Talk:Dolphin Discovery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page reads like a company ad. In fact some of it is listed from the company's website. To be a true wiki entry it should have mention of the issues surrouding the company, which a google seach picks up (I was considering a swim with dolphn until I read about the company). If the issues have been resolved, I'm sure the company person who obviously wrote the article will update the entry accordingly. To start the ball rolling, here is some text from the One Voice site:

QUOTE The dual-island nation Antigua & Barbuda became the center of controversy in December 2001 when a captive dolphin facility was established at Marina Bay in Antigua. The facility, which at the time was run by Dolphin Fantaseas, opened with three dolphins that had been captured in Cuba. In June 2004 Dolphin Fantaseas was taken over by Dolphin Discovery, a Mexican-based company that operates a number of Swim - With - The - Dolphins attractions in the Caribbean. Dolphin Discovery imported several dolphins from one of their facilities in Mexico. We are told that these dolphins also originated from Cuba.

Deplorable living conditions

When One Voice inspected the facility in September this year (2004)we found nine dolphins living in deplorable conditions. The enclosure was only eight feet deep at its deepest end. The dolphins had no access to shade from the burning sun and many had unusually dark skin, as a result of sunburn. Three dolphins were held in isolation for training purposes. They were locked up for days in confinements that measured just ten by ten meters.

Polluted pond poses health risk

Dolphin Discovery‚s facility not only violated the welfare of the dolphins; it also posed environmental problems. The natural water flow from an adjacent salt pond was cut off by a road that had not previously been there. Whether the road had been built by the former administration or by the dolphin facility itself is unclear but, as a result, the pond overflowed when heavy rain set in, affecting businesses and private property in the area. Worse yet, there was concern among locals that the stagnant water of the pond was contaminated, which could pose health risks to humans.

UNQUOTE

Sorry, I don't have time myself to do a proper investigation and wiki entry, busy getting ready to get married :-) (yes, honeymoon in BVI, hence looking at tourist attractions there..) Boatbased 17:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logodolphindiscovery1.jpg

Image:Logodolphindiscovery1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To the logo re-adder - since this is a company age, the logo as such is not problematic. Simply take the time to properly document the image and it will probably stay. As is the bots will devour it in a week's time. Tbyrnestl 03:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl

[edit] Marketing claims removed

As it stood the article should have been summarily deleted:

1) It contained no references beyond the companies own website. 2) It used a commercial logo without any license - if the company itself built the page then it violates wikipedia's self-promotion policy 3) It made numerous claims concerning the companies services and used (bad) marketing claims about the services (wacky birds, impressive sharks, etc.) None of this is encyclopedic content.

An article which describes what a company does is legit, so I've pared this one down to that. If the adds lingo comes back, we'll simply have the page deleted.

[edit] Undocumented claims are marketing

I easily found refereces for the two membership claims and added them (minimally), but I can't find any documentation for the certification claims nor any explanation of certification on the Association of Aquatic Mammals site. Without a reference this is simply a marketing claim, and doesn't belong here. If the certifcation claim is valid then the claim needs a reference.Tbyrnestl 04:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)tbyrnestl