Talk:Action Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	New Jersey Portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help: Daniel Case (talk • contribs)

Contents 1 Discrepancy? 2 Citation Needed / Neutrality Dispute 3 1984 death? 4 YouTube links

[edit] Discrepancy?

The article lists both the Alpine Slide and the Kayak Experience as resulting in the first patron deaths. I have no idea which, if either, of these are correct, but I'm sure that somebody does.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.174.180.183 (talk • contribs).

The Alpine Slide resulted in the first death, but it was an employee who got killed. The first dead patron was on the Kayak Experience. Daniel Case 05:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the "Fatalities" section. The first patron death was in the wave pool, according to that section (which at least gives dates). I've corrected the "Kayak Experience" section to conform with "Fatalities." --Tkynerd 00:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Needed / Neutrality Dispute

Where is all of this information coming from? Can we have a citation?

Also, this article is written in the tone of an partisan editorial, and not as a neutral information source. (E.g. "...underaged, underpaid and sometimes under-the-influence employees...")—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mynamejonascuomo (talk • contribs) .

This needs change.

Agreed. I see a number of loaded phrases such as "shady business dealings". I think this article should be flagged POV. --Douglas Muth 13:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, a lot of this does come with the references section. I should put the footnotes in. But it is pretty much accepted and reported fact that the employees of the park were as described. And Gene Mulvihill's company did get in trouble with the SEC.
Of course, some of the wording could be changed. Daniel Case 00:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing I would like to see is some documentation of the statement, early in the article, that increasing numbers of personal-injury lawsuits forced the closing of more and more rides and eventually the park itself. Since I became fascinated with this article yesterday (I'd never even heard of the park before!), I've been looking at information about it on the Web, but haven't seen much detail about lawsuits at all. --Tkynerd 02:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of the facts in the article come from the two Weird NJ articles. I did mean to sit down and put in refs but I just fell asleep for a couple of hours.

One thing that should be clarified about that is that not so much the actual lawsuits, but merely quick settlements at the mere threat of one, were instrumental in sapping the park's financial resources in its later years. Someone did look and found very few actual lawsuits (But Action Park's well-deserved reputation probably led its insurance company to just settle for costs and a little extra, knowing that it would be hard to win with juries ore judges). Daniel Case 05:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just did some of the footnoting. Good thing ... I found my main source for the corporate history of GAR had been our own article on Mountain Creek, which I've long suspected of being written by someone on the inside of Intrawest (since the pics originally in it were copyvio). I found sourcing which holds the part of GAR up better. They were investigated not by the federal government but the state; Mulvihill did in fact take a plea in late 1984. I also changed "shady" to "questionable", a bit less POV.

However, I'm getting tired and I can't stay up all night doing this. More tomorrow. Daniel Case 06:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1984 death?

I've added a footnote linking to a NYT article about the 1984 death at Action Park. That NYT article, which is very short, doesn't mention a heart attack or the Tarzan Swing. Can anyone confirm that the NYT article refers to the same incident as our article? --Tkynerd 03:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, it does not ... my source for the 1984 incident related to the heart attack is the Weird NJ article (which does not in turn enumerate its own sources the way we are supposed to, although it suggests extensive research through the archives of the New Jersey Herald). While it doesn't say so, it clearly indicates that death happened in ... The Grave Pool!, whereas the heart attack was connected to the Tarzan Swing.
It looks like that Times article is yet another death related to Action Park, and we can update the body count to six. Congratulations Tkynerd for some effective research! Daniel Case 19:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel! :-) This leaves me wondering what DID happen with that case noted in the NYT. It's clear that wasn't the Grave Pool, which was larger than the pool the Times article describes. I guess I was wondering if this might actually be the Tarzan Swing case, and maybe the Times just didn't have many details about the case when they wrote that item. In any case, 300 swimmers and 20 lifeguards sounds like a hell of a lot for a 110- by 50-foot pool...or am I wrong? --Tkynerd 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Or the Times (the AP, rather, or whoever filed the story before it hit the wire) got the details wrong. Believe me, it was (and is) the only really large pool there. The only pool most people go swimming in. But I'll want more details. Daniel Case 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)