Talk:Incidents at SeaWorld parks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Trainer's name

Could someone point to the section of BLP which states that the names of those killed by animals at water parks can't be included in this article? I can't find it. Cla68 (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Review this section. Knowing the trainers name adds nothing to the article, and in such an instance, Wikipedia consensus is that the name shall be left out of the article. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That is for living people. Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Maybe there is some other policy that means her name should be omitted, but it makes no sense to cite BLP. -- Avenue (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The same thing happened when I tried to add the name of an employee fatality to the Disneyworld article some time ago. These theme park articles are the only ones I've come across in my four years of editing in which the names of the deceased are excised immediately, even when their names are all over the media. Cla68 (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

BLPNAME states that if the person is not notable enough to have an article on their own, and naming them adds no significant value to the article, then it is best to err on the side of caution and leave the name out. Further, people who are known for a single incident are generally not candidates for a Wikipedia article. Cla68, you also might want to look at various disaster articles, such as September 11 attacks or Incidents on the Washington Metro, where the names of those killed are also not given. The exception for 9/11 was for victims who were already notable, such as Barbara Olsen. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's for living people, not deceased. I've added fatality names to articles often, but this is the first time I've encountered resistance to it. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone dying does not increase that person's notability. Again, witness the disaster articles I cited above, and in those cases (notably 9/11) only the previously-notable persons were mentioned. Other exceptions were made for those who took notable actions during the event (Todd Beamer). In the previous discussions, BLPNAME has been interpreted to apply to just-deceased people as well. To repeat my main point, adding the trainer's name adds nothing to the article, so in such cases, the proper decision is to leave it out. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This topic went to arbitration during the last major amusement park death, and the removal of names was supported as the victim fails WP:BP1E (being notable for just one event, whether it be dying or injured). Assuming I can quickly find it, I can point you to the full discussion if you would like. (what you have done in other articles does not apply here - it could be that the policy was not applied to for those other articles and they were not cleaned up in similar style). SpikeJones (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fame from exceptional death is not healthy for the family members of the dead. Some family members might disagree but most will agree, having a family member where they only thing that the family member is famous for, is the manner in which they died, is a very painful weight to have to bare, on top of the pain of loosing a loved one. Wekipedia policy is wise on this issue. If you feel the need to add the names please review your own issues as to why you want to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.225.218 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The people pointing out the WP:BLP only applies to living people are correct. Dead is dead, and we don't censor ourselves to protect people's feelings. The name is relevant to the incident and widely reported. Gigs (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP also applies to family members of decedents. Is the name particularly relevant to the article or the incident? I would say, not. –xeno^talk 16:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case then BLP applies to every person who ever lived. That's a ridiculous claim. Gigs (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're straw-manning. –xeno^talk 16:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion regarding this, the conclusion was that dead people are indeed not living people. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Clarification. Gigs (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not very heavily trafficked, was it? I know there are precedents to be sensitive to families of recently deceased individuals per BLP, though I can't think of any at the moment (Billy Mays comes to mind).

The fact remains that, BLP aside, the name of the deceased isn't really relevant to the article or the incident. As such, the article does not suffer by leaving it out and any BLP concerns (perceived or otherwise) are moot. –xeno^talk 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

At least we can agree that BLP is moot. :) I disagree about the lack of value. If I'm reading the article and want more information on this incident, I want to be able to google the woman's name, not have to rely on something like "2010 killer whale incident at seaworld". The former is much more likely to give me a relevant starting point for further research. Gigs (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the sources have that? I've invited User:Alison to comment here; I believe she may be able to point us to some precedents. –xeno^talk 16:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you have possibly found a more biased person to canvas? How about we revive the discussion on WT:BLP instead? Gigs (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I could have asked someone who doesn't give a whit about BLP, but I don't think they could point us to the previous cases. I've pretty much said my piece, if you want to try and revive the discussion then feel free. –xeno^talk 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the application of WP:BLP to the recently deceased stems from an WP:ARBCOM case from around two years ago, but I don't recall offhand what it is. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is one of those times that we're worrying about something no one else is. I'm not sure that adding the name greatly adds to the quality of the article. However I don't see anyone else in the world hesitating to bring it up, on the air, in written articles. I don't really care if it's in the article or not, but are we over analyzing when the mainstream media has published life story bios of her?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I grant that BLP's connection to this is very tenuous, so I agree it can be left out going forward. That said, we've been down this path before, and even some of the editors involved are the same, so to keep from repeating ourselves ....

Per SpikeJones' suggestion, I dug around and found the similar discussion regarding the July 4/5 incident at Walt Disney World (the monorail collision), and ultimately it was decided that the name of the driver (the sole fatality in the incident) be left out because the person was notable for a single event. Now, if a 2010 SeaWorld killer whale attack article were ever to be created, then the trainer's name would be appropriate because the person was an integral part of that story. However, the event is not significant enough to warrant its own separate article ... animals attack trainers rather frequently (relatively speaking), and each individual incident does not have its own article.

Lastly, the question of context came into play ... does leaving the trainer's name out of the article seriously damage it? Does it really harm the article to say "trainer X was killed" versus "trainer Jane Doe was killed"? Remember Wikipedia is not a news site. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that it needs to be in there, I just think it's a little arrogant of us to believe we're somehow protecting her privacy when I can hop over to CNN.COM and read about her childhood.[1].--Cube lurker (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) WP:BIO1E is a notability criterion, which would only be relevant if we were talking about creating an article on the trainer. Previous incorrect application of a policy or guideline doesn't make a precedent. Citing WP:NOTNEWS here would be a misapplication as well. This material is written in an encyclopedic manner, and will be relevant in the future. There's no policy based reason to exclude the name. That doesn't mean we automatically should include it, but I think it's silly not to. Gigs (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I frequently edit aviation crash articles. In those articles, the only names that get mentioned are those that already have their own articles. Yes, here there is only a single death (versus many more), but IMHO, WP:BIO1E is applicable. I'd also argue that the name of the trainer doesn't improve the article. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability criteria do not apply to or restrict article contents. In some areas we might use that as an informal standard for who to mention (like lists of people from a place), but it's not documented policy, or a guideline, just a rule of thumb. Gigs (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion - Putting in my two cents, I agree with those that wish not to have the name. However, this is only an opinion and not based on any notably guidlines, documented policy, or other name guideline, so I am happy to be ignored. As a dad I know that had this lady been my daughter, I not so sure I would want her life to be famous because of the way she died. It would be very hard for me to face the day if my daughters face was in the news because of how she died. My daughter is more then the way she may die (god forbid). Since I have no idea how that family feels, I would error on the side or caution, and not put in names. However, again, that is only the opinion of a one dad.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion, obviously and unobjectively. My comments above should explain why, no need to duplicate here unless you need me to do so. :) SpikeJones (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral about inclusion -but WP:BLP obviously doesn't apply. Please let's avoid using BLP policy as a jolly. --Cyclopia^talk 13:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as an in-depth discussion with BLP-related editors earlier came out that it's more a notability issue (or lack thereof).SpikeJones (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion as I've stated above, per WP:BIO1E; also, inclusion adds little value, and its removal will not harm the context of the article. Agree WP:BLP doesn't apply (I think history was repeating itself, in a way). --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

BIO1E doesn't apply as well. It is a concern for article subjects, not for specific parts of article content. --Cyclopia^talk 17:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted earlier, this topic has previously gone to arbitration the last time we had an amusement park death and it was agreed that notability rules can apply and the victim names can be removed. ie unless the victim is notable outside of being dead or injured, there is no reason to include their name in an article about park incidents. Thanks for asking, though.SpikeJones (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As a (previously) uninvolved editor who came to the Seaworld entry for more information, I believe the trainer's name, Dawn Brancheau, belongs in the entry for several reasons.

First, it's part of the basic information about the event -- who, what, why, where, when, how.

Second, her name is already all over the Internet. Anybody who searches "Dawn Brancheau" on Google will get this incident in the first page.

Third, there's no reason for deleting it. In the Nikki Catsouras case, the family was distressed about Internet publicity and complained about it, but Brancheau's family has not complained about it. (And even so, Wikipedia has an article about Nikki Catsouras.)

Fourth, accident reports are important information. I used to write stories about accident prevention. I went through stacks of accident reports, and it was hard to figure out whether I had two reports of the same incident or two reports about two separate incidents. If one child is electrocuted by a hair dryer, that could be a rare event. If two unrelated children are electrocuted by hair dryers, there might be a problem with the hair dryer. Without the victim's names, you often can't tell the incidents apart.

Fifth, some people say you can go back to the original links. But links regularly go dead. You sometimes need the name to find another WP:RS link.

Sixth, some (but not all) of the people here who are deleting material that Seaworld would rather not publicize are Seaworld employees themselves. They are strongly discouraged from editing these stories, but they go ahead anyway, and don't always identify themselves. They can't make objective judgements about these issues of appropriateness, because they have a financial stake in the outcome.

I also think the influence of Seaworld employees in the main article Seaworld violates WP:COI and WP:NPOV, and is a disservice to Wikipedia readers who come here trying to get objective information. In particular, they've de-emphasized this page, so that readers will be less likely to get objective information. That principle is more important than this specific case.

It doesn't look as if we're going to get these changes, but I want to put this on record to encourage the people who are arguing for it that you're doing the right thing. --Nbauman (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The victims are not the focus of the "incidents" articles. The focus is the incident itself, the victim's identity is not important for what is being presented. That her name is all over the internet is also not a reason to include it here as the reference links themselves should be adequate for someone doing further research. I have never run into a news link on these articles that couldn't be re-linked from another source. You are assuming that other editors are SeaWorld employees - the various Incidents pages have always been as unbiased and referenced as possible (and part of the process of editing the Incidents articles is to ensure that the info on the various related pages are also kept to the same standards and content reporting. Feel free to bring up other points for discussion, as you have been. SpikeJones (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone dies in an incident, and it's noteworthy enought to include in Wikipedia, why isn't the name of the victim important? Doesn't that depend on the purpose for which you're reading Wikipedia?

Wikipedia has several articles on wars, battles, terrorist attacks (many far more notable than this event). I know that you would not support listing all of the victims of those. Why is this situation different? Notability cannot be an issue, because I can access thousands of old newspaper articles where people killed in wars, etc are the subject of the articles. I think it is problematic to say: The event was notable, so the victim(s) should be listed. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many legitimate reasons for wanting to know the names of the victims. Suppose you're interested in knowing about how zoo visitors are killed by animals for safety reasons. You'd have to know the names in order to tell whether you were double-counting incidents, as I described. It would be a better entry for that purpose to have the name, and it would be a worse entry to omit the name.

Listing the date and nature of the incident should prevent this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a clear statement of why you don't think the names belong here. Is there an official WP policy that supports it? --Nbauman (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We have covered this numerous times in the past and have gone to arbitration over it, with the result being that exluding the name per WP:NOTABILITY was acceptable. It is the incident that is notable, not who it occurred to. As each incident is appropriately sourced, performing your research for names to eliminate duplicates should not be a problem. SpikeJones (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've covered this in great detail in the discussion above, but I can't follow your logic.

Could you give me the link to the arbitration? --Nbauman (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The majority portions of the discussion can be seen at the talk page for Incidents at Disney parks. SpikeJones (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but where is the arbitration? --Nbauman (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

the conclusion supporting the removal of names is listed on that page. If you have more time, you will have to go through the arbitration archives yourself. SpikeJones (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You're arguing that there is an official Wikipedia policy, decided in arbitration, not to use the names of victims of amusement park deaths.

If this is true, you should be able to show us a link to that arbitration decision.

If you can't show us the actual arbitration decison, how do we know that it says what you claim it says?

If you want us to accept your claim that the topic went to arbitration -- and to accept your deletions of other peoples' edits based on that arbitration -- then you have to give us the link to the arbitration. --Nbauman (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability has never applied to contents of articles, those guidelines address suitability for a topic to have its own article. I'm highly skeptical that ArbCom would make a ruling that applied notability to article contents as well. WP:NOTE says right at the top that it does not limit the contents of articles. Lacking any policy based reason to exclude the name, it's up to editorial discretion whether to include it or not. I agree with Nbauman's reasoning as well as the arguments I made above for inclusion. But if there is significant opposition to including the name, I can accept that outcome as well. I really don't like policies being applied incorrectly though. Gigs (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why do several wikiprojects have article guidelines, based on consensus of the editors, to (in general) exclude particular people from articles based on notability? It is not an absolute policy ... but the absence of a policy is not an endorsement of absolute inclusion of everything not specifically excluded. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some examples, please? I don't think I've come across that sort of guideline before. -- Avenue (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gigs. I checked the RFC archive and can confirm that the RFC was copied in its entirety to the Talk:Incidents at Disney parks#Removal of deceased's name from monorail accident section. The end result that all participating parties agreed on was we will continue to remove victims names from this (and related Incidents, attraction, park, etc) pages for failing WP:PEOPLE and WP:BIO1E. This topic was also discussed at length in the WP:BLP arena, where it ended up affecting that policy's phrasing with regards to people who were no longer living (ie made it more clear why WP:BLP did not apply specifically here, but that WP:BIO1E would). Please read the Disney talk page in its entirety - and note that consensus among the editors that partipate in maintaining these pages has been that the names are not necessary for comprehension in understanding how/why/when incidents take place. Glad to help. SpikeJones (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That was not the "end result that all parties agreed on". That was a position that only you advanced. Even if all 5 participants had agreed on it, it wouldn't override the long standing community wide consensus that notability guidelines do not apply to article content. What the RfC shows is 3 vs 2 in favor of exclusion, with no compelling policy based reason to go either way. Gigs (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(First, an aside: we appreciate your passion for the situation. Don't take our disagreement as an opinion that the victim who died or was injured is not valued by affected parties.) The RFC was agreed upon by interested parties - and as you know, what happens on other WP pages can't be used as justification for or against doing something elsewhere. I'm more than willing to lock all the incidents pages and resubmit to RFC again if that will make you happy. You have to look at the broad picture and not just this individual sitation, as whatever interpretation and enforcement that has been undertaken on all of the amusement park incident pages thus far needs to be applied consistently for every past event that has occured. What we don't want to have happen is to go through this exact same discussion every time a new incident happens, such as we're seeing here. Is this what you would like? SpikeJones (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There is no policy based reason for inclusion or exclusion and it should be considered on a case by case basis. There is no overriding need to apply a standard consistently. Wikipedia is allowed to be apparently inconsistent. Gigs (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

SpikeJones, you said above

This topic went to arbitration during the last major amusement park death, and the removal of names was supported as the victim fails WP:BP1E (being notable for just one event, whether it be dying or injured).

Are you now saying that you were wrong, and the topic did not go to arbitration?

Or are you saying that you think it went to arbitration but you can't find a link to the arbitration? -Nbauman (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

First Death

Keep or compromise - The statement “with the first occurring on February 20, 1991 at Tilikum first home, Sealand of the Pacific.” should be included. Although the first event did not occur a SeaWorld, this statement should be included. To say “This was the third time” something happens and the in no way include any detail as to when or where the “first incident” happened leaves the reader in a position of having no way to find additional information. Adding a supplementary statement, “which happened here on this date” is not only appropriate it is the goal of an encyclopedia, allowing a person the ability to continue their research. The intent is not to limit but to expand.

Additionally the argument can be made that this statement helps to show that there is some “Negligence on the part of the park, either by ride operator or maintenance” as the introduction on this page refers to. The park knows that this animal had killed (accidentally or other wise) in the past. When the family of the most resent victim sues (any we all not they will) I’m sure that both incidents will be mentioned in court

Perhaps the statement can be reworded without losing the information, but I don’t think the complete removal is in the best interest of anyone. I added the statement "a park not owned by SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment" so that there is no confusion that it wasn't in the strictest sense a "Incidents at SeaWorld parks". However, since the statement is not actually harmful, and the issue is not one of fact, I do ask that the statement not be removed until a consensus is reached. This allows other users besides McDoobAU93 and myself to read what is being discussed. McDoobAU93 is welcome to set a time limit of discussion if he wishes. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion ... the specifics of the incident are not related to SeaWorld in any way, shape or fashion. If anything, they are related to Tilikum himself, not to the park where he is residing some 20 years after the incident. The listing that Tilikum is connected to three different incidents is notable and included here appropriately. The specifics and location of the first incident, unless they are directly related to a SeaWorld Parks facility (say, the first incident were to have occurred at SeaWorld Ohio, for instance), are not. Put another way, the first incident is most important to the facility to which it occurred and to the animal's subheading under List of captive orcas, and much less important to SeaWorld. Further, the wording of your second paragraph seems to suggest you are pushing a certain point-of-view into the article, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If a user wishes to learn more about Tilikum's past, they may do so at his article. This article, "Incidents at SeaWorld parks" is discussing SeaWorld Parks' past and nobody else's. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no POV here. I dissagree and feel that it is very much "directly related to a SeaWorld Parks facility". An anamal at a SeaWorld Parks facility has a history of acidentally harming people and it lives at that facility. Anyway, perhapes a compromise. I moved the information to the reference list. Do you feel that this is aproprate? ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The Tilikum article has the necessary info, and the wikilink to the animal's article should be sufficient if a user wishes to further research its history. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Again I disagree. Dose someone else have input? It is really needed hear. If I'm wrong I'm more then willing to remove it, but up to this point I haven't hear anything other then what McDoobAU93 says and I disagree with it.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not have any affiliation with either SeaWorld or animal groups. I was here to read about the tragedy that happened recently and what the history of SeaWorld had in terms of incidents. If this kind of information about the history of the animals or even people associated with SeaWorld and its incidents are not for this page. I'd consider this page as a candidate for deletion as it would have no meaning. Also. Should everything be omitted if the parks themselves changed it name or was under new ownership or changed its organization in any other way? Something I would think ought to be omitted is incidents happening after people or animals left seaworld. Although it would be good to have links to further information. Peope (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Knew I'd have something to add after I saved the page earlier. You asked Should everything be omitted if the parks themselves changed it name or was under new ownership or changed its organization in any other way?. The park info follows to the page for the current owner, regardless of who owned the park at the time of the incident. The new owner purchased the park and its history, staff, animals, legal issues, etc. SpikeJones (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have any problem with adding more detail to the entry on the incident, including background information. In fact, I encourage it. Cla68 (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am joining the conversation late and will address each point as I see it posted above.

• The Sealand death details would only belong here if that park is currently owned by SeaWorld. No problem linking from this article to the one containing the Sealand info. No need to use "by a park not owned by..." text, as that's just filler. No issue to indicat that this is the "nth" incident that the whale had, but linking to where that information exists is important.
• We must avoid any implication of negligence that does not come from an official court finding, OSHA investigation, or other authority. WP does not exist to cast blame on any party.

I think that's it. If not, I'll add it... SpikeJones (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Tilikum article has all the details for the three incidents involving this whale, so I think that should cover your first concern, Spike. I'm totally fine with indicating the number of incidents, and with the citations (sans filler) that corroborate that statement. The only thing, in my opinion, that does not belong is the date and location of the non-SeaWorld-related incident. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be best to simply link something like "Following a previous incident in 199x..." somewhere in the appropriate part of the article. We could move/copy the Sealand info to Incidents at independent parks, but since that park has been closed for many years and wouldn't have more additions it doesn't make sense to do so. SpikeJones (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I was kind of expecting opposing points of view but they seem to me to agree but maybe I'm reading it wrong. It seems to me that Sea World wants to distance themselves from 'the first incident' by not saying anything about it, which I kind of find strange because knowing there are 3 incidents, 2 of them being at Sea World and nothing being said about the other one lead me to believe that Sea World was involved in the first one. And the other side of the argument is that information should be shared about the first incident to clarify, which as a neutral reader does distance Sea World from the original event. I'm probably missing something but this argument seems a bit silly to me. The fact that Tilikum has been involved with 3 human deaths says to me that maybe s/he is very unhappy and maybe we just should not be holding these intelligent animals in captivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.225.218 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this article should have no input from SeaWorld officials, because that would be a conflict of interest. There is no problem indicating that this particular animal has been involved in 3 separate incidents. The problem is this particular article is related to SeaWorld Parks ... the first incident occurred at a park that wasn't owned by SeaWorld (or its predecessor Busch Entertainment). The article for the whale itself covers all three incidents in good detail, so nothing is being hidden. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As stated earlier, no problem linking to either the whale article or the Sealand article when referencing the previous incident that doesn't belong on this particular page. SpikeJones (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I'm a bit confused as to what everyone else’s opinion is? I am going to put down what I think it is, ‘’’HOWEVER’’’, if I incorrectly state what I think you say then please don't take office, it is simply an error in understanding on my part, and please correct me. Obviously McDoobAU93 feels that the page shouldn't mention anything at all. I feel that at a minimum it should be in the reference list. Cla68 is ok with putting something about it in the article. ("I don't have any problem with adding more detail to the entry on the incident, including background information.". SpikeJones thinks that something like "Following a previous incident in 199x..." somewhere in the appropriate part of the article that linking to Incidents at independent parks or Sealand of the Pacific, but since that park has been closed that may not work.

So what it appears to me that adding a link to the information is something that most of us can agree is OK, BUT again, I’m still not sure what the consensus is. So I ask this, would first, removing reference 20 as McDoobAU93 wants. Secound change the Sealand of the Pacific artical to add a sub-section (forgive me but I'm not sure of the term) called "==death==". Then changing the last line to “This was the third time Tilikum has been involved in a human death.” be an expectable compromise that the majority can agree on bring us to a consensus here? I had hoped to include the date of the first incident somewhere in the statement, but I don’t think we can come to an agreement regarding that, so I will agree to drop it. I can agree to this compromise, since it dose directly lead to the information. What about the rest of you? ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference #20 is fine, provided it merely identifies the source (i.e., name of article/story, who did it, when it was published, etc.). The rest of the information (stating what park it was and that it wasn't SeaWorld) is unnecessary. Trying to wikilink "human death" that way is misleading. If you would like me to nail down specifically what I would support, here it is: The sentence "This was the third time Tilikum has been involved in a human death" is perfectly acceptable as-is. The two citations included after the sentence, which provide verification for the three incidents, are acceptable as long as standards for such citations are followed (i.e., no filler). The Tilikum wikilink provides all details on all three incidents, and appears in what would be the second incident's section (which was the first at SeaWorld). This article is about SeaWorld Parks, so details on incidents that occurred at parks not owned by SeaWorld or its predecessors Busch Entertainment or Harcourt Brace or what-have-you don't belong here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we all understand what McDoobAU93 wants. He and I disagree and he feels that any compromise is inappropriate. McDoobAU93 wants it left as is and nothing else. I am now asking what Cla68 and SpikeJones, as third parties, what they think. To you believe that my suggestion of adding the “This was the third time Tilikum has been involved in a human death.” statement is both appropriate and acceptable? Can this can be agreed upon by a 3 to 1 consensus? I make the argument, why is referencing Sealand of the Pacific any different than referencing Tilikum. I personally don’t think that Tilikum is all that clear, but that is just my opinion. I am attempting to find a compromise, so if Cla68 and SpikeJones have better idea, I would love to hear it.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Then might I suggest be bold and make the Tilikum article clearer instead? There has been discussion that Tilikum is now notable enough to warrant his own article, instead of a subheading under List of captive orcas ... I think you have some good ideas that would be perfect for that article. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion was solicited, but since there is a discussion going on here involving at least 4 editors, I don't think a third (or 5th) opinion would of much value. I am removing the listing from the third opinion page. Gigs (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

OK, after deep thought (and a good night's sleep), I think I have a suggestion that everyone will support for the final sentence in the section. "This is the third time since being first put on public display that Tilikum has been involved in a human death." The redirect is more clear, is associated with the animal's history, and relates to his first home, which is where the first incident occurred. I would support this. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I can live with this. I think it allows the user a direct link to the information I thought should have been incudled. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, Ref 20 become unneeded with this so it can be removed.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

However, I have thought of a suggestion, but this is only a suggestion that I will leave to McDoobAU93 to decide. My desire is to make the link McDoobAU93 suggestion go to the portion of Sealand of the Pacific that is in reference to the first death caused by this whale. Again, forgive my not knowing the correct term, but I think it would be a good idea to create a “==sub-section==” on Sealand of the Pacific, named whatever, that starts at paragraph six (begging with "In 1991, a 20-year-old student". Then the link would be written “Sealand of the Pacific# sub-section |first put on public display, and it will go to that sub-section. HOWEVER, I can agree to leave the link as McDoobAU93 likes. This is only a suggestion on my part.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sub-section, sub-heading, it all works, my friend. I think ultimately the idea of a sub-heading under the Sealand article would be up to the editors that frequent that particular article. However, if I was editing there, I think I would support a subheading for a major incident involving that park, especially one that might have contributed to its closure the next year (my conjecture only). If/when it exists, I would accept the more fine-tuned wikilink to the subheading. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree that the people who frequent that particular article are in the best place to make changes. However, I looked at the history. The article was created in 2006 and has no changes since then. I don't think anyone frequent that particular article. So unless you object, I am going to make the sub-heading ==1991 Accident== (once I get a response from you) Again, if you have an issue with it I will leave it be. I would rather have the compromise we already do, then nothing at all.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and make the change at Sealand ... you have my support for your suggestion here. If there is cited linkage between the incident and the park's closure in 1992, make sure that's included and/or emphasized. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind being bold, I just didn't want to risk our compromise. I have made the change adding ==1991 Accident==. I also think the park's closure probably had to do with the accident, but I haven't done any research on that, so I don't know if there is any proof to back that up. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right about not adding anything linking the incident with the closure without research ... the pieces can add up that way, but doesn't necessarily mean they actually do. I saw the change, like it ... I made only one tiny change. In headings, only the first word in the heading is capitalized, unless the heading is a title, so in "1991 accident" there would be no capitalization, because the first word is a number. No change to content or layout, and would have no problem linking to that. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Great we are in a agreement. Thanks for catching the "A" vs "a" error.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you all have figured out what I would say with the proper text linking of "the incident" rather than "third death" etc etc. Can't write conjecture about the other park's closure being directly related to the incident without backing it up with facts. SpikeJones (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK protection's been lifted and I made the changed agreed upon here. Please take a look and make sure everyone's OK with it. I went ahead and left the reference item in, sans filler. It could probably stand to be formatted better, but it's a perfectly good reference and should be here, one way or another. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making the change, I was out of Wikipedia contact this weekend, so I am glad to see it taken care of. I also agree that a better format could be found, and if it is it should changed. However it is also expectable as is, so unless someone can find a better format, then it should be left as is. Anyway, Thanks. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC: including or excluding victim names

(UPDATED PHRASING) Due to the recent events that occurred at SeaWorld Orlando, the question of whether to include or exclude accident victim's names in amusement park incident-related WP articles summarizing these incidents has arisen again. Guideline used by editors maintaining these specific pages has been to exclude names entirely; some editors feel that names should be included. For your convenience, in addition to above conversations, links to some previous discussions on this topic are available here:

• Talk:Incidents_at_Disney_parks#Should_victim.27s_names_be_included_in_Wikipedia.3F
• Talk:Incidents_at_Six_Flags_parks#tower_of_power.2C_victim.27s_name

As this is the 2nd RFC on this topic in less than a year, the goal is to come away with a definitive answer that we can refer to moving forward (to be applied just for the amusement park accident-related pages and content) in case this comes up again in the future. Thanks all for your input. SpikeJones (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to link to those talk pages (which are not official Wikipedia policy) then in order for this RFC to comply with the required neutrality, I would urge people to consider Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored (which is official Wikipedia policy) before making comments. WP:NOTCENSORED says that content that violates WP:BLP (if the article is about living persons), WP:NPOV, or the law may be removed.

However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

So that's the rules. You can strike out all the comments below that say we shouldn't include the trainer's name because they think it's objectionable or offensive. That's not a valid reason.

And if the other theme park articles delete names merely because some editors think it's objectionable or offensive, they're violating Wikipedia policy. Those names should be restored where they are relevant to the content. --Nbauman (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear that we understand specifically what you are saying with your above commentary, are you suggesting with your WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV points that the content contained within all of the amusement park incidents pages is being purposefully censored to promote a particular point of view? Every incident on these pages answers a WHO/WHAT/WHERE/WHEN/WHY point. Using the SeaWorld item, we mention each (paraphrasing for brevity here -- WHO: the whale. WHAT: attacked a trainer. WHERE: in the tank at SeaWorld Orlando. WHEN: that day, at lunch. WHY: still to be determined, but will be expanded once OSHA, scientists, or others have released definitive information. Still to come, any legal followups and any permanent adjustments made to park operations due to the whale's actions.) Can you point out specific examples in the Incidents pages that information about the incidents is being censored or presents a bias? Based on your previous edits, I will go on a limb and suggest that you will reply with "the whale didn't attack just any trainer, it attacked Dawn and that's why Dawn's name needs to be included". My preemptive counter will be that it doesn't matter specifically who the whale attacked (saying "a trainer" is adequate to differentiate from "a park guest"), the article presentation is focused on what the whale did to the victim, not on the victim dying because of the whale. SpikeJones (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the editors' motivation is the important issue here. I'm simply saying that we should follow Wikipedia rules:

I was saying that you can't delete names merely because you find the names "objectionable" or because you think it's offensive to include them, or words to that effect. So any comments making those arguments should be set aside.

I would ask you why you should limit the WHO to the whale. There are two parties involved in a whale attack, and if the victim of the attack is a trainer, who has been covered in the press before, I would say that the trainer's name is notable. Why not? Why not exclude the whale's name? --Nbauman (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question - are you saying that the Incident articles are being purposefully purposefully censored to promote a particular point of view? If your answer to the question was your above claim that I find names "objectionable" or "offensive", I have never said that, and I wonder why you are offering divergent tangents instead of answering the direct question. The WHO in the incident is the whale - without the whale and its actions, there is no incident at all. The whale is the protaganist to the event, if you will. This summary was written similarly to how the incident pages name a parks' thrill ride that a victim was riding during an incident. If the park operation changes due to the event, it will be the whale that is addressed (how the whale is handled, where the whale goes to live, whether the whale is put to sleep, etc) just as some parks may choose to dismantle an attraction or change ride loading policies for attraction-oriented incidents. There is just one participant in the whale attack - the whale - unless Dawn was having a duel with the whale that we didn't know about, she was just another victimized bystander. And being written about in a newspaper feature doesn't qualify you for inclusion in WP by itself, whether as a named article or mentioned in an article. If that were true, I (and any number of WP editors) would be listed dozens of times in WP's stacks just on our own appearances in the mainstream press (trust me, while personally proud of the write-ups we've received, we're really not that special). As for excluding the whale's name, that is unlikely to happen as the whale was already notable within WP on its own before this event. See previous mentions of Fabio as an amusement park accident victim below as an example. Here's a question for you to answer: ten years from now, will the average person ask "remember that whale incident at SeaWorld", or will the question be "remember how Dawn died"? I'm guessing the former is more likely to happen than not. SpikeJones (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Exclude: (UPDATED PHRASING) Per the previous RFC, the established usage on all related amusement park incidents and related pages (Incidents at Disney parks, Incidents at Universal parks, Incidents at SeaWorld parks, etc) has been to not include victim names. Whatever the final result of this forward discussion is will need to be applied to every incident that currently exists on all the amusement park accident pages, and not just the currently-disputed entry. Note - This is not a policy that would be carried over onto non-amusement park accident areas of WP.

• While BLP does not apply to dead people, all victims typically fail notability per WP:BIO1E and WP:PEOPLE, as they would only be known for one event (exceptions to naming victims do exist, such as naming and linking Fabio when he was hit in the face by a bird during a press event - in this case, Fabio was already notable outside of being a victim)
• These articles are about the park incidents, not about the people who died or are injured.
• All disputing parties agree that a single article about the specific incident (where that incident was notable enough to have its own WP page) would qualify for including the victim name on *that* page).
• Removal of the names here does not result in a loss of article comprehension. Victim names are available to interested parties via the sourced references.
• Consistency across all Incident articles has been maintained to exclude names throughout regardless of whether the victim is a minor, still living (therefore failing WP:BLP), died, etc. To include names for occasional incidents would require an editor's POV opinion as to what would make one name more notable to appear than others. And since POV's differ, it's better to apply an all-or-none philosophy here.

I encourage all discussing editors to review the Incidents pages and the previous discussions on this topic (and above conversation).SpikeJones (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SpikeJones, this is not a valid RFC. WP:Requests for Comment says

Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue [Emphasis in original]

You did not give a neutral statement of the issue. Instead, you listed all of your reasons for excluding the names, and none of the reasons for including the names. As a result, uninvolved editors will see a long argument for your position (without the opposing position) and asked whether they agree. Of course they're going to agree with you. They don't know the other side. You're giving an unfair advantage to your own position.

I believe we must ignore this invalid RFC. I believe we have a consensus for including the name of Dawn Brancheau. --Nbauman (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

SpikeJones, I'd also remind you of WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding:

RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.

People on one side or the other have to give meaningful responses to their opponents' viewpoints. If you just drop by and say, "I don't think this adds anything to the article," that doesn't count, as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which is AFD, but it's a good point). You have to give good reasons to answer the arguments on the other side, or your comment doesn't count. --Nbauman (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this RFC has been tainted by a non-neutral summary of the issue. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Per request, RFC phrasing has been reset to a more neutral version. SpikeJones (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SpikeJones, this is still not a valid RFC, because it's still not a neutral statement. For one thing, it's inaccurate. You claim that guidelines have been to exclude names in such articles. There are no such guidelines. The only guideline cited in your links is WP:BLPNAME, and that's for living people.

I would rather that you restore the original RFC text, because it at least gives us a list of your reasons for wanting to exclude them. Now the people who hit this page for RFC won't even know what the reasons are. You should give an equal list of the reasons for including the names.

This RFC isn't going to work. We do not and probably will not have a consensus. You want a definitive answer that you can use to justify deleting names from these articles in the future. You're not going to get it. You're going to have to argue each one on a case-by-case basis. And in the cae of Dawn Brancheau, the argument is very good for including her name. --Nbauman (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In this RFC, I have not claimed WP:BLP was a reason to exclude names as we all agree that it does not apply to dead people; I have been claiming notability per BIO1E and similar (that is, a victim is only notable for one event - being injured or killed due to an amusement park accident). Can you point out in the rewritten intro what the non-neutral text is? I state what the disagreement is clearly (current status vs differing opinion) without offering any undue weight to one or the other. I was very clear in saying "guideline" vs "policy" (you are correct, WP does not have a specific policy that covers this particular situation, hence our discussion this week). As you have not been a participant in maintaining the Incidents pages in the past, I am curious how you can say that there isn't an established guideline that covers how these particular article contents are constructed (I will assume that on pages you regularly maintain that they have their own editing guidelines that vary from how other pages are constructed across WP)? In the very first "exclude" item entered above, I mention exactly what my reasons are for excluding. They were moved out of the opening paragraph per your request for a more neutral opening statement. Where you say that "the argument is very good for including her name", there is just as much of an argument against, hence the discussion that we're having.SpikeJones (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Arguing that her name can't be mentioned in this article because of WP:BIO1E doesn't fly because Notability guidelines do not limit article content. Whether a victim's name should be mentioned ought to be very straightforward: if just about all the sources mention it, we should. If just about none of them mention it, we shouldn't. All the rest is wikilawyering, IMO.--Father Goose (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Are the news articles only mentioning the name everywhere because it is a recent event? If we take a broad look at all amusement park incidents that are listed in the WP pages currently, using randomly selected examples of items that were equally noteworthy at the time they occurred --- does it matter what the names are of the people struck by the falling tree in Frontierland in 2001? Or in 2007, the name of the man who died on Everest? Or, from the purposes of what the articles are talking about, is simply mentioning "an experienced trainer" enough to uniquely identify the whale victim at SeaWorld? SpikeJones (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Recentism could be just as easily invoked to justify not including the incident at all. Rather than throw one policy or essay after another at the issue (none of which fit), why don't you make your case using the reasoning that convinced you to omit it, as your best chance of convincing us?--Father Goose (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When this topic was brought up on WP:BLP when it involved a victim who did not die due to their incident, we were told that WP:BLPNAME would apply "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event...it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." With regards to dead victim, notability rules still apply, with BIO1E being the applicable item. Since these articles are about the accidents and not about the victims, omitting the victims' name does not result in a loss of clarity. Further, we were told that it was up to those editors who were actively maintaining the incident pages to apply their own consensus to the problem. Consensus among those editors was to omit the names. The issue we are seeing here is that consensus stays consistent until an accident becomes news, in which case editors who do not regularly maintain these pages drop by insisting to change the established consensus. Over time, however, we've found that as the events fade from the top of the news, the existing article content continues to stand on its own, names omitted.SpikeJones (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been pointed out several times now that the notability guidelines do not govern content. You've got to avoid that argument, it's dead in the water oops, bad choice of words. Here's your compromise: include names of victims that were recently in the news, and after some time has passed (say, 2 months), remove the name. At the time of the event, people are likely to be looking for information on the victims by name. As time passes, the event will remain significant; the name, not as much. As I pointed out to you on my talk page, Wikipedia is a living document: we can include some information now and different information later, to better serve an audience that will change over time.--Father Goose (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, interesting premise ... which raises this question: if the information can be casually removed after "some time has passed", why add it at all? It's obviously not that important, which proves the main point here. If the name adds nothing to the article and also does no serious harm to the article in its omission (i.e., the context of the incident won't be lost), it should be left out. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your suggestion, let's throw out notability in content as a topic of conversation - you're right, since we're not talking about the victims and we're talking about the events themselves, who the victim is really does become irrelevant to the item being reported (Fabio being hit in the face by a bird notwithstanding). For example, take a look at this revision comparison between the current Incidents at Disney parks article and a version from 2006 before many of the victim names were stripped out per the aforementioned previous discussion. (See the diff here). Ignoring general article improvement edits, you can see that the lack of victim names in the current version does not detract from the article content that existed in the older version. Whether it be "Cristina Moreno" or "a woman" who suffered on Indiana Jones, the facts presented are identical without a loss of clarity - to me, the version that states "a woman" reinforces the events of the incident rather than focusing on the victim's suffering (the incidents are which this article is about in the first place). Thinking long-term, if we were to use your suggestion of temporarily including victim names while the victims are in daily press coverage, and then removing the names to "a woman/man/victim" is a reasonable compromise to satisfy those with an immediate need to see victims names cited, as well as to placate those who want a more generic reading down the road. McDoob brings up a fair point of when can that casual removal take place without upsetting those who insisted it be included in the first place? It would seem that at the time the replacement edit were made, we could get into an edit/revert pattern, which could be argued that names could be removed per WP:NOTAMEMORIAL at that point, I suppose. McDoob's question of "if it can be removed later, why include it in the first place" is also a reasonable question.

All that said, as WP is not a newspaper, I offer that WikiNews is a place to look for detailed news information - including the victim names - as we have seen in other Incident pieces. Interested parties can write the WikiNews piece to include all relevant information they care to and insert the WikiNews call into the appropriate WP incident summary section. One of many examples are the WP Mission:Space death summary vs WikiNews' coverage of same. Since the WikiNews piece is linked over from the WP article, it's not a hidden piece of information and everyone gets what they want (ie no names in the WP summaries, names in the WikiNews article, and both linked together). SpikeJones (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"If it can be removed later, why include it in the first place" -- because, as I said, the information people are looking for will vary over time. For topical issues, people want topical details. That's just how it is, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. As for Wikipedia not being a newspaper, that's true, but it still doesn't mean we should avoid covering current events in a topical manner. "Covering the news" is one of our strengths, and long as the events we write about have some rightful place within the encyclopedia, our readers (and contributors) look to us to cover those events better than any other site in the world. Have a look at this article and this article for details on why that is so.

I agree that as time goes on, "who was hurt", if they were not otherwise famous, will diminish in importance to "that someone got hurt". But as you've noted elsewhere on this page, when it's a recent event, people will clamor for the same degree of detail that is found in contemporary sources. It is not unreasonable for readers and contributors to want certain details now and other details later. When is 'later'? I suggested two months, as a guess. Will there be fights over the removal of that material at a later time? Possibly. But I recommend that you pursue the idea as something that might help to get the community in agreement on how we should approach this issue. The broader the agreement, the easier it will be to enforce at a later time.--Father Goose (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We're certainly not avoiding adding current events in a topical manner - the history of the various Incidents articles proves that those involved editors are active in finding credible, citable sources and adding unbiased information as quickly as it becomes available. It's the line of covering a topic in an encyclopedic manner as the incident is placed in perspective with other incidents that have occurred at amusement parks vs reporting the news of what has occurred to a single individual that we're talking about. When an event occurs, immediately we see seemingly angry/perhaps slightly biased parties rush to the incidents pages and question established consensus, saying that the burden to prove why names have been excluded is on those of us who have been maintaining these articles over the years rather than accepting that the topic has already been discussed to death (no pun intended) before their involvement. It's a continual fight and the same pattern - an event occurs, someone creates a WP page for the victim... a page which will repeatedly get speedy deleted/created/speedy/created/AFD/created/redirected due to notability and other issues, along with adding the name, reverting the removal, 3RR threats, angry user talk page discussions, etc. More than happy to adjust established consensus that amusement park accident victim names *will* be removed after a short amount of time from the WP articles - but there should be some give on the part of the other side who insist that names are important to them. And regardless of WP's prominence over WikiNews, WikiNews still gives interested parties a linkable and usable place to write their news articles the way they would like the victim to appear. SpikeJones (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude the names per the summary already provided, the previous RfC, and my remarks there. Still not seeing any argument giving a good reason to include such information when it really adds nothing to the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • AnmaFinotera, I'd like to ask you and others who believe we should exclude the name to respond to the argument that many people who are researching these issues would be likely to do a Google search for "Dawn Brancheau Seaworld", and if we delete the name Dawn Brancheau it won't turn up in the search. --Nbauman (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Include - Misapplying notability guidelines to article content is a dangerous and incorrect precedent, since they were never written for that purpose. There is no privacy concern when these names are widely reported in the media. Arguing that readers can look at the sources is meaningless. Our job here is to summarize what the reliable sources said in an encyclopedic fashion. Gigs (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, our job is to summarize the reliable sources in an encyclopedic fashion. The victim names are secondary to the main article focus, the focus being of the incidents themselves.SpikeJones (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude because they add nothing to the article. It is not a question of privacy. In general, incidents are not encyclopedic material unless they are notable, and they are not notable for the participants, notability is not transferred. They are notable for their place in the overall context, which is why the notability guidelines for incidents require significant coverage of the incident in secondary sources. Our job is not to summarize, our job is to place incidents within an encyclopedic context. --Bejnar (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude unless the name of the victims becomes synonymous with the incident, there's no need to identify the victims. This is not so much a notability issue as being careful about BLPs, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and the like. If it impossible to talk about the incident without bringing up the name, then it should be included, but it seems in most of these cases, it can be withheld appropriately. --MASEM (t) 19:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • To be clear, we are talking about dead people here, not living people. Gigs (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
    • There are still aspects of BLP that would apply to dead people (eg. if they are minors, for example). --MASEM (t) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Where does WP:BLP apply to dead people if they are minors? I can't find it with a text search. --Nbauman (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I'd still favor the BLP mindset when looking at content concerning recently deceased persons. Our ethical obligations don't switch off like a light bulb. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Luna Santin, could you explain why we have an ethical obligation not to use her name? If somebody says, "I don't want to go through the rest of my life with people doing a Google search for me and having the first-ranked result the story about how I got bitten on the ass by an alligator in the San Diego Zoo," I can understand deleting the name to avoid embarassing someone. If somebody says, "I don't want the first hit on Google to be the story about how my daughter died in a freak accident at Disney World," I can understand deleting the name to avoid suffering. We don't want to subject people to additional suffering or embarassment. But this is a woman who was well-known as a trainer, accepted the risks of the job, and was killed in an accident that was front-page news everywhere. A Google search for her name will always turn up her death at SeaWorld. How will it create any more harm or embarassment to include her name in this entry? What's the ethical problem? --Nbauman (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I meant my comment in a more general sense, directed (perhaps pre-emptively) at the notion that BLP immediately becomes irrelevant the moment someone passes away. As far as publishing names goes, I usually prefer to follow the lead of prominent reliable sources (which I believe have been publishing the name, yes?) unless there's an important reason not to. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Include - I was an uninvolved editor until I checked Wikipedia to find out more about SeaWorld after the death of the trainer Dawn Brancheau.

For me, the specific SeaWorld article is a secondary concern. My primary concern is the integrity of Wikipedia. I write mostly about medicine, and it's very important to me and other Wikipedians to prevent WP:COI parties from deleting WP:NPOV information.

For several years, SeaWorld employees have been editing the entry. They are editing it in violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. They and their (probably well-intentioned) supporters are engaged in long debates and revert wars with anybody who tries to include anything in the entry that would make SeaWorld uncomfortable, including deaths and animal welfare-based criticism. Their last effort is to eliminate or obscure as much information as possible about the recent death of SeaWorld's trainer, Dawn Brancheau, including her name. That's the issue as I see it.

Including the specific name is important for many reasons. The most obvious is that many people who want more information about the incident are likely to search Google for "Dawn Brancheau SeaWorld". If we eliminate her name, it won't appear on many Google searches.

SeaWorld employees claim that they are editing it neutrally and objectively, but as Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

The article itself looks like a public relations piece. Just read the introduction:

The park has an extensive playground for children, named Shamu’s Happy Harbor. It used to have a different playground named Cap'n Kids World.

(This is public relations material that was printed as a promotional piece in a local newspaper almost certainly in exchange for SeaWorld advertising.)

Or further down:

the two parks were combined in spring 2001 as the so-called "mega-park" "Six Flags Worlds Of Adventure", which boasted its "Three parks in one" uniqueness: a waterpark, an amusement park, and a wildlife animal park - all included in one price of admission.

After my quick review of the article history and talk, I see that pro-SeaWorld editors have consistently eliminated any material that would make the SeaWorld public relations department uncomfortable.

Anything even mildly negative about SeaWorld was moved to an inconspicuous place in the Seaworld#Criticism section, or into an entirely separate entry, Incidents at SeaWorld parks.

If you read the science news, you know that biologists are divided over whether it's right to keep large mammals captive in zoos, because in nature they're social animals that travel hundreds of miles, and capture threatens the wild population.

And now, one of SeaWorld's orcas, Tillikum, has killed a trainer, Dawn Brancheau, in their Orlando, Florida park, and this orca was involved in the deaths of other humans and orcas, although you would have a hard time finding it in the SeaWorld entry or even the Seaworld#Criticism section.

This article is an advertising brochure for SeaWorld, written essentially by the SeaWorld PR department, with a muddled paragraph of criticism relegated to the end. In order to meet Wikipedia standards, this SeaWorld should be completely rewritten under the monitoring of some uninvolved admins to make sure the paid employees of SeaWorld don't overwhelm the unpaid impartial editors of Wikipedia with edit wars and interminable talk debates.

And the first step would be including the name of Dawn Brancheau. --Nbauman (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You're making some pretty broad accusations without much proof. Yes, if there are conflicts of interest they should be taken care of. The parent SeaWorld article does need some work, but mainly because the SeaWorld family of parks had a history prior to being acquired by Anheuser-Busch in the late 1980s, to say nothing of A-B's subsequent sale of its Busch Entertainment division to the Blackstone Group to form SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment. As SpikeJones has said, all the theme-park company articles discuss principally the companies themselves, and then have separate articles detailing the incidents that have occurred there. In each case, be it Cedar Fair, Walt Disney Parks & Resorts, Six Flags or what-have-you has a separate incidents article ... each filled with details, and each leaving out the victim's names (where such names might exist). --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that your edit above is confusing as it appears to be off-topic. We are not talking about the alleged COI and flowerly marketing language on the SeaWorld corporate article (which, agreed, seems a bit slanted). However, that article's content can be easily handled by any editor who would like to rewrite the piece to meet WP standards.SpikeJones (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude in general where only the victimhood is the reason for including the name and the person would fail any claims for "notability" otherwise. My position also includes all mentions of individuals whose names are tangential to the main topic of the article, and who would not otherwise merit the use of 20 bytes in an article. Collect (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- I lean in favor of more information over less. The case for exclusion given here so far is weak. The notability guideline(s) mentioned are mainly designed to determine whether there should be an article, not about which information should be included in any given article. Maurreen (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude - per reasons stated above, and I'll throw in WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I think it sets a dangerous precedent to start including lots of non-notable individuals into articles. If there is concern about the article being one sided, then edit the article with appropriate sources to reflect a more neutral viewpoint. I don't see how adding names makes the article more neutral. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Notability has never been a standard for content inside articles. To apply it to article content would be the new precedent. Gigs (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Restart RFC with a neutral opening statement. An RFC that starts with such a slanted appeal should not proceed, nor should any of its results be taken seriously. -- Avenue (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Failing that, I'd ask the opener to rewrite their statement aiming for more neutrality. Please do this soon. Comments made before this happens are unfortunately now tainted by some suspicion that they could have been unduely swayed. -- Avenue (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, opener has been rewritten to be more neutral. SpikeJones (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude - multiple reasons. Adding person's name adds nothing to the article, and its omission does not damage the article. In such a case, prior consensus was to leave the name out. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL also apply. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • McDoobAU93, how you can say that adding a person's name adds nothing to the article? It does add something, namely the person's name, which is part of the who, what, why, where, when and how that Hemmngway said you should always include in a story. This article includes far more trivial information. What does it add to the story to say that Southwest Airlines has airlines painted like Shamu? --Nbauman (talk)
    • Easy ... I give you two sentences. "A killer whale grabbed a trainer's ponytail and dragged her around the pool." "A killer whale grabbed Jane Doe's ponytail and dragged her around the pool." The sentences say exactly the same thing, only swapping one noun for another noun. The context of the statement is unchanged. In such cases, consensus has preferred to "err on the side of caution" and leave the name out. This is no different than any other accident/disaster article, be it involving theme parks or plane crashes or terrorism. As to "story," we're not trying to tell a story. If a user wants the story, they can click on the citation link and read all the details they want. As to Southwest, that's in the SeaWorld article, not here ... if you'd like to discuss its inclusion, we can do that at Talk:SeaWorld. As to the Google search argument, are you trying to reach a quota or something? Wikipedia already is one of the top 10 websites per Alexa, so I think the site's a popular search target on its own, without Google's help. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nbauman, I think Hemingway was talking about news articles (WP:NOT#NEWS). LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tilikum was involved in three fatalities. This entry, and the SeaWorld entry, don't make that clear.

When I read these Wikipedia articles, I had a hard time figuring out which accident and which victim was which.

If I read this story and I see, "Tilikum grabbed Dawn Brancheau's ponytail and dragged her around the pool," I know that this is referring to Tilikum and the Brancheau death.

If I see, "A killer whale grabbed a trainer's ponytail and dragged her around the pool," I don't know what whale, what trainer, and what incident it's referring to.

It makes a big difference in the readability and clarity to have all the facts, rather than vague terms. English teachers cite Hemmingway's advice for all kinds of writing. Strunk and White (and all writing books) say the same thing. A good, specific story is easier to read and understand than a bad, vague story. --Nbauman (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at what's there now? The incident section specifically states what whale was involved, that the whale is related to two other incidents (heck, incident #2 is listed directly above it), and complete with a link to the location of the first incident ... another editor and I went round and round on that till we hit a compromise on just how to say it. And I still don't get this "story" angle ... we're not telling a story here. If someone wants the details, they can select any of the 4-5 stories connected to the article. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've read all the related articles several times. The Incidents at SeaWorld parks#SeaWorld Orlando section is confusing, because of the "compromise" you made, in your misguided notion that in a Seaworld article we could only describe incidents tht occurred when Tilkum was owned by Seaworld.

The section has two paragraphs. The first paragraph is about the naked man incident. The second paragraph has the "compromise" wording, "This was the third time since being first put on public display that Tilikum has been involved in a human death." Nobody would understand what that means. Why don't you give details of the third death? It would clarify for the reader the circumstances under which this orca has been killing people. It would help them decide whether SeaWorld has been paying enough attention to safety, or whether orcas are too dangerous for these kinds of exhibitions.

This section has a link, "Main article: SeaWorld Orlando", to the location of the incident, but the article has even less information about the killings. If the reader of an article has to click to three or four other locations to understand what happened, the article is badly written.

So the more we apply your aguments to these articles, the more confusing, harder to understand and less informative the articles get.

I think that compromise was a bad one, which we should undo, and we should explain what happened in the three incidents in direct language. --Nbauman (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A digression for clarification: all the Incidents pages are structured to file each incident according to the park's current owner, regardless of who owned the park at the time the incident occurred. If a park is sold from one entity to another (Cedar Fair purchase from Six Flags, for example), then the entire park Incident history moves to the new location, just like the Park page or corporate templates are updated to reflect the new owner. The first whale death did not take place at a SeaWorld park, so that info does not belong on a SeaWorld Incident page. It should be linked from here to the proper page, however, where it would be sourced correctly. While it *could* be done, there's no pressing need to move the info to Incidents at independent parks, however, as that particular park has been closed. Note that the first death info does exist on the park page where the incident occurred, which is no different than if the Incidents at SeaWorld parks page never existed and the other two SeaWorld deaths were on the SeaWorld Orlando page. SpikeJones (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Include reliably sourced names in articles about the event; redirect any potential articles on people failing BIO1E to the event article. The names unquestionably add to the article, naming a victim is not a memorial, and NOTNEWS is about not covering trivial current events rather than about an intentional decision to not answer the "who" question in an otherwise notable event. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. One comment: the victim's name already redirects to the "Incidents at" page where the incident information is summarized along with other SeaWorld-related incidents that this particular victim was not involved in. (in other words, WP searches for the victim already land them on the relevant page.) Agreed that if the incident proves notable enough to warrant its own page that the redirect and name inclusion would go hand-in-hand. SpikeJones (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Having the redirect land here and then not mentioning the name in the article makes even less sense. Gigs (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Redirects should provide context whenever possible. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Include Notability is about article topics, not article content. This person's name is mentioned in nearly every reliable source about this event. To not add the name would in some ways be an absurd inversion of UNDUE. Joshdboz (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The incidents articles are summaries of park incidents and not about the people involved. If the event was notable enough to have its own article, then I can see your argument that the victim's name would appear there. SpikeJones (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Include names. If the name of a person has been widely reported there is no good reason to exclude it. We're not German Wikipedia. Our notability guideline specifically has nothing to do with what is included within articles. The idea that the names of people not notable enough for a Wikipedia article should be excluded from articles when they are prominently associated with the topic is bizarre (in the absence of privacy concerns). This is basically censorship, as any other responsible source (newspaper, book, TV documetary) reporting an event such as the Seaworld drowning would give her name. The names of people involved in events or associated with topics absolutely is encyclopedic content, and we will be doing readers a disservice by removing this information out of some puritanical and misguided sense 'doing the right thing'. Try to implement this more widely and you'll quickly find that editors of most articles will find this idea to be ridiculous. This is biography paranoia. Fences&Windows 00:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Btw, her name was already in the press as a leading killer whale trainer at SeaWorld before she died:[2][3]. Fences&Windows 00:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to the notability question again - many people's names get in the press for various reasons, but that doesn't make them notable for inclusion on their own WP page. I know plenty of people who have been profiled in the newspaper, but would fail WP notability rules. If she was not notable enough for inclusion before she died, and she becomes notable strictly because she died while performing her (albeit potentially deadly) job, then that still fails notability per WP:BIO1E. SpikeJones (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you deserve a prize for muddying the waters! Whether we should have an article about her is not at dispute - we shouldn't. But you want to extend "not notable" to mean "must not be mentioned in any article", and that proposal would seriously damage the credibility of Wikipedia. Are you trying to turn us into a Jane Austen novel?Jane Austen would write some placenames as ------shire and names as Mr L------ to avoid casting aspersions on real places or people Fences&Windows 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll take your comment as a compliment, as I'm sure that even as slight sarcasm that it was intended to not be an attack. I'm glad we agree about the victim's notability (or lack thereof as it were). I've never said that the victim name should not be named in any article - but that victim's names are irrelevant in *these* incident and other amusement park accident-related areas. I can come up with many examples where her name can be mentioned: in an article specifically about the attack (assuming said attack becomes notable on its own), or in an article about training dolphins where she might be quoted from an unbiased 3rd-party source, etc. As stated previously, the focus here is on the incident, not the victim. Using the recent situation as our discussion example - "the whale at SeaWorld killed a trainer." How the whale killed the trainer, where the whale killed the trainer, why the whale killed the trainer, and the aftermath that ensues is what we are/will summarize. The victim could have been anyone (a trainer, a fish feeder, a casual park guest, a window cleaner, etc). The description of the victim as an "experienced trainer" should be enough to clarify who the victim was without having to use the victim's name to do so. SpikeJones (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Include. All the notability arguments are irrelevant, because those criteria apply only to whether we should have an article, not to the contents of articles. BLP obviously does not apply; the victim is dead. Her name has been properly sourced and contributes meaningfully to the article, as Nbauman explains above. SpikeJones, please see my request to you above.-- Avenue (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how having her name "contributes meaningfully" to the article. The article lists her as an "experienced trainer". Does it really matter if her name was "Bob Smith" or "Jane Williams" for comprehension of the incident? SpikeJones (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Include In the recent case, Brancheau's name is a likely search term.There are currently over 6800 Google News results for "killer whale" Brancheau Wikipedia is not censored to protect corporate interests. (It was weird when a park spokesman called the killing of Brancheau by a 6 ton serial killer whale an "altercation.") Edison (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• No policy or guideline dictates what should be done here. BLP applies only to living people; this question has been raised before and the answer each time has been the same: living people only. Mentioning the name of the person killed does not constitute a violation of our "moral obligation" to her. We are well within our license to mention her name given how often the news has in connection to this event -- if BLP did apply, WP:WELLKNOWN would be the relevant portion. Given how often she has been mentioned by name in the news, we should mention her name as well -- people are going to look for her specifically, and we should not pretend that we have an obligation to redact well-known information.--Father Goose (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include. BLP rules do not apply in this situation. As long as the name is published in a verifiable, reliable source. Cla68 (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude on grounds of WP:DUE weight. We should follow the sources -- and in particular, we should follow the long-term, far-post-event sources, not the breaking-news sources. The sources that have a long-term, historical view tend not to name each victim. Instead, they provide summaries of the important (i.e., WP:DUE) facts, which are most commonly (1) when the incident happened/frequency and (2) whether the victim was staff, guest, or trespasser. Once the initial media flurry has died down, remarkably few sources name each victim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include The information is relevant and verifiable and readily available through other sources. Additionally, BLP cannot apply when we're talking about a dead person. Notability does not apply to article contents, with the exception of certain lists and only then when there is local census therefor. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include the name of the victim is a vital piece of information for people interested in doing further research beyond the article as it is the incidents most distinguishing datum. Icewedge (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I counter that the most distinguishing datum is about the whale and where/how it took place, not the victim. The situation could have happened to anyone with the same whale and location. The article makes it clear that the victim was an experienced trainer. That the trainer's name was "Dawn" or "Phil" or "Larry" is inconsequential to article comprehension. SpikeJones (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude - Admittedly I started reading this discussion believing that the names should not appear. Now that I have read all the points of view from the last time I came to this page, I can say I was not convinced that there is a good reason to include the names. Yes having the name allows searches, but if you do a search for "Killer whale death" you still get all the information you would with the name. Yes the information is readily available, but that doesn’t mean it that is should be included. Pornography is readily available, but should be use it in an encyclopedia. There are good arguments here both for and against inclusion due to WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and if they do or don’t apply. However, that does not address that fact that the fact that the name is not actually essential to the article. It may be nice to have, but unless those that believe the name should be included have an overwhelmingly convincing argument that the name should be included and that it is more then something “nice to have”, I think we should default to the safe side, and not include the name, even if it's out of respect for the family of the victim. I don't think that has happened, so I a oppose inclusion{{User:ARTEST4ECHO|ARTEST4ECHO]] (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Addational Comment I will grant those who wish for inclusion that, due to the fact this person is dead, there is alot of confusion and conflicting information here as to what if any Wikipedia policy applies. I'm not sure of the process, but perhaps a request for an official Wikipedia policy, simalar to WP:BLP, but specifically addressing those whose deaths are in current news, needs to be requested, if it hasn’t already been done? ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

After this RfC discussion ends would be the best time to propose such a policy, so as to avoid splitting discussion on the same topic. But new policies and policy changes need clear consensus, and considering the mixed responses here, I doubt you'll find it. It's important to remember that we don't try to make policy all inclusive of every situation. It's OK to have situations that fall outside policy. Relevant reading is over at Wikipedia:NOTLAW. Gigs (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification on the process. I'm a newcomer with more then just simple editing, so I'm not very familiar with the process of how, when and even who makes official WP polices. I just see that this discussion has come up several times in several different places. Most the argument for and against are valid but are the same throughout WP. I was just thinking a policy similar to WP:BLP, but specifically addressing those whose deaths are in current news would clarify this for everyone. That’s all ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• • ARTEST4ECHO, WP:BLP was written by lawyers, and the main purpose was to protect Wikipedia from libel suits. Only living people can bring libel actions. The estate of dead people can't bring libel actions. So there's no legal need to extend WP:BLP to dead people. --Nbauman (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As noted in the updated version of my initial "Exclude" item at the top of this piece, BLP only applies to living victims of amusement park accidents and not to dead ones. Dead victims are excluded due to lack of notability (in that they are only notable for dying in an amusement park accident). Victims who were previously notable outside of being injured (Fabio, for example, on the SeaWorld incidents page, being an example of a named victim). SpikeJones (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude unless the person is already bluelinked. –xeno^talk 13:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The name of the victim here (Dawn Brancheau) does show a blue link. It redirects to this article. Did you mean we should therefore include her name here, or do redirects not count as blue links? -- Avenue (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant only if the person was already bluelinked before the incident. As in the incident isn't their only claim to notability. –xeno^talk 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Include No violation of WP:UNDUE - it's a two-word inclusion. How can this be undue weight? No violation of WP:BLP - the victim is not a living person. A redirect from the name without mentioning the name in the article is very confusing. The person's name is a likely search term. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It was either redirect the victim's name here, or Speedy the newly created article (or AFD). We can discuss this item later if necessary. SpikeJones (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment withdrawn per comment below. Relocated to user talk page. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't feel that personalizing a dispute on an article talk page is appropriate. If you have a personal issue with an editor here, I suggest taking it up with them on their user talk page. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• But that's precisely my question ... is it personal? I'll be glad to remove it, but if an editor's rationale is based on their own personal feelings and agenda and not that of the project, then that should be a concern for everyone. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• As far as the article is concerned, only the weight and merit of their argument should be important. If there is something wrong with their conduct, then that's in a different arena of dispute resolution, which takes place, in order, on the user talk page, COI noticeobard, WP:ANI, editor behavior RfC, and so on. Once editor conduct dispute resolution has begun, I think it's ok to note that briefly here to let everyone know about it with a link so they can get involved if they want to. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Include in general, particularly when much of the press coverage will include the name and the name is therefore a reasonable search term. Of course names ought to be included only when reliably sourced. Long lists of names should probably not be included in most cases, but names of single victims should normally be included when sourced. In the recent seaworld case, the name ought clearly to be included. The notability standards that govern whether a person should be the subject of an independent article (such as BLP1E) have, and ought to have, nothing at all to do with whether a name is mentioned in an article. Someone above says that the victim "could have been anyone". Perhaps, but it was in fact a specific person, and that is a relevant, documented fact. DES ^(talk) 06:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include - It's all said above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude - There is no need to include victim's names. It doesn't add to the article and as a courtesey should be left out. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include Assuming reliable sources include it. Hobit (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include per Fences and Windows. Ray^Talk 19:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Before making a substantial statement about this particular article, and about the naming of accident victims in general, I would question the whole basis of this RFC. What is so distinctive about accidents in amusement parks that there should be any specific guidance about the naming of accident victims in them that differs in any way from how we approach naming of the victims of accidents that occur in any other public facilities? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phil, thanks for joining the conversation. Perhaps some history would be helpful - many years ago, when these articles were spun off from the individual park articles as part of a consolidation effort, names were included. Then, after yet another newsworthy incident occurred, WP admins specifically locked the articles and insisted that the names be removed, at which point we (the editors who actively maintain these pages) complied after a lengthy discussion took place. THe subject came up again after a different newsworthy incident, where we went to RFC and consensus amongst those editors was to continue to not include names. Now we are being told by more WP admins that we need to put the names back in. In essence, we have conflicting information: one set of admins said to take the names out, another set of admins said to put the names in. Consensus of page editors has been to keep the names out, requests from editors drawn to these pages by news items has been to put the names in. Hence this long and drawn out discussion that you see here, with points on what is or isn't policy being thrown about by all sides. Assuming you've already taken a few hours(!) to read the above commentary, along with the article content on this and other Incident pages to familiarize yourself with the page content and structure. With all that info (and yes, it seems to be a lot - sorry about that), please feel free to share your opinion as to what you feel the next steps should be. SpikeJones (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus of page editors has been to keep the names out, requests from editors drawn to these pages by news items has been to put the names in."

Ergo: put names in at the time that they are a current news event, remove them after enough time has passed that the name will most likely have passed from memory.

Are you trying to build an actual consensus here, or just debate it ad nauseum? If you really want to put this puppy to rest, try to see if an intermediate position will satisfy most participants. Otherwise this situation will come up again and again and again and remain unresolved for years. It really does not sound like that's what you want.--Father Goose (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agreed that your suggestion was reasonable and raised some questions surrounding how to best implement it, but the followup from others appeared to reject the proposal outright. In the meantime, some additional items to consider: (a) the Six Flags haunted house fire item on Incidents at Six Flags parks is written in the same manner as all other summary items, but that event was notable enough in the industry that it warrants its own article - the victim names do not appear in the summary, but they do appear in the separate article. No problem there, and it adheres to a point that all parties agree on. What's wrong with doing things this way, where if an incident becomes notable enough for its own article, place the names there - this is a variation of the wikinews commentary I had with your suggestion. (b) Sometimes, as WP:IGNORE states, strictly following WP policies can get in the way of editing - in this case, editing a page of summary information as opposed to detail content. Also, one can't use what is done on other pages as proof that the same logic should be applied everywhere. The editors who actively maintain these pages have come to a working consensus, and have written highly-sourced articles that contains all relevant information on the listed incidents without a loss of context. If it only appears broken by those who aren't participants in the process, does it need fixing? SpikeJones (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where you raised the suggestion and where it was rejected. Diffs please.--Father Goose (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly:

• Contemplatation and commentary on your suggestion
• My comment: "More than happy to adjust established consensus..."
• Diff of all subsequent edits between my "more than happy" comment and contents of current page, showing no further discussion on that topic (but rather, an accusation of censorship and NPOV in page edits

Hope this helps. SpikeJones (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• My opinion on this is that we should include names only if they are widely disseminated in the press (or other reliable sources). That they are printed in some obscure paper somewhere is not enough. If most newspapers withhold the names, then so should we. If the names are widely published (even if not in the majority of papers or only in foreign papers), then we should include them. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include. I can't see any reason why we should treat the micro-subject of amusement park incidents any differently from the generality of articles, which means that we should include any verifiable information that a reader would reasonably expect to find in a comprehensive encyclopedia article. Pretty well all reliable sources about this indident name Ms Brancheau, so that shows that, in the world outside Wikipedia, her name is considered relevant. Notability guidelines are irrelevant, as they are only guidelines as to whether we should have a separate article about a subject, not whether a name should be mentioned in another article. WP:BLP is obviously irrelevant when it comes to the article subject. The argument that I find most difficult to understand is that we would somehow be more sensitive to the feelings of Ms Brancheau's family by leaving out her name. Luckily I have never been in such a situation, bit I'm certain that if someone close to me was killed in such a way I would far prefer that she was referred to by name, as a human being, rather than being presented as a dehumanised statistic such as "a trainer". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As previously stated - completely agree with you...if this was a "comprehensive encyclopedia article" about the singular event. But as summary "list of" articles, is it still necessary? (Is it too early to assume that we're approaching WP:Stick yet?) SpikeJones (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude - Individuals are entitled to a certain amount of privacy. At some point, a victim (or his family) will want to move past a particular accident and not want to spend the rest of his/her life being defined in terms of the accident. While the fact that accidents happen may have encyclopedic reference value, the names of the victims do not. However, if a surviving victim or a family member later holds himself out to the public as a result of the accident and gets on the speaking circuit, or is invited as a special guest at the State of the Union Address, then the name can be included in Wikipedia without regard to the privacy concern. This is not a question of censorship, it is a matter of simple human decency. Racepacket (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This really goes back to the core function of Wikipedia: Do we exist to convey knowledge (while not hurting people in the process, to the greatest extent possible), or to not hurt people (while conveying knowledge, to the greatest extent possible)? For anyone who thinks the answer is the latter, please go read WP:5P and refamiliarize yourself with our raison d'etre.
• Include How are you going to reference these deaths without the names of the victims? If the reader checks the ref, it will give the victim's name anyway. Not giving the name makes it harder to verify what is being claimed in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Check out this article. If you are concerned about people being known for their deaths, this would also seem to be a problem. On the other hand, it would be difficult to verify these deaths without the names of the victims. Fascinating and possibly instructive to the reader (out, out brief candle), but probably not welcomed by the victims families. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unusual_deaths Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the rationale

It might help to summarize the arguments and counter-arguments, especially if done concisely. Maurreen (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fair or balanced summary. First, it starts with the reasons to exclude. Furthermore, I don't think WP:NOTCENSORED, which is the strongest argument, can be effectively summarized by someone who thinks it doesn't apply. --Nbauman (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

1. One side or another has to be first. Side A has no more right to complain about that than Side B if the situation were reversed. Do you see where that rationale leads?
2. Summaries work best if they are short and neutral. By short, I mean one sentence, and one line is even better. Putting discussion in the summary defeats the purpose.
3. I support including the names. But I more strongly support a good discussion process. Maurreen (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Short, yes, but not that short. SpikeJones reduced WP:NOTCENSORED to a one-word argument, and he elaborated at length on the reasons to exclude. He gave a biased RFC and now he's giving a biased summary of the arguments. --Nbauman (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasons to exclude

• Excluding names does not change comprehension of the article topic (ie summaries of of park incidents) SpikeJones (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• For park victims that are injured as opposed to killed, WP:BLP would apply. Using names in some cases and not others would appear to be inconsistent to someone not familiar with these pages and/or WP policy with regards to living people SpikeJones (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• For park victims that are killed, it has been suggested by some WP admins that WP:BIO1E applies, in that the victims are known just for one thing - being killed at a park. SpikeJones (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• For articles that are specific to an individual incident, names can be included. As these articles are summaries as opposed to complete details, names are unnecessary if the victims are adequately/accurately identified via other means (linked references, description of victim aka "trainer" vs "guest", etc) SpikeJones (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Names of victims that are not previously notable (as opposed to notable victims, such as Fabio) can be excluded per failing WP:NOTABILITYSpikeJones (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• WP:NOTNEWS SpikeJones (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• WP:NOTMEMORIAL SpikeJones (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• WP:IGNORE SpikeJones (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Spike, You've been told over and over that notability standards do not apply to article content, yet you still attempt to confuse the issue by including them there. I have struck out invalid rationales based on applying notability to article contents. You should refer to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Gigs (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gigs - if you notice, I included that specific discussion point below. SpikeJones (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "discussion point". It's you disruptively refusing to get the point, and muddying the waters for those less familiar with policies. Gigs (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This section summarizes the arguments made, not a listing of only those arguments that were deemed valid. If you'll notice, I included the proper counterpoint on the other side of the fence in the spirit of being fair and balanced in the discussion. SpikeJones (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch would be proud. Gigs (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You did not list the proper counterpoint. What you listed is properly known as a straw man -- a weak version of your opponent's argument. Indeed, you were no more fair and balanced than Fox News. --Nbauman (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasons to include

• WP:NOTCENSORED says that facts should be included if they are "relevant to the content." The proof that the trainer's name is relevant to the content is that nearly every source uses her name. --Nbauman (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• We are here to serve readers. Leaving out the name does not serve readers. Maurreen (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• It's not as if this were a scandal, and the family would be embarassed. Maurreen (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Names already disseminated in wider sources. SpikeJones (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• WP:BIO1E and other notability-related policies only apply to article creation, not to article contentSpikeJones (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• The name is a likely search term. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• If the name is used as a redirect and not included in the article, this confuses readers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• The name allows readers to do specific searches elsewhere for further information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• The mere inclusion of a name does not turn an article into a "memorial". Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Elaboration of reasons to include

• WP:NOTCENSORED is official Wikipedia policy and must be followed. It overrides all arguments that we shouldn't include the trainer's name because someone thinks it's objectionable or offensive:

However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

--Nbauman (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Exclusion of a name in a summary is not censorship, especially since I have stated that it is perfectly acceptable to include in an article that is specifically dedicated to said incident. SpikeJones (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to WP:NOTCENSORED as Wikipedia defines it.

It's appropriate to include the name because it's a significant fact about the incident. Every WP:RS about the event includes the trainer's name. They think it's important. I think it's important. What reason do you have to think it's not important, other than, "I just don't think it's important?" Why do you disagree with the WP:WEIGHT judgment of every other WP:RS?

WP:NOTCENSORED says, "being objectionable" is not a valid reason for exclusion. Take that away, and what are you left with? --Nbauman (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise?

I support User:Father Goose's suggestion for a compromise:

"Put names in at the time that they are a current news event, remove them after enough time has passed that the name will most likely have passed from memory." Maurreen (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC) -- Clarifying myself: I don't see this as establishing policy. My support for this compromise concerns only the current whale incident(s) now under discussion. Also, people please remember it's a compromise, we can't always get what we want, the most productive way often is to find where we can come together with something at least tolerable to the most people. Maurreen (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maureen, compromises aren't always good. Herbert Simon, the Nobel laureate economist, said that sometimes a compromise can be worse than either of the alternatives -- he imagined the policy options as two peaks, and the compromise as a valley between them, lower than either of the peaks.

Compromise is like, "Some people believe in slavery, some people believe in freedom -- let's compromise, we'll make America half slave and half free." --Nbauman (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we interpret your above post as a statement that you oppose any compromise option? SpikeJones (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is a Wikipedia guideline that we should include facts that are "relevant to the content." I oppose any compromise that deletes anything that is "relevant to the content." You have not given any reason that it is not relevant to the content. Therefore I oppose any compromise, yes. --Nbauman (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I support Father Goose's compromise that names can be included as long as the event is considered "current news", with the name being removed at a later time. SpikeJones (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with a caveat: list the names of those killed only. My admittedly meager understanding of BLP suggests that the names of the injured should not be part of the WP record at any time. --CliffC (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It's up to editorial discretion and application of current policies and guidelines each and every time. Exclusion of verifiable names beyond what WP:BLPNAME requires should be based on exceptional circumstances that justify such an omission, not as a routine matter. Any "consensus" to exclude that doesn't have the assent of the many people who wanted inclusion above is no consensus at all. Gigs (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Editorial discretion each and every time" by whom? Based on your comment, those who actively edit and maintain these pages already made that editorial decision to exclude in the summary before you got here to raise an opposing view. SpikeJones (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with Cla68 and Avenue who raised the debate before I got here. No group of editors own articles. Gigs (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

By whom? By WP:CONSENSUS. Gigs is correct. When you say, "It's always been that way," you're asserting WP:OWN. These articles were originally written in large part by SeaWorld employees, so some of the violations of WP rules are a legacy of that. --Nbauman (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Check the page history, please. Incidents at SeaWorld parks was NOT written in large part by SeaWorld employees. Your continued focus on pointing out bias written by other editors on other pages could lead one to believe that you have an agenda beyond the discussion we've been having. If so, feel free to bring up your bias concerns on those page instead. SpikeJones (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, but open As I've stated before, if the name can be casually removed when the editors of said article believe it to no longer be "current news," what's the significance of adding it at all? That said, I believe the compromise being suggested is a well-intentioned idea that I would be willing to support ... but I'm afraid of the consequences when one frequent editor believes the name can be removed while another one believes it shouldn't be. FWIW, this incident has already fallen off the radar on Google and other search engine trends reports ... so is all this discussion for naught in regards to this particular incident, since it seems it's no longer "current news"? Just sayin'. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Why should we compromise? On the one side, it violates WP:NOTCENSORED. On the other side, SpikeJones hasn't given us an affirmative reason for removing it except "I don't think it's important." --Nbauman (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it, if you are to quote me, that you quote me exactly instead of paraphrasing into your own interpretation of what was said. Thanks. SpikeJones (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• • The question still stands ... how is the article irreparably harmed by leaving the name out? You keep throwing out NOTCENSORED ... which conveniently says "when these materials are relevant to the content." The full details of the incident have been laid out previously by SpikeJones, showing that the content is not improved, nor is it harmed, by including the victim's name. If relevant, the article would therefore be harmed by its exclusion. Therefore I ask again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • The question is not will the article be "irreparably" harmed. No Wikipedia article is ever irreparably harmed, because you can always change it.

The question is, whether you can delete the name under Wikipedia rules. I've already told you how WP:NOTCENSORED applies and prevents you from deleting the name.

Under WP:NOTCENSORED you can't delete it if it's "relevant to the content." You can't just use your own personal judgment that it's not relevant. You have to give a reason. Instead, you just keep repeating, "it's not important," "it's not important."

OTOH, I can give you a reason why it's important: as Phil Bridger points out, nearly every source, including nearly every WP:RS, includes her name. That shows you that in the judgment of nearly every WP:RS, it is important. --Nbauman (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The removal of a victim name is not censorship if the victim is adequately described in the content - even more so if the content is not specifically about the victim at all. In the article summaries, we adequately address all aspects of each incident with the aforementioned WHO/WHAT/WHERE/WHEN/WHY. The issue that you seem to have is that your definition of "WHO" is different from our definition of "WHO". We say the "who", in this case, is the whale. You say that the "who" is the victim. It's all a matter of what the article focus is supposed to be. And since these articles are not about the victims, there is no loss in article comprehension if the victim name is left out. SpikeJones (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the everyday definition of censorship, I'm talking about the Wikipedia guideline WP:NOTCENSORED. To follow WP:NOTCENSORED, we ask, is the name of the trainer "relevant to the content." If yes, it goes in. And the name is relevant to content. The proof is that almost every WP:RS uses the name. You're saying the "focus" of the article is not about the trainer. Even if it isn't, her name is still relevant.

If you want to convince us that the name is not relevant to the content, you have to explain why we should "focus" the article differently than nearly every other WP:RS. And you haven't done so. --Nbauman (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, you need to prove your case that the name is relevant. Here are our two examples, you tell me specifically what makes one significantly better than the other when placed in a WP article that lists incident summaries. How one version lack context that the other contains merely by the inclusion of the name?

On February 24, 2010, a 40-year-old trainer with 16 years of experience at the park died in another incident involving Tilikum. During a rubdown after the show, Tilikum pulled her into the water, according to SeaWorld's head of animal training.[18] Tilikum then proceeded to swim around the pool with her ponytail in its mouth.[19] This was the third time since being first put on public display that Tilikum has been involved in a human death

On February 24, 2010, Dawn Brancheau, a 40-year-old trainer with 16 years of experience at the park died in another incident involving Tilikum. During a rubdown after the show, Tilikum pulled her into the water, according to SeaWorld's head of animal training.[18] Tilikum then proceeded to swim around the pool with her ponytail in its mouth.[19] This was the third time since being first put on public display that Tilikum has been involved in a human death

To someone who is researching park incidents and how those incidents have affected park operations, how does listing the name of the victim help? SpikeJones (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The proof that it is relevant is that nearly every WP:RS includes her name. These authorities think it's relevant.

If someone is researching the incident, and wants more information, then in the second version, they will be able to do a Google search for "Dawn Brancheau". (in quotes). Almost every hit will be about the incident, and it will retrieve every comprehensive account of the incident. In the first version, they would have to click on the source to find her name. It is well established that Internet links frequently go dead with time, so the link might not even work.

But that just addresses the usefulness of including the name, not the relevance. Remember the issue we're getting at is relevance. Under the guideline NOTCENSORED, if we have a dispute over whether it belongs, we include it if it's "relevant to the content." If we can establish that it's relevant to the content, it goes in. And we have established that it's relevant, because nearly every source uses it.

You haven't given us any reason why the version without the name is better. --Nbauman (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And similarly, you haven't indicated why it is worse - other than offering that your focus is on researchers looking for information on the victim. My counterpoint is that the article's focus is on highlighting various incidents and not the victims. The references are adequate for those researchers wanting more incident information than is contained in the posted summary. Hopefully, you saw that in today's news, Dawn's family has asked for info pertaining to the attack be removed from public display, so there is a possibility (beyond the obvious reasons to keep a Faces of Death-type video from becoming public) that the family would prefer to keep Dawn's name out of the press as much as possible as well. SpikeJones (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To repeat:

1. It's worse because it violates WP:NOTCENSORED.

2. Deleting relevant information violates WP:NOTCENSORED.

3. The main issue, under the WP policy statement WP:NOTCENSORED, is whether the name is "relevant to the content."

4. This name is relevant to the content, because nearly every WP:RS uses it.

5. Highlighting incidents and not the victims violates WP:NOTCENSORED if you do so by eliminating the victims' names, because some of the victims' names are relevant.

Which of those points don't you accept?

(The story the Huffington Post is about how the family objects only to releasing the video of her death. That's a separate issue from merely using her name. It doesn't say that they want to keep her name out of the press as much as possible.) --Nbauman (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the family's wishes, note that I said that there was "a possibility", but it does indicate that they are affected by various types of news coverage on the event and are doing what they can to limit some of the information about Dawn from being posted publically. Since you insist that the removal of names in articles that are not about the victims under WP:NOTCENSORED, let's take a look at the policy together: being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. We all agree that Dawn's name is not offensive. We all agree that her name can be included in an article that is specific to the incident. Therefore, there is no argument about whether Dawn's name is considered offensive or objectionable. However, for the purposes of summary pieces, the victim's names add no value to a casual reader looking for information on amusement park incidents other than to glorify the victim themselves...and we already know that WP:NOTMEMORIAL (meaning we're not going to post her name just because it was a sad event and we want to remember who the victim was by name). Since you like policies, remember that WP:IGNORE always applies. Still, let's look at WP:AOAL: talking about WP list pages (of which the incidents articles all apply), says may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may yet be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list. This shows that notability rules can apply to content within a WP article, and not just to the article subject itself. The incident is what is notable enough to include (obviously, since we're talking about it and how it affects park operations). However, the person the incident applies to is usually not notable outside of being killed/injured (BIO1E) and does not need to be named (again, Fabio being a rare exception). Feel free to list Dawn on List of unusual deaths if you would like, as that is a page about the victims and not about the incidents themselves. SpikeJones (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Dawn Brancheau's name relevant to the content? --Nbauman (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If the victim of an incident can be adequately described via other text (ie "a 40-year-old trainer with 16-years experience"), the victim's name is not relevant when listing an incident summary. Again, I direct you to the two example paragraphs I highlighted above - aside from the name, the two segments are exactly alike - and there is no loss in comprehension in the information being conveyed...except, perhaps, to those who are trying to memorialize Dawn. SpikeJones (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So when nearly every WP:RS about that event used Dawn Brancheau's name, you think they were including irrelevant information? --Nbauman (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are news sites ... Wikipedia is not a news site. Again, this is a summary article, not an article on the specific incident. If you believe the incident is so notable that it requires its own article, then be bold and create February 2010 SeaWorld orca attack, where you can list the victim's name to your heart's content. As to "irreparable harm," we are asking you to show how the context of the article is completely lost without giving the name. SpikeJones and I have proven that a reader of standard English would interpret the exact same sequence of events whether the name was listed or not, and in such a case WP prefers the name be left out. Thus, the name for this summary article is not relevant. For the February 2010 SeaWorld orca attack article, it would be. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Cite the Wikipedia rule or guideline that applies to this case to support your claim that Wikipedia prefers the name be left out. --Nbauman (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Per consensus discussion during previous Orlando theme-park incident, it was decided that for summary articles, like Incidents at SeaWorld parks, victim's names were not necessary to complete the summary. However, in articles specific to the incident, such as February 2010 SeaWorld orca attack (which you are more than welcome to be bold and start and then subsequently defend its notability), such information would be more important. Consensus amongst editors is just as strong as any policy or rule. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In my understanding Wikipedia does not work by precedent. Even if the editors on one article reached a consensus, that doesn't prevent editors on a similar article from reaching a different consensus. Cite the WP rule or guideline that says that if one article reaches a consensus, a similar article has to follow it. --Nbauman (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion cited above was a Request for Comment similar to this one, and was intended to establish how to handle future events in these summary articles. It was not intended to discuss how to handle incident-specific articles, such as February 2010 SeaWorld orca attack. Again, all you have to do is show how this summary article is damaged without the name. That's it, nothing more. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So you wanted to set a precedent, but there's no Wikipedia rule that says we have to follow the precedent of the previous RFC.

Under WP:NOTCENSORED I only have to show that the name is "relevant to the content."

I don't have to show that the article is damaged without it. That's a heavier burden. Under what Wikipedia rule do I have to show that the article is damaged without the name? --Nbauman (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the consensus that was previously established for dealing with summary articles. Consensus is different from precedent. As to what you believe you have to prove, you can take that route if you wish ... you failed at it, because as SpikeJones and I have shown, the name adds no value to the comprehension of the summary of the event. Again, if you want the name to be connected with the incident so badly, please create February 2010 SeaWorld orca attack, where most everyone here agrees the name would be more relevant. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, some of us disagree with the consensus that was previously established on the other article, so it doesn't affect this article.

I don't believe you and SpikeJones has shown that the name adds no value. Your argument is simply, "I don't think it belongs in this article, because this article summarizes incidents without names." You're just begging the question.

Our argument is that it's relevant, under WP:NOTCENSORED, as proven by the fact that nearly every WP:RS uses it.

I have no interest in creating a February 2010 SeaWorld orca attack article. I'm only concerned with this article. --Nbauman (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also dispute the applicability of the previous discussion here. That discussion was considering a wide range of incidents, some where the victim was injured (i.e. where BLP still applied) and some where the victim was killed. To the extent that the two cases were distinguished, the discussion seems to have focussed mainly on the injuries, and I agree the consensus was clearly against naming the victim in these cases. But it is unclear that it should apply here, where the victim died, and BLP does not apply. -- Avenue (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK you don't want to create it, so I shall be bold and do so. To that end, I'm beginning to build an article on the incident in my user space. My goal is to provide three specific points that bolster the notability of the incident: (1) Tilikum's past history; (2) the events leading up to the incident itself (some park guests say Tilikum looked agitated or otherwise distracted; and (3) the aftermath, how SeaWorld has handled the incident and the criticism leveled at it by PETA and by scientists regarding orcas in captivity. I invite the users in this discussion to help the article, fix things I have out of place or wrong, add source articles as needed, etc. I'd like to do all this before we add it into the mainspace, in order to better defend it against premature deletion. As such, there is a full article detailing the incident, after which this article again becomes a summary, where full details aren't necessary. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you have been inspired to contribute a separate entry on Tilikum.

I trust you will not then summarize the main article on Tilikum here in the Incidents at SeaWorld parks article, and not include Dawn Brancheau's name in the summary.

That would be WP:Content forking. Under WP guidelines, you can't write two separate articles, one following WP rules and the other violating WP rules.

The summary here should still include Dawn Brancheau's name, because it is "relevant to the content" under WP:NOTCENSORED. The proof that it is relevant is that nearly every WP:RS includes the name.

In response, you say that it isn't important simply because you don't think it's important, without giving a further reason. You say that the format or structure of the article is not to give names, without giving any reason why the article should be formatted or structured that way, except that that's the way you decided to do it. Those are circular arguments. They're not good reasons. --Nbauman (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nbauman - should we be correct in assuming that there is 100% no wiggle room on your stance, no matter how many compromise options are offered (including offering to write a specific article for you)? If that's the case, we'll go with WP:IGNORE as a valid supported WP policy and continue to leave all victim names out of the summary articles, regardless of your belief that it should be included. Bending over backwards to appease you doesn't seem to have moved the needle very much as you appear to be all take and no give on this matter. SpikeJones (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as worded. We can only decide now what should be done now. There is no way that the present discussion can be binding for years to come, so we shouldn't be pretending that it will be. As things stand now nearly all sources about this incident include Ms Brancheau's name (and I refer to her as "Ms Brancheau" rather than "a trainer" or "the victim" because that is the respectful way to refer to a human being). If, at some time in the future, more long-term sources covering this event mostly omit her name then a decision can be made, based on those sources, that the name should be removed from this article, but we shouldn't be making a decision now about when "the name will most likely have passed from memory", because we simply don't know when, if ever, that will be. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note. The includes outnumber the excludes in the RfC above 16-12. So, start putting the names of the deceased in these articles as long as they are reliably sourced. Don't put injured people's names in, because BLP applies to those. Cla68 (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Majority does not equal consensus, though. This RfC so far indicates that more editors support inclusion than exclusion -- however, it's still pretty close, which means an approach that takes both sides' concerns into account (to the degree that that is possible) our best chance for achieving actual consensus.--Father Goose (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Father Goose, under Wikipedia rules, the question is whether the name is "relevant to the content." The argument that it is relevant to the content is that nearly every source uses the name. Do you think the name is relevant to the content? If it is, it goes in. If it's not, it goes out. WP:NOTCENSORED is a strong Wikipedia policy. We shouldn't compromise on Wikipedia policy. --Nbauman (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise No. 2

About the whale under discussion, include the names of relevant dead people, as long as "they are a current news event, remove them after enough time has passed that the name will most likely have passed from memory." Do not include the names of people with associated injuries. This does not establish policy or guideline on issues not directly related to the whale under discussion. Maurreen (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per my argument above. No exceptional circumstances here to justify exclusion, eventual or otherwise. Agree about injured people who's names weren't widely reported, per normal application of WP:BLPNAME. Gigs (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose What happens if biologist is researching zoo policies or captive animals ten years from now, and vaguely remembers the incident? Once you hit Wikipedia, the best way to find out more information about the specific incident it is to search for the trainer's name. It's an extra burden to have to click the links below, and a couple of years from now, the links could be gone or behind paywalls. I think that when we weigh the value of Wikipedia for doing serious research, against the reasons for excluding the name (and nobody has given a good reason, unless you consider "It's not important" a good reason), we have to include the name as a significant fact. --Nbauman (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Well to be fair, concern for the feelings of the family was also offered as a reason. But that doesn't seem like a very persuasive argument, as was pointed out, it's equally likely that they would take offense at depersonalizing the incident by omitting her name. If it were me in her place, I'd want people to remember my name and my life. It's not like we have her family emailing the foundation begging us to take the name down. If that were happening then I'd fully support taking the name down. Gigs (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And if it were me, I'd be the opposite in wanting to be known as "the person who had an unusual death" (and no, I'm not just saying that as another opportunity to disagree - that's not how I would like to be remembered by future generations). But your last two statements imply that you follow the "post now, but remove and ask foregiveness if asked" philosophy rather than a more cautious approach. Would you agree with that observation? SpikeJones (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to apologize for including verifiable information in an encyclopedia, so there's no reason to "ask for forgiveness". Do you always twist what people say like this? Your discussion tactics are bordering on disruptive. Gigs (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You said that you would post the name, then take it down if/when the family complains. You're correct that I assumed that taking the name down in that instance would follow with an "I'm sorry for doing that" reply. I apologize for putting those additional words into your mouth with my interpretation of your "post now, remove if asked" statement above. As for disruptive discussion tactics, I support the above compromises that were suggested - where is the disruption in trying to meet in the middle? SpikeJones (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)