reporting on these rescue activities.

That's because most news media don't have science journalists who would understand this and know enough to get a comment from an outside biologist.

I would wonder what kind of "collaboration" they have with government agencies. That implies some kind of approval, which may not be the case. They are required to have government permits.--Nbauman (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your last point - the first source I linked to earlier on mentions that SW spends $1m a year on the program, but infers that they receive government funding for it as well. I wonder if we can find anything more about that. SmartSE (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone arguing the factually accuracy that SeaWorld has a rescue and rehabilitation program, that it has been in operation for about 40 years, that it has helped rehabilitate ill, injured, orphaned and or abandoned marine wildlife. If not we have enough documented RS to give this issue weight. There was even a television show based on some of this work you can say public PR, yes that is what it was, but they still do it. We can question the effectiveness of this rescue program, we can question the reason they are doing it, but I think it is very difficult to question that they are not doing it and that it doesn't get noticed by RS. This information at the very least deserves mention and probably its own section. VViking_TalkEdits 02:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the reservations for restoring this content, which relies on one local paper as its source, and does indeed look like it's related to a press release--'most respected programs' needs better sourcing. This has been well stated above, but the content in question has been restored, without improvement that would address these concerns. JNW (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Originally this information was removed becuase it was claimed it was not in the source. It was. Then the source is not good enough. SeaWorlds efforts to rescue and rehabilitate animals is well documented.

*SeaWorld rescues a Dolphin [6]

*SeaWorld rescues, rehabilitates and releases Manatees [7]

*ICCF - Sully a stranded Pilot Whale only certified center like this in the country

*Additional source on rehabilitation Additional Citations world renowned [8]

*San Diego City Council Proclaims June 11, 2013 "Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute 50-Year Anniversary Day" [9]

This is a very small sampling.VViking_TalkEdits 01:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Those appear to be articles documenting various individual rescues, and for the most part have little to do with the content under discussion. The issue that several editors above have addressed is the promotional sound of the section and the need for multiple objective sources to support the claim "one of the world’s most respected programs". I'd venture that even if that's the case, the claim doesn't belong in an encyclopedia--a public relations red flag. JNW (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

VViking said: "Is anyone arguing the factually accuracy that SeaWorld has a rescue and rehabilitation program, that it has been in operation for about 40 years, that it has helped rehabilitate ill, injured, orphaned and or abandoned marine wildlife."

Yes, I am arguing that they did not help rehabilitate ill, injured, orphaned and/or abandoned marine wildlife. Most "rehabilitated" animals die after they are released to the wild. There's lots of scientific literature for that, although I can't find a WP:RS specifically about SeaWorld's rehabilitation. If they "rehabilitated" animals to add them to their own collection, we should say that. --Nbauman (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

−I don't like moving targets, not in the source, source not good enough, public relations red flag. However per discussion I have removed the one of the world's blah blah blah - to well known. To Nbauman, please site if there is a reliable source. Which you mentioned they cannont. Some animals do stay in their collection since they are not well enough to return to the wild. For species such as Pilot Whales, Sea Turtles and Manatees this determination is not made by SeaWorld but by an outside panel of experts. I am fine saying some animals are not well enough to be returned to the wild. VViking_TalkEdits 07:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a good statement of the criticisms of SeaWorld's rehabilitation programs, but it doesn't look like a WP:RS. http://theorcaproject.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/seaworld-osha-pr-attempt/ SeaWorld PR attempts to save-face but rescue and conservation efforts fall short, September 26, 2011. I'd rather find something like Science or Nature. Who knows, there may be some independent scientists who think that SeaWorld's animal rescue operations are useful. If I found them I'd put them in. But most scientists I read seem to think that animal rescue operations generally are futile and often PR stunts. --Nbauman (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break - JNW that last edit you made is a little dated, since Busch no longer owns SeaWorld this does not seem relavent anymore. This citation seems to be mentioning the issues that predate the sale to Blackstone and the subsiquent public offering. The cite also mentions the free beer tasting at SeaWorld which is no longer and hasn't been for a number of years now. The Clydesdales are no longer in the parks either. I don't believe the last addition you added should be included due to out of date information. VViking_TalkEdits 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

My mistake--please remove it if I don't first. Thanks, JNW (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Blackfish (film)

I'm surprised there is no mention of criticism of Orcas in captivity as highlighted in the documentary Blackfish (film), especially that directed at SeaWorld. Any suggestions on how to best incorporate this critisim? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe there should be more information on the facts given in the documentary. I don't think the simple statement that it is about Tilikum's life is enough to explain the reasoning of the film. I added "The film shows the living conditions and lives of the captive whales as well as the emotions and danger involved with working with them." It was quickly taken off though. I feel that my statement was fair and necessary to this page because the documentary was completely about SeaWorld.

First thank you for bringing this to the talk page, second please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. I removed the information because much of that information is included in the Blackfish (Film) Article where it should be. In addition your statement that "The film shows the living conditions and lives of the captive whales" was presented in Wikipedia's voice, many people would disagree that Blackfish showed a fair representation of SeaWorld's treatment of these animals. In addition are you talking about the emotions and danger involved with working with them, this sounds like the trainers emotions working with the animals, however your statement does not make this clear. If we are talking about the trainers that is one thing, if we are talking about the animal's emotions, that is Anthropomorphism which we do not know the animal's emotions. VViking_TalkEdits 21:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a suggestion VViking...when editors, especially new ones, try to add something to this article, instead of completely reverting them if you don't like it, try to rewrite their input in a way that you feel better complies with WP's guidelines and policies. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I realize the information is included in the film's specific page but because it's prime topic is SeaWorld. For this reason, I feel that it should be better represented on the SeaWorld page. So yes, I agree the Blackfish page is "where it should be," but it should also be accurately described on the page of it's subject. In regards to people not agreeing with the representation of the documentary, I feel that it should be their choice as to believe it or not. Hiding the information from them doesn't give them that opportunity. If you don't want it on this page because you disagree with it I feel that you are being biased. Both sides should be presented as both sides are argued upon. As a response to your confusion with my statement, I did mean the emotions of the trainers. Deanna9311 talk — Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We have a link to the Blackfish Film in the article we are not hiding anything. WP:NPOV does not mean we need to present both sides of an argument, because WP is an encyclopedia and not an argument. We mentioned the criticism, mentioned the aftermath and mentioned the response from SeaWorld, if people are interested in more information on the film and what it is about they can click on the link to the film. VViking_TalkEdits 09:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I went to Wikipedia after watching Blackfish, and saw nothing on the website for SeaWorld that related to BlackFish. If there is a link, it is not well placed. Controversies are a common subcategory on Wikipedia and I am shocked that it is being kept off this page.

Puget Sound

Most recent edit commentary: "Removed inaccurate statement regarding puget sound whale drive after reviewing sources and finding no factual evidence and no evidence of SeaWorld's involvement."

While I agree that the section wasn't entirely accurate and SeaWorld wasn't the sole player involved, it cannot possibly be said that SeaWorld wasn't involved at all and anyone that knows how to use Google can establish that within five minutes. Even here on Wikipedia there's plenty of information on this. As such this remark boggles the mind as it's so blatantly wrong. Further, Dwitzel93 signed up just to make that edit. If the IP address of that user traced back to Orlando, I wouldn't be surprised at all. Just saying...

Anyway, I am not going to revert the edit as I do feel the section that was deleted could do with a rewrite (which I have no time for right now), but I'm just pointing this out for the more frequent editors of this article who might have more time to do this. Do with it as you please.BabyNuke (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the word alleged

I'll just copy what I told Jojhutton:

First, there's the puget sound Killer Whale captures. They may not have been in Japan, but they were drive hunts none-the-less. And how do you think the rest of their wild captured stock ended up there? They were hunted down in some way, even if it wasn't Japan. Second, for their False Killer Whales there's actually pretty good data:

False Killer Whales: Hana - Captured Japan (date of capture unknown - died 1996) Jana - Captured Japan (date of capture unknown - died 1989) Teri - Captured Taiji, Japan (captured: 1983 - died 2002) Suki - Captured Taiji, Japan (captured: 1983 - died 2005) Zori - Captured Japan (date of capture unknown - died 1990) Cassie - Captured Japan (captured: 1987 - died 2008) Hoshi - Captured Japan (captured: 1988 - died 1998)

See: http://www.ceta-base.com/phinventory/hph/hph_swf.html

Still think it's only alleged? Yes they don't obtain animals that way THESE DAYS, doesn't mean that they never have.

Anyone still wants to argue SeaWorld's never hunted down an animal? BabyNuke (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The section and the sources are in response to the documentary. Not in response to what happened 40 years ago.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the reference (regarding The Cove) used:

"While the mass slaughter is horrific enough, “The Cove” raises another troubling question that hits closer to home. The documentary stresses that “dolphinariums” — performing dolphin shows, aquariums and swim-with-the-dolphin programs — have bought live dolphins from the Japanese fishermen, making them complicit in the marine mammal carnage."

Note that it does NOT suggest that SeaWorld or any other park is still buying them. It's illegal to import those animals anyway so it'd be entirely impossible. Also, we're talking late 1980s here for the most recent captures that went to SeaWorld. That's not "40 years ago" as you claim. Agreed? BabyNuke (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This whole section, “Alleged drive hunt captures” sounds like defensive PR by SeaWorld. Why so many comments from one spokesman who is paid to spin a situation in a positive light for an organization? A spokesman does not seem like a credible source nor NPOV to me. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Mention of Tilikum/Blackfish in Header

I have added a brief and (IMO) neutral synopsis of how SeaWorld has received increased attention and public discussion as a result of the death of Dawn Bracheau at the hands (flukes?) of Tilikum and the ensuing release of Blackfish. I realize that SeaWorld is famous for other things than this, but it's rather disingenuous to not include any mention of this in the header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBlueHI (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

BigBlueHI. I have reverted all your edits since many of them had a very strong non-neutral POV. I have then gone through your edits and re-added the very good edits that you made. VViking_TalkEdits 10:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

AZA Accreditation

The statement "meaning they have met and or exceeded the standards the AZA has set forth in their accreditation standards for Education, Conservation and Research." Has been removed twice now, per BRD it should not have been readded the second time until a discussion was started. Since I do not want to edit war I will bring it here. Most people do not know what AZA accreditation means so a little definition will help the reader understand what the Accreditation is. I don't understand how this can be misleading, User:Vision2030 please do explain. I propose this statement be put back in. VViking_TalkEdits 10:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I propose to leave the statement out for the following reason: The fact is that an accreditation has taken place. The statement "meaning they have met and or exceeded the standards" could be used to suggest a performance above average. The opposite formulation would be "meaning they do not underperform regarding the standards". Two statements with the same message, but two very different suggestions to the reader. Moreover, an accreditation is no proof of met standards, as faulty evaluations and (hypothetically) corruption might occur. So I propose to reduce it to the facts: an accreditation has taken place. Vision2030 (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of that sentence as it is not supported by the (primary) source. I've had a look for secondary sources mentioning the accreditation and this was the best I could find. It states "SeaWorld is certified by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, meaning they meet minimum conservation requirements" - clearly different to what the article used to say. Are there any other sources that actually discuss what this accreditation actually means? SmartSE (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is from our own Association of Zoos and Aquariums site "meet or exceed the AZA's standards for animal health and welfare, fundraising, zoo staffing, and involvement in global conservation efforts.” In addition this is commonly the way aza accreditation is explained [[10]], [[11]] [[12]]. While the Seattle Pi article is mostly quotes from Tim Zimmerman, the Orca Network and David Kirby (who made the actual statement), not a reliable source. VViking_TalkEdits 11:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

List of animals?

As each park has a different collection of animals beyond its signature killer whales, a list of animals (especially one with no reliable sourcing) really doesn't belong here. A few examples in prose would be better suited to this parent article, with cited lists of animals on display at each individual park being more appropriate there. --McDoobAU93 21:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

McDoobAU93 I agree only lists of specific animal areas that meet a notible reason to be in the article. And then not a list, just incorporate it into the paragraph of the article. I have posted a sockpuppet template on these two editors talk pages, as I believe it is a single person who has been EWing on this.VViking_TalkEdits 22:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think any animal that has its own article, like several of the killer whales, should be listed. Otherwise, a general list of the animal types used in the performance shows would probably be appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Opening Segment

The opening segment has a long, running paragraph about some famous attractions in the park. It is far too long and detailed for the opening paragraph, and should be moved further down in the article to the attractions segment.

Also, the attractions mentioned are only at one of the SeaWorld parks, so it should not be in the opening segment for the entire article. If someone is able to, please shorten the opening segment to a brief single or double paragraph overview, and move the extra information into the body of the article. 68.202.142.213 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one that disagrees with the following grammar? The following sentence is put together rather odd.

"Sea World was opened in 1964 by Milton C. Shedd, Ken Norris, David Demott, and George Millay brought SeaWorld to life, yet that was not the initial idea."

I'm thinking more of, Sea World was opened in 1964 by Milton C. Shedd, Ken Norris, David Demott, and George Millay. George Millay brought SeaWorld to life, yet that was not the initial idea.

Or, "they brought Sea World to life, yet..." I didn't read the source, but whatever it says, the first sentence still sounds funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.171.129 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Can i add here that the opening paragraph should not feature the following, given the later criticism of their practices in the article. It seems like, to me, a blatant PR attempt to to utilize the opening upfront paragraphs with positive news, even when it has no relevance in an introduction;:"In 2003 SeaWorld created the non-profit SeaWorld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund. SeaWorld is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA)." Should this not feature in a subsection, and if not, why does the criticism of their practices not warrant a mention in the opening paragraphs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaworldcomment (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Seaworldcomment - I agree with your comment. Considering all the negative recent publicity of SeaWorld, it is interesting that a comment like the one you mention is in the intro, even though it's towards the end. Seems like blatant PR to me as well, especially since there is no mention of the recent overwhelming negative media in the intro. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

POV fork alert

Heads-up to editors here that a POV fork has been started at SeaWorld Controversy. Hopefully some people who are familiar with this article can chime in on what needs done with that one. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Took a look at it, and it would appear to be a good candidate for G10 speedy, if you ask me. --McDoobAU93 18:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

An admin agreed with the G10 determination. Page has been deleted. --McDoobAU93 20:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that all the controversies should be listed right here in the main article, not in a separate article. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Association of Zoos and Aquariums

I removed this from the lead because it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the body of the article. Searches for secondary sources only turned up instances of Seaworld representatives mentioning this when rebutting criticism e.g.: [13] [14]. I've looked before to find out what this actually means and couldn't find out anything and unless there are sources discussing it in more depth it's pretty unimportant in the scheme of things. @Viewmont Viking: can you explain why this belongs in the lead? Also, why include SeaWorld & Busch Gardens Conservation Fund with only a very poor source in the lead? SmartSE (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also note that two other editors raised concerns about this at the bottom of this section at the top of the talk page in March. SmartSE (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow you didn't waste any time reverting those edits. In the zoological community being accredited by the AZA is really a big thing. You may want to look in industry magazines. I have seen often when zoos or aquariums recertify for the AZA or loose their AZA accreditation it makes the news. For the conservation fund, how strong of a source does there need to be to show it exists and was established in 2003? Having this in the lead show balance to the article.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Viewmont, there appears to have no justification for removal of that obviously valuable information, especially on "sourcing" issues., since there was clearly a reliable source. JOJ ^Hutton 14:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is such a "big thing" then please provide the independent sources demonstrating that - as I mentioned I have looked for sources in relation to SeaWorld and AZA and couldn't find anything of much use. To merit inclusion in the lead we would need a source to describe SW's accredation in detail. For the fund we need a source that actually discusses what it does, not a brief mention in local news. If it is important those sources will exist. @Jojhutton: - the AZA info hasn't been removed - it is currently in the history section as this seemed the best place for it at the moment. Really the whole article needs reorganising though along Wikipedia:Criticism#Integrated_throughout_the_article in which case there might be a more relevant place to put it. SmartSE (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

December 2016 layoff news

This article notes that SeaWorld is laying off a rather large number of employees, enough to trigger a WARN notice. There is discussion about this being truly notable and worthy of inclusion in the article. As one editor noted, layoffs occur frequently in all companies, thus not making SeaWorld unique in such an action. The cited article notes that the layoffs will be spread around the company's 12 parks and its corporate headquarters. As a reference, the article noted that the San Diego park has between 2750-4200 employees at any given time, which would mean probably close to 20,000 employees companywide, so even a few hundred would be maybe 1-2% of the workforce. Certainly not pleasant for the affected employees, but a relative drop in the bucket overall.

That said, SeaWorld has been in financial difficulty for a few years, and the cited article does mention a similar layoff a couple of years ago. Were SeaWorld to exhibit a greater amount of distress, this certainly would be part of a discussion of what steps the company was taking to rectify the situation, and ultimately if it worked or not (i.e., the company survived or became defunct, was broken up, etc.). I think some consensus needs to be found on this before it's included in the article. --McDoobAU93 14:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, best to wait and see before including in article. If there's an overall long-term downsizing of the company, that may be notable, but a reduction of 1-2% of the workforce does not seem so. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Habitat or Tank

There is a small edit war on whether the word Habitat or Tank should be used. Habitat is the most common way and therefore mostNeutralway of stating the animal living areas in zoological settings.

• The expansion of SeaWorld's killer whale habitat - CNN
• California has approved a multimillion-dollar expansion of the killer whale habitat at SeaWorld in San Diego - NY Times
• SeaWorld Entertainment, suffering from negative publicity and flagging attendance, announced an expansion of the habitats - WSJ
• An artist's rendering of Sea World's new killer whale habitat expansion project, Blue World - Reuters

VViking_TalkEdits 23:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Enclosure is also a term often used in the Zoological world and does not have the POV issues as Tank. VViking_TalkEdits 23:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutral according to who? CNN also uses tank as do NYT, WSJ and Reuters. What's POV about tank? As I said on your talk page, this is following the source cited, which is what NPOV means. SmartSE (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

People who are against keeping Killer Whales in captivity, use tank almost exclusively. Why use it when there are two other good options that are used and are common in field? VViking_TalkEdits 23:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't automatically make it POV and the sources I cited are using it themselves rather than quoting activists opposed to captivity. Tank seems better to me since there can be no dispute that they live in tanks (A pond, pool, or small lake, natural or artificial) whereas habitats (Conditions suitable_{my emphasis} for an organism or population of organisms to live) is debatable. SmartSE (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Habitat seems too non-specific, and even misleading, especially compared to the definition of the word in the dictionary. Tank seems more accurate for whales in captivity. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Habitat is often used in the zoological world, as seen here, which would be more scholarly than any news source. Since the company's parks are zoos/aquariums, they fall under the auspices of AZA. AZA has a vested interest in protecting animals, and SeaWorld has a vested interest in meeting their criteria, for NOT having that accreditation can be quite detrimental. Media has an interest in driving viewership/readership, meaning they will choose sensational over scientific, given the choice. --McDoobAU93 03:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reliable 3d party source that says AZA is "more scholarly than any news source"? There are some that may argue that an organization like AZA is actually POV. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

AZA's sole purpose is to determine if zoos and aquariums have the facilities and personnel to properly care for animals. So yes they would have a point-of-view, and that POV is the welfare of the animals. They consult with experts to determine the best ways to provide for animals in the care of their member facilities. That includes their ... wait for it ... habitats at the facilities. So let's look at the three discussed sources ...

SeaWorld? Definitely has an interest in driving attendance to their facilities. The media? Definitely has an interest in driving readers/viewers to their content. An accrediting organization? Definitely has an interest in making sure its beneficiaries are well provided for. Accredited schools are more respected than non-accredited schools, and accredited zoos/aquaria are more respected than non-accredited zoos/aquaria. Of the biases presented, I'll take the one that considers the welfare of animals with regards to public exhibition to be the most appropriate. --McDoobAU93 17:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

My vote is use the word "tank" in this case, based on using the dictionary as the NPOV reliable source for the most accurate term. The definition of the term habitat is not accurate in this case. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

There is more than one definition for Habitat An artificial environment created for an animal to live in: the lion habitat at the zoo. Based on this the most accurate term is Habitat. VViking_TalkEdits 17:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point. If we were talking about a lion at a zoo, perhaps habitat would work instead of a cage. In the case of an aquarium, I’d like to point to this definition, in which tank is used. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

So aquarium. I can live with aquarium, habitat or enclosure. However aquarium does seem a little weird to me. Typically in a zoological setting aquarium is going to be the whole facility or the portion of the zoo that holds aquatic animals. Who then have their individual habitats.--VViking_TalkEdits 23:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Enclosure. It's as NPOV as possible. Christopher-Moreno1 (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)